I think it would be funny if his inventions couldn't be sold in the US, but could be sold everywhere else. Maybe Kim Jong II would wear one, smug in his knowledge that the device is illegal in the US.
If there is a store in my neighborhood that is known to pickpocket customers, the police come and arrest the pickpocketers. They don't hand-out a blacklist of those stores.
It is unfortunate that the same thing can't happen to the web. I would rather the sites be taken down than blacklisted. Too bad Blue Security is gone...
Server certificates are the basis for SSL, SSH, HTTPS, etc. AFAIK, nobody can make a fake policeman without faking Microsoft's certificate. I don't think Dvorak's scenario is reasonable.
Using a hash, it is possible to verify your vote without printing it on a receipt. The voting machine prints hash of your entire ballot. Then, you can login online using your anonymous voter GUID and verify that the hash matches. There are similar, more robust ideas out there by people who know more about this subject than I do.
I was asking several school teachers about recent education bills (state & federal). It sounds like the politicians enacted legislation without talking to the educators. This sounds exactly like what is going on with network neutrality, etc. Our elected leaders just don't understand business. If you want to get from point A to point B, you find the appropriate subject matter experts, pay them to research the problem, get proposals for solutions, and implement the solutions. But they don't seem to do that. They just do whatever the lay-person thinks is a good idea.
Nothing will work until we restore basic business intelligence back into the elected leaders.
People have already done that, but the US uses a plurality system where only two parties can really compete. So the people just say "oh, well, unless you vote for one of the top two parties you are throwing away your vote." This is, of course, a feedback loop which means that the only viable parties are the ones that are perceived as viable parties. I suppose this means, in the end, it is the people's fault once again.
Notice that in all of these examples of child killers in this topic someone has "trained" the child to become a killer. A child will innately have difficulty with such an action. Of course, this discussion is really moot since children are not yet fully developed human beings. Depending on what age we discuss, children have difficulty recognizing other people as having a unique perspective, or even as conscious beings at all. It is like trying to prove that humans are innately greedy by pointing out that infants just eat and poop. Infants are pure, therefore, that must be humans true nature.
The best way to get a child to commit murder is to make them do it in a way that they cannot perceive their own action, like strap a bomb them. But a child will have difficulty wrestling another human being to the ground and mortally stabbing them with a knife. And even if they do it successfully, it is unlikely that they won't immediately break down and cry, unless the have had some training on how to be calice. The conscience is easily suppressed by anger, so it isn't until the release that we can hear our conscience again. It really kicks in after that point.
I assume that when we say "JavaScript" we are talking about proprietary extensions on top of the ECMAScript standard. Is Mozilla just adding features to this for plug-in developers? I hope that these features don't exist in the regular browser unless you use the "version=1.7" option because that would introduce incompatibilities. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Can't somebody just make a pane that is transparent to someone standing on front of the keyboard, but not visible to anyone outside of a very small viewing angle? For example: a thick mesh it visible only from straight-on. From other angles you see the sides of the mesh.
Interesting. You just made me realize that security and convenience don't have to be be opposites: Most applications make insecure easy and secure hard. You just came-up with a way to design things to be the other way around. Make it inconvenient if things are NOT secure. You are right about "Mail" though -- it didn't warn me or anything. Maybe it is because secure SMTP/POP is so rare.
On a side-note, I currently use 3 different hosting providers/ISPs for various purposes. Only one of them support security on SMTP or POP3, and that one has an invalid certificate. (Pure Energy web hosting has the old certificate, Cavalier telephone = no securty, and Digital Space web hosting = no security). Last time I used Comcast they didn't support it either, but that info is >1 year old.
Good question. - I skipped the part where it asked IMAP or POP or whatever. - It defaulted to "delete messages from server after one week" I guess that is enough time for someone who knows what they are doing to fix the setting. I wondered why it defaulted to that. Now it makes sense.
Software sucks because people get stuck in a mindset. Until last week, I thought that Thunderbird was easy to configure for email. Here is what I do: - Enter incoming mail server name - Enter login name and (optionally) the password - Click ok - Try to get your mail - Now go back and try it with the SSL option - Now go back and try it with the TLS option - Now go back and try it with "Use Secure Authentication" - Repeat combinations of the above until you find the most secure one that works
Recently, my wife got a Mac. Here's how to do it in "Mail" for the Mac: - Enter incoming mail server name - Enter login name and password - Click ok
"Mail" connects, tries each possibility, and sets it to the most secure option that works.
Now until I saw this, I never even considered the possibility. Now, it seems quite obvious. Unfortunately, I have to ding them on this - if the password is wrong, it hides the error message from you (you get something generic like "connection failed"). So I spent two hours trying with the wrong password while damning Apple because I thought the problem was that their nifty "do it automatically" approach.
So let's review: - Don't get stuck copying the way other things do it. Do it right. - Make it easy by only asking the user for the things the user is responsible for. - Don't hide information (such as settings or errors) from the user (yes, in "Mail" you can go back in and see what settings it picked)
If we could get the above three right, life would be much easier.
You can't pass a law that changes the powers of the government. To give the president a line-item veto requiers an ammendment to the constitution to change the president's powers. If they could do that with just a law, then we would have laws like "Republican votes count for twice as much as democratic votes" and all manner of crud. Like when ICANN voted to extend the length of their own terms to stay in power.
This is the last 3 years of Intel, all over again. Only now the megahertz race is replaced with the multi-core race.
Intel will create the "CoreScale" technology and make 4, then 8, then 16 cores and up while their competitors are increasing operations per clock cycle per watt per core. Consumers won't know any better, so they will buy the Intel 64-core processor that runs hotter and slower than the cheaper clone chip that has only 8 cores. Then when Intel starts runs up against a wall and gets their butt-kicked they will revert to the original Core 2 Duo design and start competing again.
Oh, and I predict that AMD will release a new rating called the "core plus rating" so their CPUs will be an Athlon Core 50+ meaning it has the equivalent of 50 cores. Queue n00bs who realize they have only 8 cores and complain.
And to think I didn't like history in school. Maybe I just hadn't seen enough of it to understand.
1) Saying a video game takes 40 hours is like saying an American Football game is 1 hour (4 x 15 minute quarters). 2) If the game takes too long, play it on an easier setting. If you enjoy playing the game, then you would want it to take a long time. If you don't enjoy it, then the time it takes is irrelevant. Either way, there is no reason to complain about it being too long. 3) If the game is too short, play it on a harder setting.
I find most people play games on the easy/medium settings. That always seems like a waste to me. I usually start with hard, figuring I'll get maximum gameplay out of it.
How is this different from a quickly recharging battery?
I thought that capacitors could not hold their charge for very long. So is the idea that your car would remain un-charged, and you would charge it just prior to leaving home?
If you build an inflatable structure for space, what do you inflate it with? Is there something that compresses down well that provides a reasonable form of insulation / protection?
Not exactly. Network neutrality has been around for a long time, however the term "network neutrality" is new.
Net neutrality has existed ever since the dawn of the Internet, but it was called the common carrier laws and it originally applied to carriers of parcels as well as telecom companies. Since Internet was run over telephone lines, common carrier laws provided neutrality until the August 2005 changes that states that internet services are not telecom services. Simultaneously, the FCC added a series of network neutrality regulations that are not as strong as the original common carrier laws.
Really, this is about reinstating the network neutrality laws that we already had.
Except that up until a few months ago we had network neutrality. It is called the "common carrier law" and it actually still applies to most types of communications such as telephones and shipping. The ISPs haven't had time to regroup, put the hardware in place, and find a way to profit. Notice that router companies like Cisco are siding with the telecoms - they expect to get big sales from ISPs ordering new routers with non-neutral firmware support.
Junior developer alone: Can complete the project but with errors a senior developer could have fixed. Code reviews fix this, but are tedious. Senior developer alone: Good code, but this tends to breed "cowboy coders" and doesn't pass on knowledge. Senior + Junior: Highly effective, but only if the Junior developer is the one at the keyboard.
Other combinations can help, but aren't superb. I recommend pair programming (1) on tedious code, (2) to spread knowledge, and (3) when refactoring something crucial.
If it isn't engineering then you are doing it wrong.
I recommend Extreme Programming Refactored if you are interested in taking the best parts of extreme programming and mixing them with a traditional waterfall approach to make a nice form of "moderate programming."
I thought that an individual could legally make copies of copyrighted material for the purpose of time-shifting and space-shifting.
So why is it not okay for people to do this? In MGM -vs- Napster the space-shifting argument was irrelevant since the Napster users were sharing their music with other people. But I don't know of anything to indicate that copying something to MP3 is illegal. Isn't that why the RIAA only goes after people who are distributing, not just downloading?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would be funny if his inventions couldn't be sold in the US, but could be sold everywhere else. Maybe Kim Jong II would wear one, smug in his knowledge that the device is illegal in the US.
If there is a store in my neighborhood that is known to pickpocket customers, the police come and arrest the pickpocketers. They don't hand-out a blacklist of those stores.
It is unfortunate that the same thing can't happen to the web. I would rather the sites be taken down than blacklisted. Too bad Blue Security is gone...
Server certificates are the basis for SSL, SSH, HTTPS, etc. AFAIK, nobody can make a fake policeman without faking Microsoft's certificate. I don't think Dvorak's scenario is reasonable.
Using a hash, it is possible to verify your vote without printing it on a receipt. The voting machine prints hash of your entire ballot. Then, you can login online using your anonymous voter GUID and verify that the hash matches. There are similar, more robust ideas out there by people who know more about this subject than I do.
I was asking several school teachers about recent education bills (state & federal). It sounds like the politicians enacted legislation without talking to the educators. This sounds exactly like what is going on with network neutrality, etc. Our elected leaders just don't understand business. If you want to get from point A to point B, you find the appropriate subject matter experts, pay them to research the problem, get proposals for solutions, and implement the solutions. But they don't seem to do that. They just do whatever the lay-person thinks is a good idea.
Nothing will work until we restore basic business intelligence back into the elected leaders.
People have already done that, but the US uses a plurality system where only two parties can really compete. So the people just say "oh, well, unless you vote for one of the top two parties you are throwing away your vote." This is, of course, a feedback loop which means that the only viable parties are the ones that are perceived as viable parties. I suppose this means, in the end, it is the people's fault once again.
Notice that in all of these examples of child killers in this topic someone has "trained" the child to become a killer. A child will innately have difficulty with such an action. Of course, this discussion is really moot since children are not yet fully developed human beings. Depending on what age we discuss, children have difficulty recognizing other people as having a unique perspective, or even as conscious beings at all. It is like trying to prove that humans are innately greedy by pointing out that infants just eat and poop. Infants are pure, therefore, that must be humans true nature.
The best way to get a child to commit murder is to make them do it in a way that they cannot perceive their own action, like strap a bomb them. But a child will have difficulty wrestling another human being to the ground and mortally stabbing them with a knife. And even if they do it successfully, it is unlikely that they won't immediately break down and cry, unless the have had some training on how to be calice. The conscience is easily suppressed by anger, so it isn't until the release that we can hear our conscience again. It really kicks in after that point.
I assume that when we say "JavaScript" we are talking about proprietary extensions on top of the ECMAScript standard. Is Mozilla just adding features to this for plug-in developers? I hope that these features don't exist in the regular browser unless you use the "version=1.7" option because that would introduce incompatibilities. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Can't somebody just make a pane that is transparent to someone standing on front of the keyboard, but not visible to anyone outside of a very small viewing angle? For example: a thick mesh it visible only from straight-on. From other angles you see the sides of the mesh.
Interesting.
You just made me realize that security and convenience don't have to be be opposites: Most applications make insecure easy and secure hard. You just came-up with a way to design things to be the other way around. Make it inconvenient if things are NOT secure. You are right about "Mail" though -- it didn't warn me or anything. Maybe it is because secure SMTP/POP is so rare.
On a side-note, I currently use 3 different hosting providers/ISPs for various purposes. Only one of them support security on SMTP or POP3, and that one has an invalid certificate. (Pure Energy web hosting has the old certificate, Cavalier telephone = no securty, and Digital Space web hosting = no security). Last time I used Comcast they didn't support it either, but that info is >1 year old.
Good question.
- I skipped the part where it asked IMAP or POP or whatever.
- It defaulted to "delete messages from server after one week"
I guess that is enough time for someone who knows what they are doing to fix the setting. I wondered why it defaulted to that. Now it makes sense.
A recent of example of why software almost sucks:
Software sucks because people get stuck in a mindset. Until last week, I thought that Thunderbird was easy to configure for email. Here is what I do:
- Enter incoming mail server name
- Enter login name and (optionally) the password
- Click ok
- Try to get your mail
- Now go back and try it with the SSL option
- Now go back and try it with the TLS option
- Now go back and try it with "Use Secure Authentication"
- Repeat combinations of the above until you find the most secure one that works
Recently, my wife got a Mac. Here's how to do it in "Mail" for the Mac:
- Enter incoming mail server name
- Enter login name and password
- Click ok
"Mail" connects, tries each possibility, and sets it to the most secure option that works.
Now until I saw this, I never even considered the possibility. Now, it seems quite obvious. Unfortunately, I have to ding them on this - if the password is wrong, it hides the error message from you (you get something generic like "connection failed"). So I spent two hours trying with the wrong password while damning Apple because I thought the problem was that their nifty "do it automatically" approach.
So let's review:
- Don't get stuck copying the way other things do it. Do it right.
- Make it easy by only asking the user for the things the user is responsible for.
- Don't hide information (such as settings or errors) from the user (yes, in "Mail" you can go back in and see what settings it picked)
If we could get the above three right, life would be much easier.
Run Google Earth and see it in psuedo-3D! Just punch in the coordinates 48.857699,10.205451
The real news here is that someone got a USB camera working with KDE.
You can't pass a law that changes the powers of the government. To give the president a line-item veto requiers an ammendment to the constitution to change the president's powers. If they could do that with just a law, then we would have laws like "Republican votes count for twice as much as democratic votes" and all manner of crud. Like when ICANN voted to extend the length of their own terms to stay in power.
This is the last 3 years of Intel, all over again. Only now the megahertz race is replaced with the multi-core race.
Intel will create the "CoreScale" technology and make 4, then 8, then 16 cores and up while their competitors are increasing operations per clock cycle per watt per core. Consumers won't know any better, so they will buy the Intel 64-core processor that runs hotter and slower than the cheaper clone chip that has only 8 cores. Then when Intel starts runs up against a wall and gets their butt-kicked they will revert to the original Core 2 Duo design and start competing again.
Oh, and I predict that AMD will release a new rating called the "core plus rating" so their CPUs will be an Athlon Core 50+ meaning it has the equivalent of 50 cores. Queue n00bs who realize they have only 8 cores and complain.
And to think I didn't like history in school. Maybe I just hadn't seen enough of it to understand.
Thanks for the info.
I bet it took longer to write that snide comment than to to find that answer.
1) Saying a video game takes 40 hours is like saying an American Football game is 1 hour (4 x 15 minute quarters).
2) If the game takes too long, play it on an easier setting. If you enjoy playing the game, then you would want it to take a long time. If you don't enjoy it, then the time it takes is irrelevant. Either way, there is no reason to complain about it being too long.
3) If the game is too short, play it on a harder setting.
I find most people play games on the easy/medium settings. That always seems like a waste to me. I usually start with hard, figuring I'll get maximum gameplay out of it.
How is this different from a quickly recharging battery?
I thought that capacitors could not hold their charge for very long. So is the idea that your car would remain un-charged, and you would charge it just prior to leaving home?
If you build an inflatable structure for space, what do you inflate it with? Is there something that compresses down well that provides a reasonable form of insulation / protection?
Not exactly. Network neutrality has been around for a long time, however the term "network neutrality" is new.
Net neutrality has existed ever since the dawn of the Internet, but it was called the common carrier laws and it originally applied to carriers of parcels as well as telecom companies. Since Internet was run over telephone lines, common carrier laws provided neutrality until the August 2005 changes that states that internet services are not telecom services. Simultaneously, the FCC added a series of network neutrality regulations that are not as strong as the original common carrier laws.
Really, this is about reinstating the network neutrality laws that we already had.
Except that up until a few months ago we had network neutrality. It is called the "common carrier law" and it actually still applies to most types of communications such as telephones and shipping. The ISPs haven't had time to regroup, put the hardware in place, and find a way to profit. Notice that router companies like Cisco are siding with the telecoms - they expect to get big sales from ISPs ordering new routers with non-neutral firmware support.
I found pair programming to be very efficient. But it depends on how you pair people.
(Summary of my best practices article)
Junior developer alone: Can complete the project but with errors a senior developer could have fixed. Code reviews fix this, but are tedious.
Senior developer alone: Good code, but this tends to breed "cowboy coders" and doesn't pass on knowledge.
Senior + Junior: Highly effective, but only if the Junior developer is the one at the keyboard.
Other combinations can help, but aren't superb. I recommend pair programming (1) on tedious code, (2) to spread knowledge, and (3) when refactoring something crucial.
If it isn't engineering then you are doing it wrong.
I recommend Extreme Programming Refactored if you are interested in taking the best parts of extreme programming and mixing them with a traditional waterfall approach to make a nice form of "moderate programming."
Why not?
I thought that an individual could legally make copies of copyrighted material for the purpose of time-shifting and space-shifting.
So why is it not okay for people to do this? In MGM -vs- Napster the space-shifting argument was irrelevant since the Napster users were sharing their music with other people. But I don't know of anything to indicate that copying something to MP3 is illegal. Isn't that why the RIAA only goes after people who are distributing, not just downloading?