...the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s...
...fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu....
The notion that cold temperatures cause influenza and the common cold also went out in the 80's. Wakey Wakey! It's bacteria and viri!! And if I remember my biology 101 correctly, the little beasties don't much care for sub-zero temperatures.
I like the idea of a local appliance, and indeed, G already offers one for their search engine. I wouldn't be suprised if they do the same for the office tools eventually. But the icing on the cake would be a local appliance that not only keeps local copies of everything, but also backs it up in somewhat real time to G.
Easy - each consumer is worth more to the recording companies over their lifetime due to the fact they'll have to pay for the same content multiple times. Hence, the consumer's value (to the recording companies) is increased. It's all in how you parse it, you see.
If you think this article will tell you what hardware and OS's they're running on you'll be disappointed. It's mostly web 2.0 fluff spared any useful details.
I was expecting to agree mostly with the scientists the BBC pulled in, but instead I found myself mostly agreeing with the Stupid Stars. Look at this scientist's response to Melinda Messanger:
"The chemical baggage we carry is very small. It is only because of the great advances in analytical chemistry that we are able to detect it's there at all."
He does not address the central question of whether such small baggage causes health issues - he totally misses the point. Besides, if you drill down far enough, you'll find that today's medical science really doesn't "know" much at all. Despite all our knowledge, we're babes in the woods when it comes to understanding the human body and the cumulative long term and combinatorial effect of these substances.
Having the GPL shoved sideways up one's butt has to hurt. Let's ask Novell in a couple of years just how much. With MS's hands on Novell's hips to guide it in, at least it'll be well greased with money.
I like the argument this parent makes, for obvious and self-serving reasons.
And if I may reply here to everyone excluding the parent, why all these "vote buying" and "how do you guarantee..." arguments against my statement? So I'll take you to collectively mean you advocate the root of this thread? Yet another piece of perhaps-slightly-harder-to-corrupt technology?
Look closely at what the Profit Makers are offering. Why is that better than a publicly verifiable list? Better for whom? Do you hold shares;-)
As for the "it-can't-be-perfect-so-let's-do-nothing" crowd, well... I guess that says it.
More sleight-of-hand. An election can never be 100% verifiable until and unless the complete list of every vote is published for all to see and verify (privacy protected by numbers and codes of course). Profit Makers and Election Riggers will argue differently, no doubt.
One way to increase the value of your posts is to actually think of something useful to say. A well-reasoned argument (for or against), for example, would be a significant value-booster.
The sad part of all this is that despite warning numerous previous managers of such poor choices, they usually perceive the thousand bucks saved by going Windows instead of an industrial-strength RT OS as a brilliant strategic move. And think of all the cheap programmers available! Oops, now we have "cheap" programmers building our life-critical app on an OS not really suited to task. One day the statement "Blue Screen of Death" may take on a very literal meaning. Hope your.net pacemaker doesn't gpf.
Anybody who suggests Apple gets out of hardware is smoking something. And it's not the good stuff either.
I've seen Gartner do this before. I'll tell you what they're smoking. They're smoking big fat rolls of $100 bills freshly minted down Redmond way. Good to know the old boys are still shillin'
Don't be a dumb-dumb. Of course Windows is used in applications where a failure could cost a life. I've written a few myself. The question you're really asking is: Wow close to "yikes it's embedded in a freakin pace-maker!" we've gotten. I can assure you, it's getting closer every day. Remember when no one in their right might would base an bank machine on windoze? Boy, are those daze over.
What day? I suppose it was during that blissful period when there were too few deep techies to go around, so we reported directly to VP's or Pres's - the guys/gals who were leading the charge to build the next innovative product.
I encountered such bliss in varying engagements between 1982 and 1995. Haven't seen it since;-(
Not sure I'm getting your point here - clarify please?
It's anonymous as long as people don't give out their receipt number to anyone - just like a Social Insurance Number or driver's license number. They can destroy their receipt if desired. When they use the web site to confirm their vote was recorded, we just need to make sure that the furthest they can drill down is a page full of numbers, thereby ensuring there's no way to capture exactly which receipt number they're trying to confirm.
As far the selling of a vote for a few bucks, well, that can be done today. Is your point that now a receipt can be provided to the buyer to confirm the sale?
Ok, voting machines cannot be guaranteed to be bullet-proof. Anyone who knows a decent amount about computer software & hardware gets that.
But why is it so hard to envision a simple audit trail to absolutely guarantee the authenticity of any election?
1) Make sure every voting machine spits out a paper receipt with a unique transaction number and the vote(s) recorded.
2) Make public a web site that displays *every* receipt number and its vote(s). Ok, it might be 300 million database records, but a simple menu across the top will let anyone drill down to their receipt number and confirm their vote was recorded correctly. We'll file this exercise as each Citizen's Responsibility. (It's important to note that having a citizen enter a receipt number to see those particular ballot results will not be secure since it would take a different path through the web site software, and also reduce anonimity).
3) Democracity loving geeks everywhere will write code to scan that (huge) web site and confirm the final totals.
There's also, historically, been a strong anti-intellectual undercurrent in US culture.
Is that why every time I work for a large North American company, each new wave of management that gets installed holds big "rah rah" sessions and rewards those who kiss ass and follow dumb orders the best?
Management desperately needs to figure out that it's not a football game, where team-play and short-term gains trump all. Instead, let's think chess, where wise, well-reasoned moves, made at the appropriate time, produce superior results over the longer term. An intelligent, longer-term strategy, executed consistenty quarter after quarter, accumulates compound results over time like the proverbial downhill-rolling snowball.
During Microsoft's rise, they bought up every brianiac willing to sell his soul. Google's rise shows similar properties - they're now the mecca for boffins of these arts. Brianiacs can win big, if you put enough of them in a room and relegate the football coaches to delivering soda and wiping up the twinkie stains.
Those who have worked in government and industry for 20+ years like me will probably agree that the influx of greedy PHB's into the upper ranks of IT/Engineering has laid waste to the talent that was once there.
Back in the day, senior management was listening to deep techies who knew their stuff - they relied on our training and experience to lay down systems that did the job well.
Times are different now. Most management I've seen is populated by greedy, power-hungy know-nothings who think outsourcing a core competency is a good idea. Mortagaging the future of the company they work for is, in fact, *their* core competency. And in the process, they rid the company of those who hold the institutional knowledge and have the technical depth to create great products/services for the company.
These management types will not (as opposed to "can not") be educated - it interferes with their world-domination plan. Nothing short of a sustained "flight to integrity" will turn this tide.
...and so you're going to have a greater difficulty differenciating between the signal and background radiation the further away you get
Correct. And today someone is saying the max distance is 1 mm. No once can predict what discrimination techniques will be invented tomorrow. RFID and Bluetooth were both touted and very short-range technologies - until enterprising minds figured out how to get Bluetooth over a mile an RFID to meters.
UWB (Ultra-Wide Band) is a very low power technology (comparatively speaking), yet advanced algorithms listening to a cactus of antennae can pick out a signal from the morass of noise that is todays EM environment.
Please don't tell me you can predict with any certainty that no one will ever read this device from a distance of great than 1mm. History will eventually prove you wrong - especially if there's money to be made in doing so.
Actually, the point I intially responding to was all about security. 1mm is today's max range, then some hotshot with a pringles can and a high-gain amp changes that to 10 feet tomorrow, and a mile 10 years from now.
It's my opinion they should build in security features to prevent this, rather than claiming 1 mm is the max distance the thing can be read from.
It is a fact that GNU/Linux has grown from a hackers operating system to be a viable alternative to any commercial proprietary operating system.
I love linux and use it all the time, but sweeping statements like this one do little to futher the Linux cause. It's simply untrue that generic open-source Linux has all the process isolation, quota management, acl support, etc. that OpenVMS or MVS has. Ok so you can get glue-on, paid-for patches & extensions and stuff from proprietary vendors who'll sell you the support contracts you'll need to manage such patched boxes, that have somewhat equivalent features, but...
Let's stop painting Linux as equally capable, out of the generic box, as all proprietary systems (some of which have features that far exceed Windows too). Facts, not semi-warm BS, will further the Linux cause.
How about deterministic distance?
on
HP's Memory Spot Chip
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Instead of relying on the sensitivity of today's receivers to come up with "it can only be read from a distance of 1mm", why not implement very simple technology (radio signal ping-pong) to determine the distance of the radio partner? Encryption keys could be passed to ensure a single partner, and possibly moot the entire Pringles Can argument. Or perhaps I'm daft to think any solution could be so simple.
Since this is clearly unproven, we must consider it a marketing claim. Since it's a marketing claim, we must consider it as untrustworthy as their least-trustworthy operation system. Which, possibly (it's unproven), could be Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
...the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s...
...fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu....
The notion that cold temperatures cause influenza and the common cold also went out in the 80's. Wakey Wakey! It's bacteria and viri!! And if I remember my biology 101 correctly, the little beasties don't much care for sub-zero temperatures.
I like the idea of a local appliance, and indeed, G already offers one for their search engine. I wouldn't be suprised if they do the same for the office tools eventually. But the icing on the cake would be a local appliance that not only keeps local copies of everything, but also backs it up in somewhat real time to G.
How does DRM increase consumer value?
Easy - each consumer is worth more to the recording companies over their lifetime due to the fact they'll have to pay for the same content multiple times. Hence, the consumer's value (to the recording companies) is increased. It's all in how you parse it, you see.
If you think this article will tell you what hardware and OS's they're running on you'll be disappointed. It's mostly web 2.0 fluff spared any useful details.
I was expecting to agree mostly with the scientists the BBC pulled in, but instead I found myself mostly agreeing with the Stupid Stars. Look at this scientist's response to Melinda Messanger:
"The chemical baggage we carry is very small. It is only because of the great advances in analytical chemistry that we are able to detect it's there at all."
He does not address the central question of whether such small baggage causes health issues - he totally misses the point. Besides, if you drill down far enough, you'll find that today's medical science really doesn't "know" much at all. Despite all our knowledge, we're babes in the woods when it comes to understanding the human body and the cumulative long term and combinatorial effect of these substances.
Having the GPL shoved sideways up one's butt has to hurt. Let's ask Novell in a couple of years just how much. With MS's hands on Novell's hips to guide it in, at least it'll be well greased with money.
I like the argument this parent makes, for obvious and self-serving reasons.
;-)
And if I may reply here to everyone excluding the parent, why all these "vote buying" and "how do you guarantee..." arguments against my statement? So I'll take you to collectively mean you advocate the root of this thread? Yet another piece of perhaps-slightly-harder-to-corrupt technology?
Look closely at what the Profit Makers are offering. Why is that better than a publicly verifiable list? Better for whom? Do you hold shares
As for the "it-can't-be-perfect-so-let's-do-nothing" crowd, well... I guess that says it.
More sleight-of-hand. An election can never be 100% verifiable until and unless the complete list of every vote is published for all to see and verify (privacy protected by numbers and codes of course). Profit Makers and Election Riggers will argue differently, no doubt.
One way to increase the value of your posts is to actually think of something useful to say. A well-reasoned argument (for or against), for example, would be a significant value-booster.
The sad part of all this is that despite warning numerous previous managers of such poor choices, they usually perceive the thousand bucks saved by going Windows instead of an industrial-strength RT OS as a brilliant strategic move. And think of all the cheap programmers available! Oops, now we have "cheap" programmers building our life-critical app on an OS not really suited to task. One day the statement "Blue Screen of Death" may take on a very literal meaning. Hope your .net pacemaker doesn't gpf.
Anybody who suggests Apple gets out of hardware is smoking something. And it's not the good stuff either.
I've seen Gartner do this before. I'll tell you what they're smoking. They're smoking big fat rolls of $100 bills freshly minted down Redmond way. Good to know the old boys are still shillin'
You've neglected to describe how the proposed system could be beaten.
Don't be a dumb-dumb. Of course Windows is used in applications where a failure could cost a life. I've written a few myself. The question you're really asking is: Wow close to "yikes it's embedded in a freakin pace-maker!" we've gotten. I can assure you, it's getting closer every day. Remember when no one in their right might would base an bank machine on windoze? Boy, are those daze over.
What day? I suppose it was during that blissful period when there were too few deep techies to go around, so we reported directly to VP's or Pres's - the guys/gals who were leading the charge to build the next innovative product.
;-(
I encountered such bliss in varying engagements between 1982 and 1995. Haven't seen it since
Not sure I'm getting your point here - clarify please?
It's anonymous as long as people don't give out their receipt number to anyone - just like a Social Insurance Number or driver's license number. They can destroy their receipt if desired. When they use the web site to confirm their vote was recorded, we just need to make sure that the furthest they can drill down is a page full of numbers, thereby ensuring there's no way to capture exactly which receipt number they're trying to confirm.
As far the selling of a vote for a few bucks, well, that can be done today. Is your point that now a receipt can be provided to the buyer to confirm the sale?
Ok, voting machines cannot be guaranteed to be bullet-proof. Anyone who knows a decent amount about computer software & hardware gets that.
But why is it so hard to envision a simple audit trail to absolutely guarantee the authenticity of any election?
1) Make sure every voting machine spits out a paper receipt with a unique transaction number and the vote(s) recorded.
2) Make public a web site that displays *every* receipt number and its vote(s). Ok, it might be 300 million database records, but a simple menu across the top will let anyone drill down to their receipt number and confirm their vote was recorded correctly. We'll file this exercise as each Citizen's Responsibility. (It's important to note that having a citizen enter a receipt number to see those particular ballot results will not be secure since it would take a different path through the web site software, and also reduce anonimity).
3) Democracity loving geeks everywhere will write code to scan that (huge) web site and confirm the final totals.
It seems so simple. What am I missing?
There's also, historically, been a strong anti-intellectual undercurrent in US culture.
Is that why every time I work for a large North American company, each new wave of management that gets installed holds big "rah rah" sessions and rewards those who kiss ass and follow dumb orders the best?
Management desperately needs to figure out that it's not a football game, where team-play and short-term gains trump all. Instead, let's think chess, where wise, well-reasoned moves, made at the appropriate time, produce superior results over the longer term. An intelligent, longer-term strategy, executed consistenty quarter after quarter, accumulates compound results over time like the proverbial downhill-rolling snowball.
During Microsoft's rise, they bought up every brianiac willing to sell his soul. Google's rise shows similar properties - they're now the mecca for boffins of these arts. Brianiacs can win big, if you put enough of them in a room and relegate the football coaches to delivering soda and wiping up the twinkie stains.
Those who have worked in government and industry for 20+ years like me will probably agree that the influx of greedy PHB's into the upper ranks of IT/Engineering has laid waste to the talent that was once there.
Back in the day, senior management was listening to deep techies who knew their stuff - they relied on our training and experience to lay down systems that did the job well.
Times are different now. Most management I've seen is populated by greedy, power-hungy know-nothings who think outsourcing a core competency is a good idea. Mortagaging the future of the company they work for is, in fact, *their* core competency. And in the process, they rid the company of those who hold the institutional knowledge and have the technical depth to create great products/services for the company.
These management types will not (as opposed to "can not") be educated - it interferes with their world-domination plan. Nothing short of a sustained "flight to integrity" will turn this tide.
I'm not saying that the limit can't be broken, by 10, maybe even 100 times the distance... but nothing to be worried about.
;-)
Fine. I'll do the worrying for both of us
...and so you're going to have a greater difficulty differenciating between the signal and background radiation the further away you get
Correct. And today someone is saying the max distance is 1 mm. No once can predict what discrimination techniques will be invented tomorrow. RFID and Bluetooth were both touted and very short-range technologies - until enterprising minds figured out how to get Bluetooth over a mile an RFID to meters.
UWB (Ultra-Wide Band) is a very low power technology (comparatively speaking), yet advanced algorithms listening to a cactus of antennae can pick out a signal from the morass of noise that is todays EM environment.
Please don't tell me you can predict with any certainty that no one will ever read this device from a distance of great than 1mm. History will eventually prove you wrong - especially if there's money to be made in doing so.
Actually, the point I intially responding to was all about security. 1mm is today's max range, then some hotshot with a pringles can and a high-gain amp changes that to 10 feet tomorrow, and a mile 10 years from now.
It's my opinion they should build in security features to prevent this, rather than claiming 1 mm is the max distance the thing can be read from.
It is a fact that GNU/Linux has grown from a hackers operating system to be a viable alternative to any commercial proprietary operating system.
I love linux and use it all the time, but sweeping statements like this one do little to futher the Linux cause. It's simply untrue that generic open-source Linux has all the process isolation, quota management, acl support, etc. that OpenVMS or MVS has. Ok so you can get glue-on, paid-for patches & extensions and stuff from proprietary vendors who'll sell you the support contracts you'll need to manage such patched boxes, that have somewhat equivalent features, but...
Let's stop painting Linux as equally capable, out of the generic box, as all proprietary systems (some of which have features that far exceed Windows too). Facts, not semi-warm BS, will further the Linux cause.
Instead of relying on the sensitivity of today's receivers to come up with "it can only be read from a distance of 1mm", why not implement very simple technology (radio signal ping-pong) to determine the distance of the radio partner? Encryption keys could be passed to ensure a single partner, and possibly moot the entire Pringles Can argument. Or perhaps I'm daft to think any solution could be so simple.
It's just the Coriolis Effect - take it south of the equator and it sucks up .0000001 percent more engery that it produces.
Microsoft's most secure Operating System yet
Since this is clearly unproven, we must consider it a marketing claim. Since it's a marketing claim, we must consider it as untrustworthy as their least-trustworthy operation system. Which, possibly (it's unproven), could be Vista.