They should offer (but not require you to accept) a unique signed client certificate to every registered voter. If you accept it, you can vote online exactly once in any election using that signed certificate. The deadline for online voting should be midnight BEFORE election day, but you should be able to check online to confirm how your vote was cast after the deadline. As long as you can check back later to make sure your vote didn't get lost/changed, and the software is open and strictly regulated and inspected to ensure that what you see is what's getting counted, I would trust that more than paper. The certificates can be set to expire automatically in a few years to force you to re-confirm that you're still alive, that you still live at the same address, etc.
For anyone who doesn't want to use the certificate, who loses it, or has it stolen (which you would notice immediately when you try to cast your vote online and it tells you that you've already cast your vote), you come in on election day and cast a paper ballot. Showing up in person on election day will automatically invalidate any online vote tied to your registration (it would happen when they verify your ID and check you off the list to prevent you from casting another vote).
If done right, this could be made even more secure than most bank web sites (my bank doesn't even offer client-side certificates for online access), and it would greatly increase voter turnout. Who wouldn't want to avoid taking time off from work, driving to the polls, and standing in line? It would also make the lines a lot shorter for those who prefer to come in person.
IMO you're making some broad assumptions without knowing any pertinent details, in much the same way you did with the original comment I disputed. You know nothing about the company I work for (where we've had only 2 employees outside of sales leave in the past 13 years) or the type of customer contacts I work with (enterprise-level, but none closely aligned with software development). What about my wife, my kids, my health problems, and everything else in my life that influences my decisions? I can bring up various points, and you can easily pick them apart because you don't know the rest or don't have the same priorities I do.
For the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter whether I (personally) am a good communicator. Have you never even met anyone who was shy/introverted but could still make a good argument when necessary? Can you not even imagine anyone like that?
My point is still valid that a lack of networking does not imply a lack of communication skills, and I over-simplified my reasons for not maintaining a network.
I agree with your point that everyone has to sell himself when looking for a job, and all too often who you know matters a lot more than what you know. OTOH, hiring managers need to recognize that if they're not filling a sales position, they need to give a higher priority to other traits than an applicant being able to "sell" himself.
"Networking is a form of communication. If they're not good at this form, what others are they bad at? Code monkeys are cheap and plentiful, people who can communicate their designs, collaborate with others, and work on a team where everyone benefits from the specialist expertise that each individual has are rare. The latter are the ones worth hiring."
That's flawed logic. I happen to be great at communicating with my team, support, services, sales, customers, etc. I'm also at the top when it comes to knowledge, skill, and problem solving. My boss usually assigns me to the largest prospects or new customers that must be kept happy at all costs. I answer their questions/concerns and solve their problems, and they couldn't be happier having me as a technical contact.
However, I do absolutely NO networking at all. Normally I'm introverted, and I prefer to keep a few close friends to a bunch of acquaintances. The thought of "shmoozing" with a bunch of other people merely to maintain a network of contacts is as unappealing to me as applying for a job in sales or marketing.
What you're referring to has nothing to do with the location of the vehicle itself (which is what this article is about), but the location of external objects relative to the vehicle.
The most important thing a self-driving vehicle accurately needs to track about itself is its current speed. Next would be the current state of the steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes (and perhaps whether the driver is trying to take over to avoid an accident). I suppose there are a number of other things you wouldn't normally think about for a moving vehicle such as whether any doors are currently open (it sounds stupid, but it's possible). There are plenty of other (mostly) fixed constant values such as vehicle dimensions, weight, braking power, turning radius, etc. that it needs to know to determine the best way to avoid obstacles/accidents. I'm sure I haven't thought of all of them, but none of those that I can think of are location-based.
Actually, self-driving cars don't need any location information at all to avoid accidents.
It's not like a GPS can tell them if a light they're approaching is red or green, if there's a car in front of them, or if that hypothetical car is currently slamming on its brakes. It can give them an idea of where to turn, but it can't tell them if there's a pedestrian, a car, a wall, a lake, a big gaping sinkhole in the road, a flooded section, or something like that in the spot where it wants them to turn.
jonbryce specifically said "bus lanes", which implies that they are special lanes that regular cars aren't allowed to drive in at all. It doesn't get much clearer than "If it's not a city bus/taxi, pull it over and issue a citation".
Actually, I think the more honest answer would be: We asked them.
"We" is collective, of course. It doesn't necessarily mean you or me, but someone asked them. Google is constantly under pressure from various groups/individuals to remove/filter/hide things, and it actually costs Google far more to go out of their way to filter them than it does for it to simply show you what its crawlers found.
Some of these are completely harmless, like the auto-complete filtering. If you want to type "penis", you'll still get what you typed. But if a young child types the word "pen" and auto-complete fills in "penis" and the page fills with pictures of naked men and ads for enhancements, you can bet there will be a lot of people asking Google to avoid that word in auto-complete. To be honest, Google may have seen that one coming ahead of time and taken steps to avoid it in the very first auto-complete implementation. And is the poster too lazy to finish typing Hillary's name? Or is it too much trouble to click on links and read articles, so instead he thinks people will decide who is crooked based on what auto-complete shows them? He's grasping at straws there.
When it comes to removing pictures of military bases and wealthy homes, you can bet that the government and lawyers of wealthy homeowners asked Google to remove the pics.
Even in the case of YouTube videos being banned, it is still based on user requests. Perhaps the employees are biased on which ones they act on, or perhaps it is just simply that the complaints coming from liberals are much louder (or perhaps much more frequent). Though IMO rather than banning them, they should just flag both sides as political flame-bait and let users decide whether they want to turn those on or off.
I feel about 100% certain that Microsoft did in fact choose target sites that favored Edge. Opera was probably a little less "professional" in that way.
Although to be honest, I don't think any ad blocker could be as inefficient as the ads themselves. Every site I manage to visit with my cell phone that has a bunch of ads brings the browser to its knees, which drains the battery faster. Even on my desktop, I find that Chrome performs fine until I hit a site with ads that seem designed to go out of their way to be as annoying as possible (which usually means plenty of poorly-written JavaScript, often combined with audio/video).
I can think of one Michael Bay movie I'd like to see. He could make a spoof of Transformers where the robots all hunt down and beat the crap out of Michael Bay. It would probably still be over-the-top CGI garbage, but I think I'd pay to see it.
While that is a valid point, it depends on the typical diet for the target audience, and this is Japan we're talking about. Using this fork may be their way of trying to make "Lite" soy sauce taste like regular.
The name "DROWN" probably has something to do with how admins feel about using OpenSSL by now (or perhaps what they think should be done to it, or both). It goes well with names like heart-bleed.
It's possible the developer was clueless, but it's also possible something more like this happened:
1) Developer writes rapid prototype in JavaScript intending to convert it to C. 2) PHB sees it and says "Wow, that's great! No time to perfect it! We gotta get this feature out the door now!" 3) Developer says "...but..." 4) PHB says: "No buts, we'll fix it in the next release." (unless something else important comes up, which has a statistical probability of nearly 100%)
I've seen both happen plenty of times in software development.
How is it passing the buck to the company who "fixed it" if that company's servers are causing the problem in the first place? From what the poster described, it didn't sound like the constant testing of specific ports (for specific services like HTTP, HTTPS, RDP, etc.) that go on all the time. Those hits are generally sprrad out and treated like background noise by a router and don't get reported. This sounds more like a wider range of ports on someone's home IP address being hit repeatedly over a long period of time from one or more servers at a single company, which is much more targeted (and unusual).
If it's a direct hacking attempt, it is a moronic one. I imagine it is either a mistake (e.g. mis-configured penetration testing software) or perhaps a compromised server at that company. In either case, it is something the company should want to fix.
I see your side, but I see the other as well. Since he reported it to the company once and the company "fixed it" temporarily, it doesn't sound like a false positive. If he posts the company's web site on Slashdot and that company's web site happens to get slashdotted (especially if they have a forum or mailbox where visitors can post complaints/issues), it might wake them up to the fact that someone in their IT/dev department is doing something they really should not be (whether it was ordered by the company's leaders or not).
Looked up: "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result"
A public statement can be considered an event, the statement was contrary to what was intended/expected, and it was amusing as a result. I suppose you could argue about the word "deliberately", but often what is considered irony is unintentional, causing the person making the statement to become the butt of the joke instead of the person making a joke.
As someone who has worked as a developer for a few small games on both platforms (this was back in the Android 2.0 - 3.0 days), I can say that hands-down iOS was MUCH quicker to develop a "finished" product that works well on all devices. The OS version matters only a tiny bit. What matters a lot more is manufacturer, screen size, resolution, aspect ratio, etc. Some specific Android devices had issues initializing OpenGL ES (causing it to work great on 9 phone models but crash on the 10th), different models supported different OpenGL extensions, and so on. Even creating a nice background image for a 2D game on Android was way more of a pain than it should've been. Refer to the ridiculous aspect ratio of the early Motorola Droids, which was wider than any other cell phone at the time, and ended up with blank space on either edge of your background (or stretched it into something ugly) if you didn't add special logic or assets just to deal with Motorola because they wanted to be "special". That wasn't the only problem caused by having too many manufacturers wanting to make their phone seem "better" by being different, just one of many.
That is a very poor analogy. It's nothing like driving between two cities. Designing and writing software is more like designing/building a vehicle you want to sell to others. Choosing a language and libraries is like choosing factory machines and tools needed to manufacture the vehicle, deciding which parts you're going to buy elsewhere versus make in-house, and so on. These decisions can have major impacts on how quickly you can get the car to market, how hard it is to add certain features to the vehicle, how reliable it is, how fast it can go, how safe it is in a crash, etc. All of this can impact whether your company stays in business or goes under. Depending on the target market, you may need to build a sports car, an economy car, a tank, a boat, a plane, a helicopter. You may choose to buy a pre-made part elsewhere that works great in internal tests but breaks down under certain conditions in the real world. Sometimes decisions like this seem obvious, but not always. In many cases there is no "perfect" choice, and in some cases you may end up regretting any choice you make (the grass appearing greener on the other side because you can't see the bugs eating the roots on that side until you've paid the cost to move over to that side;-).
Or if the surface is ice, with enough energy to melt through 300km of it. It still might need a 300km long antenna to tell us if it finds anything. I doubt a signal would go through 300km of solid ice very well.
It's unlikely to happen because what you said is mostly BS. A smart phone contains all kinds of sensitive information like logs of where you've been and of private conversations between you and several other people (which may or may not be related to a case the police are investigating). Your DNA can't possibly contain information like that. Today it might be able to tell the police you have blonde hair and blue eyes, but so can your driver's license. Sure it might eventually be able to let the police generate a picture of what you look like based on your DNA, but once again so can your driver's license. It might even be able to tell the police whether you have a small penis (or something along those lines), but I'm pretty sure they won't be able to use information like that against you in court.;-)
It really is no different than collecting fingerprints at a crime scene, semen from a rape victim, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Still no cure for cancer yet...
Oh, wait a minute. This isn't fark.com.
I, for one, welcome our new genetically engineered microscopic overlords...
There, I fixed it.
IMO they should split it.
They should offer (but not require you to accept) a unique signed client certificate to every registered voter. If you accept it, you can vote online exactly once in any election using that signed certificate. The deadline for online voting should be midnight BEFORE election day, but you should be able to check online to confirm how your vote was cast after the deadline. As long as you can check back later to make sure your vote didn't get lost/changed, and the software is open and strictly regulated and inspected to ensure that what you see is what's getting counted, I would trust that more than paper. The certificates can be set to expire automatically in a few years to force you to re-confirm that you're still alive, that you still live at the same address, etc.
For anyone who doesn't want to use the certificate, who loses it, or has it stolen (which you would notice immediately when you try to cast your vote online and it tells you that you've already cast your vote), you come in on election day and cast a paper ballot. Showing up in person on election day will automatically invalidate any online vote tied to your registration (it would happen when they verify your ID and check you off the list to prevent you from casting another vote).
If done right, this could be made even more secure than most bank web sites (my bank doesn't even offer client-side certificates for online access), and it would greatly increase voter turnout. Who wouldn't want to avoid taking time off from work, driving to the polls, and standing in line? It would also make the lines a lot shorter for those who prefer to come in person.
You should have a +5 Funny on that post. Maybe the joke was too subtle.
IMO you're making some broad assumptions without knowing any pertinent details, in much the same way you did with the original comment I disputed. You know nothing about the company I work for (where we've had only 2 employees outside of sales leave in the past 13 years) or the type of customer contacts I work with (enterprise-level, but none closely aligned with software development). What about my wife, my kids, my health problems, and everything else in my life that influences my decisions? I can bring up various points, and you can easily pick them apart because you don't know the rest or don't have the same priorities I do.
For the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter whether I (personally) am a good communicator. Have you never even met anyone who was shy/introverted but could still make a good argument when necessary? Can you not even imagine anyone like that?
My point is still valid that a lack of networking does not imply a lack of communication skills, and I over-simplified my reasons for not maintaining a network.
I agree with your point that everyone has to sell himself when looking for a job, and all too often who you know matters a lot more than what you know. OTOH, hiring managers need to recognize that if they're not filling a sales position, they need to give a higher priority to other traits than an applicant being able to "sell" himself.
"Networking is a form of communication. If they're not good at this form, what others are they bad at? Code monkeys are cheap and plentiful, people who can communicate their designs, collaborate with others, and work on a team where everyone benefits from the specialist expertise that each individual has are rare. The latter are the ones worth hiring."
That's flawed logic. I happen to be great at communicating with my team, support, services, sales, customers, etc. I'm also at the top when it comes to knowledge, skill, and problem solving. My boss usually assigns me to the largest prospects or new customers that must be kept happy at all costs. I answer their questions/concerns and solve their problems, and they couldn't be happier having me as a technical contact.
However, I do absolutely NO networking at all. Normally I'm introverted, and I prefer to keep a few close friends to a bunch of acquaintances. The thought of "shmoozing" with a bunch of other people merely to maintain a network of contacts is as unappealing to me as applying for a job in sales or marketing.
I spotted a bug:
-if(isFemale())
+if(isFemale() and isAttractive())
What you're referring to has nothing to do with the location of the vehicle itself (which is what this article is about), but the location of external objects relative to the vehicle.
The most important thing a self-driving vehicle accurately needs to track about itself is its current speed. Next would be the current state of the steering wheel, accelerator, and brakes (and perhaps whether the driver is trying to take over to avoid an accident). I suppose there are a number of other things you wouldn't normally think about for a moving vehicle such as whether any doors are currently open (it sounds stupid, but it's possible). There are plenty of other (mostly) fixed constant values such as vehicle dimensions, weight, braking power, turning radius, etc. that it needs to know to determine the best way to avoid obstacles/accidents. I'm sure I haven't thought of all of them, but none of those that I can think of are location-based.
Actually, self-driving cars don't need any location information at all to avoid accidents.
It's not like a GPS can tell them if a light they're approaching is red or green, if there's a car in front of them, or if that hypothetical car is currently slamming on its brakes. It can give them an idea of where to turn, but it can't tell them if there's a pedestrian, a car, a wall, a lake, a big gaping sinkhole in the road, a flooded section, or something like that in the spot where it wants them to turn.
jonbryce specifically said "bus lanes", which implies that they are special lanes that regular cars aren't allowed to drive in at all. It doesn't get much clearer than "If it's not a city bus/taxi, pull it over and issue a citation".
Actually, I think the more honest answer would be: We asked them.
"We" is collective, of course. It doesn't necessarily mean you or me, but someone asked them. Google is constantly under pressure from various groups/individuals to remove/filter/hide things, and it actually costs Google far more to go out of their way to filter them than it does for it to simply show you what its crawlers found.
Some of these are completely harmless, like the auto-complete filtering. If you want to type "penis", you'll still get what you typed. But if a young child types the word "pen" and auto-complete fills in "penis" and the page fills with pictures of naked men and ads for enhancements, you can bet there will be a lot of people asking Google to avoid that word in auto-complete. To be honest, Google may have seen that one coming ahead of time and taken steps to avoid it in the very first auto-complete implementation. And is the poster too lazy to finish typing Hillary's name? Or is it too much trouble to click on links and read articles, so instead he thinks people will decide who is crooked based on what auto-complete shows them? He's grasping at straws there.
When it comes to removing pictures of military bases and wealthy homes, you can bet that the government and lawyers of wealthy homeowners asked Google to remove the pics.
Even in the case of YouTube videos being banned, it is still based on user requests. Perhaps the employees are biased on which ones they act on, or perhaps it is just simply that the complaints coming from liberals are much louder (or perhaps much more frequent). Though IMO rather than banning them, they should just flag both sides as political flame-bait and let users decide whether they want to turn those on or off.
I feel about 100% certain that Microsoft did in fact choose target sites that favored Edge. Opera was probably a little less "professional" in that way.
Although to be honest, I don't think any ad blocker could be as inefficient as the ads themselves. Every site I manage to visit with my cell phone that has a bunch of ads brings the browser to its knees, which drains the battery faster. Even on my desktop, I find that Chrome performs fine until I hit a site with ads that seem designed to go out of their way to be as annoying as possible (which usually means plenty of poorly-written JavaScript, often combined with audio/video).
I can think of one Michael Bay movie I'd like to see. He could make a spoof of Transformers where the robots all hunt down and beat the crap out of Michael Bay. It would probably still be over-the-top CGI garbage, but I think I'd pay to see it.
While that is a valid point, it depends on the typical diet for the target audience, and this is Japan we're talking about. Using this fork may be their way of trying to make "Lite" soy sauce taste like regular.
The name "DROWN" probably has something to do with how admins feel about using OpenSSL by now (or perhaps what they think should be done to it, or both). It goes well with names like heart-bleed.
It's possible the developer was clueless, but it's also possible something more like this happened:
1) Developer writes rapid prototype in JavaScript intending to convert it to C.
2) PHB sees it and says "Wow, that's great! No time to perfect it! We gotta get this feature out the door now!"
3) Developer says "...but..."
4) PHB says: "No buts, we'll fix it in the next release." (unless something else important comes up, which has a statistical probability of nearly 100%)
I've seen both happen plenty of times in software development.
How is it passing the buck to the company who "fixed it" if that company's servers are causing the problem in the first place? From what the poster described, it didn't sound like the constant testing of specific ports (for specific services like HTTP, HTTPS, RDP, etc.) that go on all the time. Those hits are generally sprrad out and treated like background noise by a router and don't get reported. This sounds more like a wider range of ports on someone's home IP address being hit repeatedly over a long period of time from one or more servers at a single company, which is much more targeted (and unusual).
If it's a direct hacking attempt, it is a moronic one. I imagine it is either a mistake (e.g. mis-configured penetration testing software) or perhaps a compromised server at that company. In either case, it is something the company should want to fix.
I see your side, but I see the other as well. Since he reported it to the company once and the company "fixed it" temporarily, it doesn't sound like a false positive. If he posts the company's web site on Slashdot and that company's web site happens to get slashdotted (especially if they have a forum or mailbox where visitors can post complaints/issues), it might wake them up to the fact that someone in their IT/dev department is doing something they really should not be (whether it was ordered by the company's leaders or not).
Looked up:
"a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result"
A public statement can be considered an event, the statement was contrary to what was intended/expected, and it was amusing as a result. I suppose you could argue about the word "deliberately", but often what is considered irony is unintentional, causing the person making the statement to become the butt of the joke instead of the person making a joke.
"We have a lot of foolish people" If that's not irony, I don't know what is.
As someone who has worked as a developer for a few small games on both platforms (this was back in the Android 2.0 - 3.0 days), I can say that hands-down iOS was MUCH quicker to develop a "finished" product that works well on all devices. The OS version matters only a tiny bit. What matters a lot more is manufacturer, screen size, resolution, aspect ratio, etc. Some specific Android devices had issues initializing OpenGL ES (causing it to work great on 9 phone models but crash on the 10th), different models supported different OpenGL extensions, and so on. Even creating a nice background image for a 2D game on Android was way more of a pain than it should've been. Refer to the ridiculous aspect ratio of the early Motorola Droids, which was wider than any other cell phone at the time, and ended up with blank space on either edge of your background (or stretched it into something ugly) if you didn't add special logic or assets just to deal with Motorola because they wanted to be "special". That wasn't the only problem caused by having too many manufacturers wanting to make their phone seem "better" by being different, just one of many.
Oh, woops. This was supposed to be a reply to the post directly below yours. Sorry, my bad!
That is a very poor analogy. It's nothing like driving between two cities. Designing and writing software is more like designing/building a vehicle you want to sell to others. Choosing a language and libraries is like choosing factory machines and tools needed to manufacture the vehicle, deciding which parts you're going to buy elsewhere versus make in-house, and so on. These decisions can have major impacts on how quickly you can get the car to market, how hard it is to add certain features to the vehicle, how reliable it is, how fast it can go, how safe it is in a crash, etc. All of this can impact whether your company stays in business or goes under. Depending on the target market, you may need to build a sports car, an economy car, a tank, a boat, a plane, a helicopter. You may choose to buy a pre-made part elsewhere that works great in internal tests but breaks down under certain conditions in the real world. Sometimes decisions like this seem obvious, but not always. In many cases there is no "perfect" choice, and in some cases you may end up regretting any choice you make (the grass appearing greener on the other side because you can't see the bugs eating the roots on that side until you've paid the cost to move over to that side ;-).
Or if the surface is ice, with enough energy to melt through 300km of it. It still might need a 300km long antenna to tell us if it finds anything. I doubt a signal would go through 300km of solid ice very well.
It's unlikely to happen because what you said is mostly BS. A smart phone contains all kinds of sensitive information like logs of where you've been and of private conversations between you and several other people (which may or may not be related to a case the police are investigating). Your DNA can't possibly contain information like that. Today it might be able to tell the police you have blonde hair and blue eyes, but so can your driver's license. Sure it might eventually be able to let the police generate a picture of what you look like based on your DNA, but once again so can your driver's license. It might even be able to tell the police whether you have a small penis (or something along those lines), but I'm pretty sure they won't be able to use information like that against you in court. ;-)
It really is no different than collecting fingerprints at a crime scene, semen from a rape victim, etc.