The ironing is delicious. You do know that traditional textures are often created in, you guessed it, Photoshop? Ergo, his question is perfectly valid, and his point is more valid. Do you need to sit down and write code to do these procedural textures, or can ordinary tools be modified to create them.
I was thinking about that question actually. I ended up with the conclusion that the way I see it, it would be just the same as integrating a Perl parser or something like that into Photoshop. A procedural texture definition file editor is nothing to do with images. You could technically integrate such realtime editor into Photoshop, but what would be the fricking point? You couldn't use the normal photoshop tools with it anyway. TFA mentions that the company this article is about created a end-user tool to do the work easily anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Microsoft conned Novell or Novell conned its users with the help of Microsoft.
2. Microsoft says "bring it on! let's have more of these deals!"
3. Slashdotter bitches about the bias on slashdot and wonders why some people call Microsoft M$ or unethical or a monopoly or E^3.
Anyone who sponsors the idea of using "money" is doing nothing but transfering (sic) wealth from one entity to another. It has nothing to do with creating an economy and should be laughed at when mentioned.
Now, being seriously a bit: offsets create a product and you need to be environmentally friendly to produce it. There it goes, watch: incentive.
That's silly. You can find a bigger price fluctuation between offers if you ask for offers in a tender system.
In Hungary motorways suddently cost 2-3x more after 2002 than before. Some sinister people point out that there was a change of government in 2002, but I'm sure there is no connection.;)
If you or someone else want to use it, you can reproduce and/or create derivative works from my OP, as I consider my posts being under a a Creative Commons/Gnu Documentation License or some such which allows derivative works if attribution is given.
It's funny to see how the banks network with each other. They deemed that using an outside company for developing the network and software for the banks cannot be trusted. The company that operates/develops the worldwide financial networking is owned by the world's banks, the percentage of ownership in that company governed by marketshare/financial state of the banks. Those guys in that company are a pretty secretive bunch. The location of the top financial message centers isn't even public. The most thing a layman can know is that there are around 6 to 9 such centers and roughly the continent they are located on.
Yeah, banks regularly get attacked successfully(*). In some cases the attacker is never apprehended. There is a reason why, after all, banks are calculating in their budget with a given financial loss. We're talking about huge sums here, due to electronical fraud. The banks work on minimizing the amount, but it's still only small potatoes for them. In some cases they hire the one who had robbed them, to protect them.
*An ex security administrator from a major bank talked about it at a security conference.
"Surely if Diebold can make a secure ATM there is no reason why it cannot make secure and reliable e-voting apparatus in which the public has confidence."
ATMs are much easier to make. The ATMs _can_ trust the bank. The user can easily verify if the ATM works or not because they leave a "paper trail" (um hello, if it wouldn't give precisely the amount of cash out that you requested, wouldn't it be a little bit suspicious and wouldn't people have noticed it?).
Voting machines cannot trust neither the user, nor the authorities and to top it off it has to be verifyable to both. In short, a much harder problem.
The requirements to verify the voting process if paper ballots are used: being a non-retarded human being and a small amount of time.
The requirements to verify the voting process if voting machines are used: electrical engineer and programmer proficient in all related languages and access to the source code, months of time verifying the voting machine, then making sure the voting machine used at the election is the same one you verified.
If you look at it from the average person's perspective: in the first case the voting process is transparent for the average person. They understand and if they want, can verify the local process. Paper voting also gives a much better accountability to the overall picture. You generally count the votes locally, then make a official log about it, send the result up in the chain. Then when the overall results are known, you can check the website or whatever to see whether the numbers up on the website about the local results match with your local results you have in your hands. I know that if they didn't it would be found out pretty quickly because at least some people do make this comparison. So now we know that the local results on the website match the local results in the local voting stations. Now you can just simply add up the local results to check the big picture, whether it matches. At least some people will do that, so you can be reasonably certain that the results are pretty accurate, because to tamper with the outcome you would have to modify things on a local level at lots of places simultaneously and since we're talking about paper you'd have to involve a lot of people so we would know about it if someone attempted it.
In the second case, even if you would have the overlapping skill requirements to verify stuff, you still need to have the time and the access. Then, votes are tabulated not at a local level, but a step above, at a regional level, so you reduced the number of places you would have to tamper with in order to skew the voting process. Since it is a complex electronic process which few people understand exactly, you can modify the results involving much less people and can do it in a much more stealthy way. Since it is electronic, carrying out the act on a wholesale level is not a problem for the bad guys. You got to ask the question one time: which is easier: simultaneously manipulating a few tonns of paper scattered across the whole country when they are guarded by thousands of people, or voting machines coming from two main sources, two companies which aren't guarded at all, or to be more precise, people are forbidden to guard them (source code-wise) and even if you would attack not at the source code level, but at the regional counting level, then it's still much easier to tamper with than with paper.
We have to face it: not even an open source voting machine is good enough. It's much easier to simplify the ballots to catch up with the only positive thing voting machines provide, than to design an electronic system capable of transparent, accountable voting. Even if you take a barebones microkernel/firmware voting machine, it is still a hundred thousand(*) times more complex than paper voting.
*I just pulled that number out of my ass, but I think most people underestimate the complexity difference between the two methods.
From Wikipedia: Contrary to popular notion, there is no 'safe' location outdoors. People have been struck in sheds and makeshift shelters. A better location would be inside a vehicle (a crude type of Faraday cage). It is advisable to keep oneself away from any attached metallic components once inside (keys in ignition, etc.).
Also, as the anonymus coward poster described, you've just described the same underlying mechanism.
Funny thing, is that with paper voting you get the unofficial results at night aswell.
In Hungary at the last two elections polls closed at 7pm and 95%+ of the results were processed by 11pm. For the official results you need to wait days/weeks anyway, as petitions get decided upon, irregularities examined, etc.
[Note, this post is referring to the tags that can be found amongst others, on this article, so this is a general-issue post not an offtopic one. Thank you.]
It's getting annoying that every article without any relevance gets tagged with "itsatrap". The "fud" tag is grossly overused aswell, but at least it can be perceived as mostly applicable. I'm suggesting, to conform with slashdot grammar, to counter-tag every article that has an irrelevant "itsatrap" tags with "notsatrap".
A couple of episodes into CSI (I started at some random point) there was an episode where Grissom explained in a smartass way that the rubber on a car's wheels protects the people in the car from lightning. Sure thing, except that the real explanation is that the car is made of metal and it acts as a Faraday cage, that's why you don't fry in a car if hit by lightning.
Funny, entertaining, I have the best appetite while watching CSI and I regularly enjoy supper watching CSI, but its not scientific. I hope most people realise that.:)
Millions of dollars get wasted on much less interesting and important stuff and simply stolen or lost in the burocracy.
There are a lot of interesting stuff to be done in cosmology. By no means I am an expert, but wouldn't you want to know the nature of the Universe, how it was created etc? Things like detecting the 21 centimeter radiation is crucial in understanding the early universe. Things like the Flatness problem and the curvature of the universe are decided through measuring the Plank curve of the background radiation, the correlation function of the temperature of the cosmic background radiation measuring the difference between various angles (as seen from Earth), the measurement of distant supernovas and from galaxy statistics. These data sets indicate that we're living very close to an Eucledian geometry, something between the Riemann geometry and hyperbolical universe and that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and we also determined the age of the universe through the measurement of the Hubble constant to be 13.7b years with 100 million year precision.
This is new stuff, in the last five years we were all metaphysical about it, now we have measurement data.
So 4 of the largest oil producing countries in the world are insignificant in the global economy.
I don't think that statement is true. They aren't the four largest oil producing countries in the world. They are big oil producing companies and yes, they are insignificant in the world economy if you look at them from an emissions standpoint. These countries don't matter in the absolutes and the per population chart is only interesting because in comparison the USA is still ahead of the EU, China, India and Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
...that the EU rules on flight were strictened for basically no logical reason, but based on the horsecrap Blair is feeding to the UK and the world.
Basically the overwhelming majority of experts on the field confirmed that liquid explosives and things like dirty bombs are not feasible or existant.
Team Cymru: Securing people and sheep - online.
No. You win.
1. Microsoft conned Novell or Novell conned its users with the help of Microsoft.
2. Microsoft says "bring it on! let's have more of these deals!"
3. Slashdotter bitches about the bias on slashdot and wonders why some people call Microsoft M$ or unethical or a monopoly or E^3.
Badanalogii guy? :)
Free market is crap.
Anyone who sponsors the idea of using "money" is doing nothing but transfering (sic) wealth from one entity to another. It has nothing to do with creating an economy and should be laughed at when mentioned.
Now, being seriously a bit: offsets create a product and you need to be environmentally friendly to produce it. There it goes, watch: incentive.
Finally an opportunity where a me too post makes sense.
Me too! Err...
Thank you!
God Bless America for Protecting the Economy! Job well done innit.
That's silly. You can find a bigger price fluctuation between offers if you ask for offers in a tender system.
;)
In Hungary motorways suddently cost 2-3x more after 2002 than before. Some sinister people point out that there was a change of government in 2002, but I'm sure there is no connection.
If you or someone else want to use it, you can reproduce and/or create derivative works from my OP, as I consider my posts being under a a Creative Commons/Gnu Documentation License or some such which allows derivative works if attribution is given.
It's funny to see how the banks network with each other. They deemed that using an outside company for developing the network and software for the banks cannot be trusted. The company that operates/develops the worldwide financial networking is owned by the world's banks, the percentage of ownership in that company governed by marketshare/financial state of the banks. Those guys in that company are a pretty secretive bunch. The location of the top financial message centers isn't even public. The most thing a layman can know is that there are around 6 to 9 such centers and roughly the continent they are located on.
Yeah, banks regularly get attacked successfully(*). In some cases the attacker is never apprehended. There is a reason why, after all, banks are calculating in their budget with a given financial loss. We're talking about huge sums here, due to electronical fraud. The banks work on minimizing the amount, but it's still only small potatoes for them. In some cases they hire the one who had robbed them, to protect them.
*An ex security administrator from a major bank talked about it at a security conference.
ATMs are much easier to make. The ATMs _can_ trust the bank. The user can easily verify if the ATM works or not because they leave a "paper trail" (um hello, if it wouldn't give precisely the amount of cash out that you requested, wouldn't it be a little bit suspicious and wouldn't people have noticed it?).
Voting machines cannot trust neither the user, nor the authorities and to top it off it has to be verifyable to both. In short, a much harder problem.
The requirements to verify the voting process if paper ballots are used: being a non-retarded human being and a small amount of time.
The requirements to verify the voting process if voting machines are used: electrical engineer and programmer proficient in all related languages and access to the source code, months of time verifying the voting machine, then making sure the voting machine used at the election is the same one you verified.
If you look at it from the average person's perspective: in the first case the voting process is transparent for the average person. They understand and if they want, can verify the local process. Paper voting also gives a much better accountability to the overall picture. You generally count the votes locally, then make a official log about it, send the result up in the chain. Then when the overall results are known, you can check the website or whatever to see whether the numbers up on the website about the local results match with your local results you have in your hands. I know that if they didn't it would be found out pretty quickly because at least some people do make this comparison. So now we know that the local results on the website match the local results in the local voting stations. Now you can just simply add up the local results to check the big picture, whether it matches. At least some people will do that, so you can be reasonably certain that the results are pretty accurate, because to tamper with the outcome you would have to modify things on a local level at lots of places simultaneously and since we're talking about paper you'd have to involve a lot of people so we would know about it if someone attempted it.
In the second case, even if you would have the overlapping skill requirements to verify stuff, you still need to have the time and the access. Then, votes are tabulated not at a local level, but a step above, at a regional level, so you reduced the number of places you would have to tamper with in order to skew the voting process. Since it is a complex electronic process which few people understand exactly, you can modify the results involving much less people and can do it in a much more stealthy way. Since it is electronic, carrying out the act on a wholesale level is not a problem for the bad guys. You got to ask the question one time: which is easier: simultaneously manipulating a few tonns of paper scattered across the whole country when they are guarded by thousands of people, or voting machines coming from two main sources, two companies which aren't guarded at all, or to be more precise, people are forbidden to guard them (source code-wise) and even if you would attack not at the source code level, but at the regional counting level, then it's still much easier to tamper with than with paper.
We have to face it: not even an open source voting machine is good enough. It's much easier to simplify the ballots to catch up with the only positive thing voting machines provide, than to design an electronic system capable of transparent, accountable voting. Even if you take a barebones microkernel/firmware voting machine, it is still a hundred thousand(*) times more complex than paper voting.
*I just pulled that number out of my ass, but I think most people underestimate the complexity difference between the two methods.
If you consider something new from the 17-18th century...
Or just simply vote on Sundays? That's what a lot of countries do...
From Wikipedia: Contrary to popular notion, there is no 'safe' location outdoors. People have been struck in sheds and makeshift shelters. A better location would be inside a vehicle (a crude type of Faraday cage). It is advisable to keep oneself away from any attached metallic components once inside (keys in ignition, etc.).
Also, as the anonymus coward poster described, you've just described the same underlying mechanism.
Funny thing, is that with paper voting you get the unofficial results at night aswell.
In Hungary at the last two elections polls closed at 7pm and 95%+ of the results were processed by 11pm. For the official results you need to wait days/weeks anyway, as petitions get decided upon, irregularities examined, etc.
[Note, this post is referring to the tags that can be found amongst others, on this article, so this is a general-issue post not an offtopic one. Thank you.]
It's getting annoying that every article without any relevance gets tagged with "itsatrap". The "fud" tag is grossly overused aswell, but at least it can be perceived as mostly applicable. I'm suggesting, to conform with slashdot grammar, to counter-tag every article that has an irrelevant "itsatrap" tags with "notsatrap".
A couple of episodes into CSI (I started at some random point) there was an episode where Grissom explained in a smartass way that the rubber on a car's wheels protects the people in the car from lightning. Sure thing, except that the real explanation is that the car is made of metal and it acts as a Faraday cage, that's why you don't fry in a car if hit by lightning.
:)
Funny, entertaining, I have the best appetite while watching CSI and I regularly enjoy supper watching CSI, but its not scientific. I hope most people realise that.
Millions of dollars get wasted on much less interesting and important stuff and simply stolen or lost in the burocracy.
There are a lot of interesting stuff to be done in cosmology. By no means I am an expert, but wouldn't you want to know the nature of the Universe, how it was created etc? Things like detecting the 21 centimeter radiation is crucial in understanding the early universe. Things like the Flatness problem and the curvature of the universe are decided through measuring the Plank curve of the background radiation, the correlation function of the temperature of the cosmic background radiation measuring the difference between various angles (as seen from Earth), the measurement of distant supernovas and from galaxy statistics. These data sets indicate that we're living very close to an Eucledian geometry, something between the Riemann geometry and hyperbolical universe and that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and we also determined the age of the universe through the measurement of the Hubble constant to be 13.7b years with 100 million year precision.
This is new stuff, in the last five years we were all metaphysical about it, now we have measurement data.
The human eye is already dropping 90% of the input, otherwise the nerves would just simply "burn out"...
Why can't we do both simultaneously?