First of all, a receipt is a bad thing to give to people when voting. Why? Because it enables vote selling and makes voter coercion incredibly easy. The receipt allows either the coercer or the buyer to verify a vote. Second, you have major problems regarding vote verification. ALL votes need to be verified. If you only verify a random selection of votes then people with knowledge of which places will be audited know what machines to rig. Furthermore, if the voting machines are networked then the machines can be tampered with AFTER auditing by pushing malicious code to the machines remotely.
Sure, you could prevent all of this with lots and lots of design verification, but now we start to see the problem. It is incredibly difficult and expensive to design an electronic voting machine that is secure. It is even harder to verify that it is, in fact, secure. Furthermore, you really don't save any time or add any functionality over current systems because still have to verify votes by counting paper receipts. What you have in the end is an incredibly expensive, less secure, more complicated system than what we already have and you've gained no functionality whatsoever.
On the other hand, mechanical machines are easy to design, easy to verify, have a proven track record, are expensive neither to build nor maintain, and already exist. Why on Earth would we switch to another system? I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to fix what ain't broke, but electronic machines are nothing more than a way to break what ain't broke.
Not really. There is no mental health test, there are no periodic tests (you just have to show up and fill out a paper, you are NEVER tested again), there is no waiting period, and suspension only happens if you kill multiple people. Also, NONE of these restrictions apply unless you want to drive on public roads. If you want to use the vehicle on private property then you don't have to register it.
Cars kill far more people than guns (by many orders of magnitude) and yet they are far less controlled than guns. Interesting.
The problem is that many users demand both that they be able to use their own device and that they be allowed to access company data on their device. If they were demanding one or the other, it wouldn't be such an issue.
What he said is true, information doesn't just disappear, but this is hardly news. We've known that information is persistent since before social networking was a thing.
Remember, the customer isn't the users that don't pay anything to use facebook. The customer is facebook itself and the companies that use it for advertising. From that perspective, it seems to work incredibly well.
The system mentioned in the article is exactly the kind of system that can't have randomly disappearing transactions. So you're basically telling us that the agile method wouldn't work for that either.
Agile most certainly can fail and cost billions. You develop a base, get it working. Then you add a few features, and get those working. Then you add some more features, and get those working. You repeat this process for many years, delivering working (really working) code every step of the way. Eventually you realize that you're still years off from finishing the project. Your code is working, but it doesn't have all the features that you need to actually distribute it and bring it into use. You can't afford to bring the project to completion, so you stop it.
Perhaps this was due to unrealistic expectations, perhaps it was due to an overestimation of how much work could be accomplished per unit time. Regardless, agile is not immune from any kind of failure.
>An "agile" project cannot fail and cost Billions because it must always deliver runnable software with a maximum of a few weeks delay
You're literally just saying that a project can't fail because it's supposed to succeed. There's many reasons agile projects can fail. If a team is unable to deliver a working release then the project has failed. Also, if the release works but doesn't incorporate the required functionality then the project has failed.
Exactly. While the summary seems to imply that the authors of the paper were dishonest and fabricated their data, the article has this to say:
>In a statement, the journal, Cell, said "there were some minor errors" in the paper, but "we do not believe these errors impact the scientific findings of the paper."
And then later says this:
>adding that the university does not believe the errors "impact the scientific findings of the paper in any way. We also do not believe there was any wrongdoing."
So before people rush to their pitchforks, we need to realize that this was just an editing error, not an attempt to falsify data or cover something up. The real issue here is that the paper was clearly not reviewed properly before being published. A proper review process would have caught this error. This is important because there has, in the past, been fraud in this area. If the review process doesn't even catch innocent mistakes then how will it be able to catch real fraud in the future?
These guys are NASA engineers. I'm sure they've considered that. If there were any structural benefits to be gained from removing the pattern then they would have done so. That said, the design of the wheels is quite interesting. The "JPL" Morse code sections have holes through the wheels whereas the rest of the wheel is simply a solid tread pattern. The addition of holes is very interesting and I'd be interested to hear the rational for incorporating such sections into the wheels.
Oh look another one of these posts. "Slashdot, I was wronged. The party that wronged me broke several laws and treated me in a degrading way. What should I do?"
The answer is ALWAYS to HIRE A LAWYER!
HIRE A FUCKING LAWYER! Someone broke the law, you need a lawyer if you want to take any action against them. If they're violating deadlines and laws regarding interactions with people with disabilities then you probably have a good legal case lined up. However, if you sit on your ass then your opportunity is going to disappear. You need to hire a lawyer and act fast.
3D printing won't change the situation for at LEAST another decade. Current 3D printers print in plastic and in such a way that it loses most of its strength. They simply cannot make any kind of firearm that's capable of firing a round of ammunition without blowing itself up.
There is ONE technology that can 3D print metal. However, the final part has a very low strength due to how the technology works. A firearm made with this technology would, like the plastic model, destroy itself upon firing even a single low-power round. Also, this machine costs a shitload of money.
The fact is, we simply will not have a 3D printing technology capable of making a working firearm for at least another ten years. The company mentioned in TFA, "defense distributed," consists of several wackjobs with conflicting, often mutually-exclusive, ideals. Their staff, all college students, contains several people that have done software development, an electrical engineering student, a writer, and a self-described "crypto-anarchist". (This is all from the company's "about us" page and TFA). They have no mechanical engineers, no one with experience in the production of firearms, and only a couple members that have even done any shooting. One of their staff members enjoys bitcoin mining as a hobby which should illustrate just how unqualified these people are to be running a business. Their political ideals are all some form of quasi-libertarianism born, I'm fairly sure, out of a mistaken belief that simply because their parents paid for their entire college education that everyone must be able to do the same.
TL;DR: This won't be an issue for at least a decade. Defense Distributed is a company that produces nothing useful and is run by idiots.
1. Tactile keys are far superior to touchscreens in just about every way. You don't have to hit a key multiple times for it to register, they work with gloves, you don't smudge your screen, they're cheaper, etc. 2. Cost. People balk at the $120 price tag of a calculator and, as you have done, suggest using a smartphone app. Do you have any idea what a smartphone costs? About $600. It's only "cheap" if you also purchase a long contract with the phone which costs even more money. This argument also applies to laptops which, in addition to being more expensive, require the purchase of an operating system and mathematics software such as mathematica. (NOTE: I admit that there may be free alternatives for these.) 3. Durability. Some engineers have to run equations in the field. Laptops aren't durable enough and neither are smartphones. You can drop a calculator onto concrete from waist height and it might have a scratch or two, but it'll work just fine. Try that with a smartphone or laptop and you're liable to destroy the entire unit in spectacular fashion. 4. Battery life. Although the TI-84 COLOR seems to have absolutely shit battery life all other models have very good battery life. The TI-83, TI-84, and TI-89 will all last months of use on a single set of batteries (4 AAA batteries). Furthermore, the batteries are replaceable. You can simply swap them out if they die. Laptops and smartphones require that you sit them down next to an outlet for an hour or more in order to charge them. (Yes, laptops can use interchangeable batteries, but they cost about $80 each.) 5. Ease of use. A calculator requires that you turn it on before you can use it. It never needs updating, it never complains about software problems, it never requires any maintenance. Smartphones require regular software updates. Laptops require lots of software updates and other maintenance.
Note: I didn't mention their use in standardized testing. I find the argument that something is desirable because it's highly limited to be very silly. However, even after discounting this argument I have still provided at least 5 good reasons for calculator use. People who claim that calculators have no advantages other than being highly restricted are simply fooling themselves and ignoring reality. Are calculators good for ALL uses? No, of course not. There are many jobs and situations in which one will always have access to computer software or where one will require the additional power of computer software. It's just silly to claim that calculators are worthless because some people happen to be in the situation of having to use computer software.
"My guess is that this individual is conducting illegal activities through yours and your neighbor's connections"
This is highly likely. The guy has invested much time and effort in this so they clearly have motives other than saving a few bucks. OP should make attempts to locate this guy and to shut him down. Use laptops or cell phones with wireless monitoring applications to locate the guy's AP. Nothing too fancy, just do a bit of sneaker-netting while watching the signal strength. You don't need to triangulate the location to within a foot, you just need to get a general idea of where this thing is. Once you get close you should be able to tell which building/car it is in. If this yields inconclusive results then contact the local HAM club. They may be able to assist you in locating a rogue AP or wifi leech in exchange for beer and pizza.
Also, OP needs to file a police report. Will the police do anything? No, of course not. However, it will help to shield OP from liability when the FBI comes knocking in regard to whatever illegal activities are being conducted through his internet connection. He'll be able to point to the police reports as evidence that someone else was on the network long before the authorities showed up.
You clearly didn't bother to read the damn question. OP explicitly stated that he's dealing with someone who knows that they're doing. MAC filtering will slow this guy down for all of 5 seconds.
Exactly. My car broke down last week. What should be a 10 minute drive now takes me the better part of an hour and a half on the bus. You have to wait for the bus because it might be 5 minutes early or up to 20 minutes late, and then the route goes all over the god damn place. Of course, I have to arrive at least 5 minutes before my shift at work to get ready and that means that I have to catch the bus that shows up 30 minutes before my shift. It's ridiculous. I waste several hours per day dealing with the fucking bus. Getting work done on the bus is a laughable proposition. It's hard to work on a bouncy, shifting platform, you might not be able to get a seat, and taking a laptop on board is simply asking to get mugged.
The only people that wonder why public transportation isn't popular are people that don't take public transportation.
It's like saying: My old computer is the best computer ever! How can it keep up with today's graphics-intensive games? It scales down to 5 FPS which allows it to keep running!! It's a marvel of technology.
That's neither chording nor is it close to chording. Every single key is mapped to a physical button with no more modifiers than you'd find on a normal keyboard. Putting the keys closer together doesn't make it any more like chording than a standard QWERTY keyboard.
The guy says that it's silly to be using keyboards because they're so old and that we need new technology. He demonstrates this by making a video. Film was invented a long damn time ago, moving pictures were possible over one hundred years ago, and digital video has been around for more than three decades. Shoes and pants are even older than that but I see that he's wearing clothes. I guess this guy thinks that it's only a bad idea to use old things if he's selling a product to replace one of them.
I believe that the patent office can also request a proof-of-concept model before approving a patent. The only devices that they routinely ask for one are regarding perpetual motion machines. Surprisingly, no one has presented a working model for a perpetual motion machine.
You should keep in mind that a lot of those are already possible. Lots of medical equipment runs on windows despite the EULA saying "don't use this for life-saving devices". A few years ago a few researchers demonstrated that it was possible to access a car with wifi, disable the brakes, and engage the accelerator.
The idiot engineers that design these things don't bother implementing 1-way data transfer (e.g. allow car to report engine statistics but don't allow reprogramming remotely), encryption, or any security measures at all. They rely entirely on obscurity to prevent these devices being used maliciously.
Until someone dies, it's not a problem. When someone does die, they have enough lawyers to prevent the family that just lost someone from suing them.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, a receipt is a bad thing to give to people when voting. Why? Because it enables vote selling and makes voter coercion incredibly easy. The receipt allows either the coercer or the buyer to verify a vote. Second, you have major problems regarding vote verification. ALL votes need to be verified. If you only verify a random selection of votes then people with knowledge of which places will be audited know what machines to rig. Furthermore, if the voting machines are networked then the machines can be tampered with AFTER auditing by pushing malicious code to the machines remotely.
Sure, you could prevent all of this with lots and lots of design verification, but now we start to see the problem. It is incredibly difficult and expensive to design an electronic voting machine that is secure. It is even harder to verify that it is, in fact, secure. Furthermore, you really don't save any time or add any functionality over current systems because still have to verify votes by counting paper receipts. What you have in the end is an incredibly expensive, less secure, more complicated system than what we already have and you've gained no functionality whatsoever.
On the other hand, mechanical machines are easy to design, easy to verify, have a proven track record, are expensive neither to build nor maintain, and already exist. Why on Earth would we switch to another system? I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to fix what ain't broke, but electronic machines are nothing more than a way to break what ain't broke.
Not really. There is no mental health test, there are no periodic tests (you just have to show up and fill out a paper, you are NEVER tested again), there is no waiting period, and suspension only happens if you kill multiple people. Also, NONE of these restrictions apply unless you want to drive on public roads. If you want to use the vehicle on private property then you don't have to register it.
Cars kill far more people than guns (by many orders of magnitude) and yet they are far less controlled than guns. Interesting.
That is EXACTLY HIS POINT!
The problem is that many users demand both that they be able to use their own device and that they be allowed to access company data on their device. If they were demanding one or the other, it wouldn't be such an issue.
Good plan. I'm going to start memorizing a gigabyte of random data in order to encrypt 1/1000th of my 1 TB hard drive.
What he said is true, information doesn't just disappear, but this is hardly news. We've known that information is persistent since before social networking was a thing.
Remember, the customer isn't the users that don't pay anything to use facebook. The customer is facebook itself and the companies that use it for advertising. From that perspective, it seems to work incredibly well.
The system mentioned in the article is exactly the kind of system that can't have randomly disappearing transactions. So you're basically telling us that the agile method wouldn't work for that either.
Agile most certainly can fail and cost billions. You develop a base, get it working. Then you add a few features, and get those working. Then you add some more features, and get those working. You repeat this process for many years, delivering working (really working) code every step of the way. Eventually you realize that you're still years off from finishing the project. Your code is working, but it doesn't have all the features that you need to actually distribute it and bring it into use. You can't afford to bring the project to completion, so you stop it.
Perhaps this was due to unrealistic expectations, perhaps it was due to an overestimation of how much work could be accomplished per unit time. Regardless, agile is not immune from any kind of failure.
>An "agile" project cannot fail and cost Billions because it must always deliver runnable software with a maximum of a few weeks delay
You're literally just saying that a project can't fail because it's supposed to succeed. There's many reasons agile projects can fail. If a team is unable to deliver a working release then the project has failed. Also, if the release works but doesn't incorporate the required functionality then the project has failed.
Exactly. While the summary seems to imply that the authors of the paper were dishonest and fabricated their data, the article has this to say:
>In a statement, the journal, Cell, said "there were some minor errors" in the paper, but "we do not believe these errors impact the scientific findings of the paper."
And then later says this:
>adding that the university does not believe the errors "impact the scientific findings of the paper in any way. We also do not believe there was any wrongdoing."
So before people rush to their pitchforks, we need to realize that this was just an editing error, not an attempt to falsify data or cover something up. The real issue here is that the paper was clearly not reviewed properly before being published. A proper review process would have caught this error. This is important because there has, in the past, been fraud in this area. If the review process doesn't even catch innocent mistakes then how will it be able to catch real fraud in the future?
You can't print ceramic (at least not within the next decade). Source: any basic metallurgy class.
These guys are NASA engineers. I'm sure they've considered that. If there were any structural benefits to be gained from removing the pattern then they would have done so. That said, the design of the wheels is quite interesting. The "JPL" Morse code sections have holes through the wheels whereas the rest of the wheel is simply a solid tread pattern. The addition of holes is very interesting and I'd be interested to hear the rational for incorporating such sections into the wheels.
Oh look another one of these posts. "Slashdot, I was wronged. The party that wronged me broke several laws and treated me in a degrading way. What should I do?"
The answer is ALWAYS to HIRE A LAWYER!
HIRE A FUCKING LAWYER! Someone broke the law, you need a lawyer if you want to take any action against them. If they're violating deadlines and laws regarding interactions with people with disabilities then you probably have a good legal case lined up. However, if you sit on your ass then your opportunity is going to disappear. You need to hire a lawyer and act fast.
3D printing won't change the situation for at LEAST another decade. Current 3D printers print in plastic and in such a way that it loses most of its strength. They simply cannot make any kind of firearm that's capable of firing a round of ammunition without blowing itself up.
There is ONE technology that can 3D print metal. However, the final part has a very low strength due to how the technology works. A firearm made with this technology would, like the plastic model, destroy itself upon firing even a single low-power round. Also, this machine costs a shitload of money.
The fact is, we simply will not have a 3D printing technology capable of making a working firearm for at least another ten years. The company mentioned in TFA, "defense distributed," consists of several wackjobs with conflicting, often mutually-exclusive, ideals. Their staff, all college students, contains several people that have done software development, an electrical engineering student, a writer, and a self-described "crypto-anarchist". (This is all from the company's "about us" page and TFA). They have no mechanical engineers, no one with experience in the production of firearms, and only a couple members that have even done any shooting. One of their staff members enjoys bitcoin mining as a hobby which should illustrate just how unqualified these people are to be running a business. Their political ideals are all some form of quasi-libertarianism born, I'm fairly sure, out of a mistaken belief that simply because their parents paid for their entire college education that everyone must be able to do the same.
TL;DR: This won't be an issue for at least a decade. Defense Distributed is a company that produces nothing useful and is run by idiots.
>Memorizing formulas is the easy part of learning anything,
Clearly, you've never tried to major in engineering.
1. Tactile keys are far superior to touchscreens in just about every way. You don't have to hit a key multiple times for it to register, they work with gloves, you don't smudge your screen, they're cheaper, etc.
2. Cost. People balk at the $120 price tag of a calculator and, as you have done, suggest using a smartphone app. Do you have any idea what a smartphone costs? About $600. It's only "cheap" if you also purchase a long contract with the phone which costs even more money. This argument also applies to laptops which, in addition to being more expensive, require the purchase of an operating system and mathematics software such as mathematica. (NOTE: I admit that there may be free alternatives for these.)
3. Durability. Some engineers have to run equations in the field. Laptops aren't durable enough and neither are smartphones. You can drop a calculator onto concrete from waist height and it might have a scratch or two, but it'll work just fine. Try that with a smartphone or laptop and you're liable to destroy the entire unit in spectacular fashion.
4. Battery life. Although the TI-84 COLOR seems to have absolutely shit battery life all other models have very good battery life. The TI-83, TI-84, and TI-89 will all last months of use on a single set of batteries (4 AAA batteries). Furthermore, the batteries are replaceable. You can simply swap them out if they die. Laptops and smartphones require that you sit them down next to an outlet for an hour or more in order to charge them. (Yes, laptops can use interchangeable batteries, but they cost about $80 each.)
5. Ease of use. A calculator requires that you turn it on before you can use it. It never needs updating, it never complains about software problems, it never requires any maintenance. Smartphones require regular software updates. Laptops require lots of software updates and other maintenance.
Note: I didn't mention their use in standardized testing. I find the argument that something is desirable because it's highly limited to be very silly. However, even after discounting this argument I have still provided at least 5 good reasons for calculator use. People who claim that calculators have no advantages other than being highly restricted are simply fooling themselves and ignoring reality. Are calculators good for ALL uses? No, of course not. There are many jobs and situations in which one will always have access to computer software or where one will require the additional power of computer software. It's just silly to claim that calculators are worthless because some people happen to be in the situation of having to use computer software.
"My guess is that this individual is conducting illegal activities through yours and your neighbor's connections"
This is highly likely. The guy has invested much time and effort in this so they clearly have motives other than saving a few bucks. OP should make attempts to locate this guy and to shut him down. Use laptops or cell phones with wireless monitoring applications to locate the guy's AP. Nothing too fancy, just do a bit of sneaker-netting while watching the signal strength. You don't need to triangulate the location to within a foot, you just need to get a general idea of where this thing is. Once you get close you should be able to tell which building/car it is in. If this yields inconclusive results then contact the local HAM club. They may be able to assist you in locating a rogue AP or wifi leech in exchange for beer and pizza.
Also, OP needs to file a police report. Will the police do anything? No, of course not. However, it will help to shield OP from liability when the FBI comes knocking in regard to whatever illegal activities are being conducted through his internet connection. He'll be able to point to the police reports as evidence that someone else was on the network long before the authorities showed up.
This story contains a hilarious amount of bullshit.
You clearly didn't bother to read the damn question. OP explicitly stated that he's dealing with someone who knows that they're doing. MAC filtering will slow this guy down for all of 5 seconds.
Exactly. My car broke down last week. What should be a 10 minute drive now takes me the better part of an hour and a half on the bus. You have to wait for the bus because it might be 5 minutes early or up to 20 minutes late, and then the route goes all over the god damn place. Of course, I have to arrive at least 5 minutes before my shift at work to get ready and that means that I have to catch the bus that shows up 30 minutes before my shift. It's ridiculous. I waste several hours per day dealing with the fucking bus. Getting work done on the bus is a laughable proposition. It's hard to work on a bouncy, shifting platform, you might not be able to get a seat, and taking a laptop on board is simply asking to get mugged.
The only people that wonder why public transportation isn't popular are people that don't take public transportation.
It's like saying: My old computer is the best computer ever! How can it keep up with today's graphics-intensive games? It scales down to 5 FPS which allows it to keep running!! It's a marvel of technology.
That's neither chording nor is it close to chording. Every single key is mapped to a physical button with no more modifiers than you'd find on a normal keyboard. Putting the keys closer together doesn't make it any more like chording than a standard QWERTY keyboard.
The guy says that it's silly to be using keyboards because they're so old and that we need new technology. He demonstrates this by making a video. Film was invented a long damn time ago, moving pictures were possible over one hundred years ago, and digital video has been around for more than three decades. Shoes and pants are even older than that but I see that he's wearing clothes. I guess this guy thinks that it's only a bad idea to use old things if he's selling a product to replace one of them.
I believe that the patent office can also request a proof-of-concept model before approving a patent. The only devices that they routinely ask for one are regarding perpetual motion machines. Surprisingly, no one has presented a working model for a perpetual motion machine.
You should keep in mind that a lot of those are already possible. Lots of medical equipment runs on windows despite the EULA saying "don't use this for life-saving devices". A few years ago a few researchers demonstrated that it was possible to access a car with wifi, disable the brakes, and engage the accelerator.
The idiot engineers that design these things don't bother implementing 1-way data transfer (e.g. allow car to report engine statistics but don't allow reprogramming remotely), encryption, or any security measures at all. They rely entirely on obscurity to prevent these devices being used maliciously.
Until someone dies, it's not a problem. When someone does die, they have enough lawyers to prevent the family that just lost someone from suing them.