Indeed. But when I last looked, it used IMAP in a very strange way, that no mail client had good support for.
Here is a list that a client needs to be able to support for the best Gmail/IMAP experience:
Regular IMAP features
Support for flagging an unflagging a message. Ideal if the message flagging is shown as a star, as it translates to starring and un-starring a GMail message)
The client should have propper message threading support
The client should be able to deal well with a message being in more than one IMAP folder at the same time. Specifically, this should not crash it,
and it should be able to store the message efficiently. (Not keeping multiple copies of the message on disk as part of the offline cache, but keep only one copy with references)
The client should not not save deleted messages locally, or in a special folder on the server
Any built-in spam blocking of the client should be disabled
The client should send messages through the Gmail SMTP server (this will ensure sent messages are added to that folder automatically).
The client should not store sent messages anywhere (as the smtp server will do that for it
The client should syncronize its "drafts" folder with [Gmail]/Drafts
The clients "mark as spam" feature (if it has one) should move messages to [Gmail]/Spam.
When in [Gmail]/Spam the "unmark as spam" feature (if any) should simply move the message to the "Inbox folder". It should be enabled for all messages in this folder.
When working in most folders (all except [Gmail]/Spam, [Gmail]/Trash, and possibly "[Gmail]/All Mail"), the button that sends the IMAP delete command should be labeled "remove tag"
In [Gmail]/Spam and [Gmail]/Trash folders, the IMAP delete command button should be labeled "Purge".
It is entirely unclear from the Gmail documentation what the IMAP delete command does to messages in "[Gmail]/All Mail". Whatever that does, the IMAP delete command button should be labeled appropriately.
There should be annother button available that moves a message to [GMail]/Trash that is labeled "Delete". (should be disabled folders where the IMAP delete button is labled "Purge")
Finally, there really should be a toolbar button labeled "Tag", when clicked drops down a list of the Imap folders (a cascading list because of the possibility of subfolders). Selecting a folder from this list should result in the IMAP commands to copy the selected message(s) to the selected folder. (It would be preferable to hide the "[Gmail]" metafolder and subfolders in this drop-down list).
At the moment, I am not aware of any IMAP client that can offer all that. Thunderbird didn't the last time I checked, and would require not only several completely new extensions, but some changes to the underlying source too. I would not be shocked if mutt could do all this, (obviously the scripting features would be needed), but even if it does, it would still require a fair amount of work. So at the moment no client is even close to ideal. I'm guessing Thunderbird will slowly gain many of the listed features, but it likely will never have them all.
Posters here do not seem to be aware of Python's __future__ module. It is the mechanism by which scripts can gracefully move forward before the rug is pulled out from under them. This is not unique to 3.0.
The whole idea is that Python can add features to the language in __future__, that are available at least one version before they become the new default. A script can adopt a new feature ahead of time (e.g. "from __future__ import with_statement").
It wouldn't surprise me if Python 2.6 has __future__ entries for Python 3.0 capabilities. You are correct. Just about all of the useful new features in 3.0 that can reasonably be implemented with __future__ imports will be available in 2.6. This is intended to greatly assist the ease of transitioning to 3.0, which will takes years, but we already knew that.
Not to mention the automatic code translator that they intend to release with 2.0 which should be able to convert most code with little manual intervention (that is the goal anyway).
US states have roughly a population near Finland's. This's the reason why the idea was for the states to maintain most of the power, and the Federal government to have very little. On the other hand, quite a bit of the US Federal Government expansion has been for the very reason that people want it. People want the laws to be highly consistent throughout the nation. It is much easier to remember that the legal drinking age is 21 across the country. That the voting age is 18 across the country. That cocaine is illegal throughout the country, etc. Part of this is that travailing around between states has traditionally been far easier than travel between European countries, for various reasons, not the least of which is the common language and currency. As a result, citizens of the US move between states a fair bit more than is common in Europe. (Although the EU is slowly changing that). The net effect is that the value of consistency of laws between the states is much greater in the US than it has been in Europe. (Once again, the EU is slowly changing that too). After all it is far more common for a Person in the US to live in one state and work in another than it is for somebody in Europe to give in one country and work in annother. (The EU is also changing this). Hmm... It may be wise to keep a close eye on the EU system, since it really sounds quite a bit like the initial US federal government.
How about the right to be locked out of ALL of your Steam games if you dare to buy a game outside of your country? While I do recall some people getting locked out of all games for that, the article you linked only mentions getting locked out of the imported games. That article does not mention other games becoming disabled.
I'm against the idea of buying anything on physical media, which I then have to validate/register/"complete the purchase" online.
However, I'm okay with the idea of downloading the very same software (validation being one of the requirements for downloading).
I guess I feel that the "buy then validate" model is a cheat- If I bought it in a store, that should be proof enough. Whereas with downloading, they can do the validation/purchase at the same time. No you are correct. Note that this whole kit is really a steam integration kit. So the primary purchase method will be online purchase. However, having a physical box sitting on the shelf at Walmart is still great for advertising, and even better for giving as a gift. What I find really weird, is that unlike with Valve's boxed games, the steamworks games will apparently not include the exe file on the CD. The CD will have all the resources, and everything, but the exe itself will need to be downloaded over Steam. The advantage (to the developer) is that the exe downloaded can be watermarked with the name and account information of the downloader, which makes distributing a no-steam crack for the game (which is necessary for widespread piracy) a risky proposition.
Critique: Time required. It would take days to have to manually display a single ballot at a time. There is really no reason not to use a machine to count the ballots. In fact, these machines already exist and have been used for years. Actually, they have been used for over a Century since at least the 1900 census.
One of the ways they double-check the machine is by feeding through a random sampling of ballots and checking the totals on the sample.
Correction: Obviously this does not eliminate problems occurring at other levels
Ballot switching/stuffing is still not resolved and can occur at a 'lower' level. Well then work at a lower level. Do the initial counts at the polling place. There is no reason for that not to be feasible.
It should certainly not take more than a few hours at most average-sized polling places.
Then the task is adding a column of numbers at each higher level (the sums get passed onto the next higher level). That is well known skill, and one that can eailly be checked by other concerned parties.
Indeed. But with a little common sense, and the willingness to devote an entire day to the issue (make election day a national holiday) then it seems entirely possible to have the system quite transparent. I never got any response to my last message about a highly sane voting system (at least prior to the centralized summing of the votes from the precints). I will post it again. If I could get any comments on it, I would appreciate it.
This will assume an electronic ballot making machine. Please note it is not a voting machine. It does not attempt to store any information, but merely prints out a ballot. The ballot it prints out will have 2 parts, a human readible portion, and a machine readable portion (using some form of bar code technology or something similar). If somehow the two portions do not agree, the human readable part will prevail. That is because the human readable portion is the part the voter most likely verified.
Now for the way the vote counting works, it works by machine tallying with human oversight. There is a projection screen showing a running tally of the votes. There is also a projector. Each ballot is place on the projector one at a time to allow the audience to see the human readable votes on it. Then the ballot's bar code is scanned, and the vote tallies on the screen update. The audience can thus easily verify that the changes to the running tally match the human readable votes on the ballot. (In a many issue ballot, not everybody would be able to track every issue, but as long as at least a few people from the audience track each issue, things should be fine). People would be watching to be sure that the tallies increase only by one with each vote, never change except when a vote is scanned, and no vote is ever scanned more than once. Lack of a vote on an issue can also be tallied to ensure the sum of the votes and lack of votes tallied is equal to the total number of ballots. The precinct's final certified counts for all the issues would be presented to the audience so they can verify that it does indeed match the final tallies. Then it can be sealed, and sent on. This system would make the entire process up to the precinct level completely transparent.
Obviously this does not eliminate problems occurring at higher levels, but it does seem to work very well for the rest of it. Also note that there is noting about this system that truly requires electronic devices. The ballots could be filled out by hand, and the ballot tally process could be done using a bunch of regular old mechanical counting devices, (the odometer like ones that increase each time the button is pushed). However, here the electronics would be not be black boxes at all. They would simply be helping to speed up the process some. In fact that is quite desirable at the vote counting portion, as the speed is fast enough so that the audience does not fall asleep, but slow enough that the audience an still verify that the tallying is still correct.
I have no interest at all in an MMO. Every one I have seen requires lots of hard work to get anywhere, and are just not enjoyable.
MMOs don't represent the possibilities for the technology. The reason MMOs are made to be grindfests is the developers want you to continue playing the exact same game for the same subscription fee. Meanwhile, it is possible to have instancing of different games or different themes on the same game. All that's really different between a World of Warcraft instance and a Neverwinter Night's campaign is the gameplay design.
Meanwhile I've basically no money, no skills, no real way to advance beyond the very begging of the game without spending months. Spending months at the very beginning of a game really does not sound like fun to me.
So basically you want to have everything handed to you in the beginning? In KOTOR I spent the first quarter of the game without a lightsaber, not much fundamentally different other than in MMOs you can see those players who put forth the effort before you... sounds more like jealousy than the actual game. Rarely does it take months to get beyond the very beginning of the game, in fact the biggest problem with most MMOs is that once you get to the end (level cap), there isn't much to do.
I have tried some where the inflation is to the point that some of the basic equipment (intended to be gotten at the very beginning) really is far out of reach. The ability to get the funds necessary is a real challenge, unless you wish to put in additional real world money into the game by buying funds from other players in violation of the TOS.
But there are other problems with such games. If it is not possible to have a regular playing schedule much of the social aspects of those games can fall apart.
As for the nothing left to do part, the obvious thing is to stop playing. When there is nothing left to do in a non-online game, you arte finished, no more reason to play.
Course I guess it would simply turn all games into MMO games in essense, plus single player game content would take a back seat to the multiplay content, so games like MassEffect wouldn't appear as attractive.
Not necessarily. The technology is there to create single player content in an online format. For example if I run into an MMO instance alone, I'm essentially playing a single player game. The real question is why keep an online game single player. Once you have all these people logged in together, why not allow them to interact and promote a community. Because that would immediately cause some people to lose interest. I have no interest at all in an MMO. Every one I have seen requires lots of hard work to get anywhere, and are just not enjoyable. For example, any game with a real economy eventually inflates to the point that no new player can purchase anything, sue to the inflation. Not to mention that in such games, it is generally much easier for the older players to get larger amounts of money, as doing that requires skills or abilities that can only be improved over time. Meanwhile I've basically no money, no skills, no real way to advance beyond the very begging of the game without spending months. Spending months at the very beginning of a game really does not sound like fun to me. However, games that use the community's content without having any direct interaction with the community can be far more entertaining and interesting. See Spore for a great example.
Ok, the "app bundle" is gone, but the "application framework" is there? Microsoft was forced to remove the entire "application framework" from windows. Maybe my analogy was off. Perhaps it is more like "dragging iexplore.exe" to the trash but leaving all the dlls behind. Not that i am much of a MS apologist, but this seems like using different names for similar things and acting like its totally different because its Apple to me. While frameworks can be used to wrap fairly unimportant DLL's, they rarely are. Generally they wrap a large set of interrelated DLL's that are used by many programs. In this case, the quicktime framework is closer to the DirectShow windows component, which still ships in the versions with WMP removed. If they did not, many applications including quite a few alternative media players would not work at all. Further, it is hard to remove the DirectShow system even if you wanted to. The Quicktime framework can be deleted from a Mac without nearly as much hassle, although many (most) Mac applications dealing with video would stop working.
Indeed, I don't think most Windows users really understand that on a Mac most applications are in a bundle form making the entire application look and act like one giant file. So dragging the icon for that file actually removes the program. Indeed, the whole system is why there is nothing like a start menu in OS X. Common programs generally have shortcuts on the doc (which to windows users is a very unusual form of the taskbar), or shortcuts on the desktop. Otherwise users simply browse the/Applications folder for the program they want. (closest equivelent in older vesrions of windows is the "Program files" folder, although IIRC Vista now uses a "C:\Programs", or if you prefer more unixy paths, you can validly call it the "/Programs" folder.
Incidentially, the container format for MPEG-4 (.mp4,.m4v, m4a) is the same as the QuickTime container format, too. Those are more common these days. Well, not exactly the same, there are a few minor differences, but most of the little differences are supported by most MP4 container supporting software anyway. The basic format is definitely the same, and a valid mp4 container is a valid.mov file pretty much by definition. (but the reverse is not quite true, but is pretty darn close).
From what I understood, Google only had an interest in 'wholesaling' the spectrum out to other providers - with open-access rules enforced. As for the nationwide spectrum up for bid, they would need to partner with another company or multiple companies to meet the build-out requirements.
I don't see them being the actual provider, just the controlling interest in the spectrum being used. Exactly. Google would like people to be able to have:
reasonable cost (that is to say far, far, far better than current wireless data rates, and if at all possible, costing not a cent more than current Cable/DSL offerings)
high speed internet
available wirelessly (so available even out in the middle of nowhere, where the only current highspeed internet options are satellite and cellular based, both of which cost way to much).
with proper consumer-oriented regulation. (The services are not locked to the hardware device, so you could switch providers without buying a new device; a neutral network, the providers may not throttle or forbid any type of traffic; etc.)
Under such a system Google wins (it is in Google's interest for as many people to have affordable high speed internet as possible), and the consumers win. The primary losers would be the telcos. If the only way for this to happen is for Google to purchase some of the spectrum, and refuse to license it to telco companies that will not abide by the consumer-friendly regulations, then it may still be worth it. After all, as long as Google licenses the spectrum at a reasonable cost, this would be the perfect opportunity for smaller companies that could not enter the market because of the overhead of getting license to use a part of the spectrum (which would basically be the big telcos, who obviously have no interest in allowing new competition) would now have the opportunity to enter the wireless broadband market. In either case (phone companies play fair) or (smaller companies join with Google to enter the market) the consumer wins.
Correct, if your site is fine in FF now, it should render OK in the IE8 standards compliant engine as well.
The problem is, that would still require a review of every existing legacy site to see if it does in fact render correctly in FF and IE8, and if it doesn't to alter the HTML to either use a different doctype/mode or to update the HTML to be standards compliant. That represents a huge investment.
The alternative, to continue using the non-standards compliant engine by default, and to use an IE8 specific tag to force non-default behavior with existing doctypes guaranties that existing pages will render the same as they had before, but allows developers to go forward with a fully standards compliant rendering.
Going forward, as new standards are released and doctypes set, we can hope that MS will remain standards compliant and we won't have to use a non-compliant tag like this to get standard compliant behavior by default. But for the existing realm of doctypes, it makes more sense to not risk the possibility of anything breaking and to give developers a flag to force compliance.
-Rick
The correct thing for Microsoft to do is to just discontinue IE entirely. All new versions of Windows should ship with either Firefox or Opera.
Why? Well virtually all of the web seems to work correctly for those browsers. As long as those browsers continue to support the latest standards correctly, and not care that a few sites depending on bugs break occasionally all will be well. I mean sure all those intranet sites would need to be fixed to be standards compliant, but this would pretty much be the last time. Eventually it will be possible for sites to drop IE support entirely. Then they only really need to code to standards, and in the rare case that one of the common browsers don't follow the standards, well that is not much of a problem. Wither the web developer can leave the site broken, and be done with it (the browsers will fix things over time), or just not use the broken feature, or if a different fully standards compliant method does not break any browsers, just use that instead.
I mean since I use Firefox, as long as Firefox follows the standards quite well (as it generally does), and displays only semi-complaint pages reasonably (as it generally does) then all is well.
Believe it or not, but the single largest cause of instability in the Windows operating system is device drivers.
Not quite.
There's an operating system which actually has drivers for more devices than Windows (since there are some devices which are supported only in older versions of Windows and some devices which are only supported in newer versions of Windows), and it's not generally noted for its instability. The big difference is that unlike Windows, which is renowned for incomplete and occasionally downright wrong API documentation, this operating system has the most complete and correct API documentation it's possible to provide.
It'd be more correct to say that the single largest cause of instability in the Windows operating system is the unavailability of Source Code to device driver developers. My point was that device drivers, specifically faulty and poorly written device drivers are the problem on windows. Obviously device drivers can be done well. Linux shows this fairly well. However, that does not change the fact that the reason why device drivers are so often faulty under windows is not just the bad API documentation or the lack of source code for the Windows kernel. Indeed some companies have access to the source code for the windows kernel. (Any sufficiently large company can get access to most of Windows source code if they are willing to pay, and have a semi-legitimate reason for wanting it. (Device drivers is a good of a reason as any)). The real reason is that the windows device drivers are often thrown together in a hurry, and lack of sufficient internal comments and proper coding standards makes it all to easy for really nasty bugs to crop up. In a kernel mode driver, nasty bugs are a big problem. The code of many windows drivers is in such a state that the code would never get checked into the Linux kernel. If a company tried to get similar quality code into the Linux kernel, somebody would work with them to clean it up. But no such cleanup ever happens on many Windows drivers. I'm quite sure the same would be true of many kernel mode drivers written for the Mac too. The big advantage of drivers for Linux is not that the kernel source is available, but for the vast vast majority of supported devices the source code for the drivers are available. The few Linux drivers that are basically binary blobs (that are not just device firmware) that are available for Linux are actually by the companies that tend to do a better job with drivers all around.
It is DRM'd to only run on Apple hardware. There is nothing technical that prevents it from running on any modern PC since that is indeed what Macs are now. However that won't work, hence there are groups out there that have to hack it to disable that and allow it to run on any hardware.
You can argue till your blue in the face that they need to do this, doesn't change what they are doing. If it wasn't DRM'd, it'd run fine on any hardware that met its technical requirements. Well while it would run, it would not be as stable as a Mac. It might also not be as fast (on equivalent hardware). Believe it or not, but the single largest cause of instability in the Windows operating system is device drivers. Further, the major range of different internal hardware makes optimizing the performance of the system quite difficult. Since Apple computers have a much smaller assortment of possible internal hardware needing kernel mode drivers, it is quite possible for Apple to verify that they do not cause problems with each other, and are reasonably well written. Further, it is easier to optimize the system for the specific hardware.
They are planning on dropping this. What they will recommend dumb WYSIWYG ediotrs to use is unclear, but it may just be simple style attributes containing inline CSS. (That is certainly better than the font tag).
Looks like this is what Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, etc will need to begin supporting 5 in the future.
How long that takes, noone really knows. More importantly, how easy will this be to use and how useful will the semantic bindings be?
Finally, anyone know if HTML5 mandates any specific version of EMCA/Java-Script? That part seemed vague to me. No, a user agent need not support scripting at all. If it does support an ECMAScript-based scripting language then it would likely be using the third edition or later, as the specification includes an exception system, and try catch blocks were not introduced until the third edition. However, that is no guarantee that that version will be used, as older versions with support for exception added would work as well.
Re:one important piece of hacking
on
Hacking the XO Laptop
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not sure if this is true or not but apparently every OLPC unit has a piece of kill code in it which will brick the unit if they think a unit intended for a child has gone to a third party. Even if I was to do the BOGO option, I'd feel incredibly uncomfortable knowing my unit has the capability to be bricked at will.
Am I paranoid or gullible or does this worrying piece of software exist on the unit? Is anyone working on a patch to remove it?
With a developer's key (which you can get from the OLPC project) (it might even come with the laptops purchased trough the program) one can turn off virtually all security features, including the one you are referring to.
My understanding is that to get the key requires evidence that you obtained the laptop legitimately, and that the laptop has not been reported as stolen.
(It is not entirely clear if the key can unlock the laptop if it has been locked. But the key can definitely disable the anti-theft features.) Further the antitheft
feature would be disabled by default on the laptops purchased through this program. Turning it on would require the developer's key or the OLPC master key (if one exists).
Normally there would be a country key held by the Education Ministry that could also turn this feature on, but presumably there would be no such key installed on the laptops purchased through this program. Oh yeah, the developer's key is specific to the machine to which it was issued.
After all, the XO is designed to be hackable (unlike most hardware today, unfortunately).
Well not really. The XO is designed to be hacker resistant. The machine has a security system called bitfrost which is meant to prevent the machine from working if it is stolen, and to also prevent programs from obtaining certain combinations of rights, such as video camera & internet functionality at the same time. I suppose it would be possible to hack programs to work within that framework, but certainly not as easily as an Asus EEE PC for example where you can pretty much do anything you like.
Yes, but with a developers key virtually all of the bitfrost features can be disabled. Further all combinations of rights are possible, but an unsigned app wanting certain combinations requires manual user involvement. This can be a good thing if it is not too frequent. For example, if an internet application that had nothing to do with video requested video rights, users may become suspicious. However, they would not find it surprising that a videophone application wants to have camera rights, or that it wants internet rights.
The fact that the engines responded the same way, at the same time, strongly suggests a single point of failure in an electronic flight control system.
It is not nearly so simple. The design standards for transport category aircraft require that the engines and engine installations be designed so that single failures do not cause all engines to stop. For example, each engine would have its own separate Full Authority Digital Engine Control (somewhat like electronic fuel injection on your car), with each FADEC connected to separate sensors. A failure in one FADEC or one sensor would not affect both engines.
But both FADECs would consist of identical hardware and be running identical software correct? So despite the safety precautions, it is still theoretically possible that some command sent to them triggered the exact same bug in both, assuming an actual software or specification problem. (In systems like these a specification can be buggy) That would be one of my suspicions.
Let us assume that a computer is a 100% efficient space heater. There actually exists some electrical "heating" systems that are more than 100% efficient. Heat pump systems for example. Then realize that the cost in dollars of resistive heating is more expensive than other heating options such as natural gas.That is how the computers can be inefficient even if we consider them 100% efficient.
Unless someone's life is in IMMEDIATE danger, do not move them, especially if they are unconscious
This is contrary to my first aid training. The rule I learnt (and this was a first aid course taken less than a year ago) was that if you find someone unconscious, you put them in the recovery position if (or once) they're breathing. The risk of someone suffocating is greater than any potential damage you might do to them in moving them. You may well have learned that. In actuality, the rolling of a person into that position is designed to have the least possible risk of spinal cord injuries. The course did though tell you not to move (as in drag them around, lift them, etc) unless absolutely necessary. (They are in imminent danger, or there is absolutely no possibility of assistance arriving in a useful time frame (for example out hiking in the woods, cell phone cannot connect to 911, and going to find help would result in a high risk of losing the person in the woods.))
Not only are you wrong, but you're answer is dangerous.
I strongly believe that everyone should at least have a basic level of first aid training
And almost no one does. And what someone who either doesn't know what they are doing or did know and has forgotten would do more than likely will make the situation worse.
In the event of a car accident, the first thing the professionals do (and I am one, and you are not), is to stabalize the spinal cord. The first thing an untrained person would probably try to do is drag the person from the car, possibly killing them in the process.
The sad thing is that quite a few people with some training would do the same thing, because their training did not cover that. Indeed, the local American Red Cross CPR/First-Aid Instructor mentioned how there where some useful or important things she knew but was not allowed to tell us in the course because the American Red Cross forbids teaching certain things at the lower-level courses because they fear it may confuse the average person (average idiot).
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. But when I last looked, it used IMAP in a very strange way, that no mail client had good support for.
Here is a list that a client needs to be able to support for the best Gmail/IMAP experience:
At the moment, I am not aware of any IMAP client that can offer all that. Thunderbird didn't the last time I checked, and would require not only several completely new extensions, but some changes to the underlying source too. I would not be shocked if mutt could do all this, (obviously the scripting features would be needed), but even if it does, it would still require a fair amount of work. So at the moment no client is even close to ideal. I'm guessing Thunderbird will slowly gain many of the listed features, but it likely will never have them all.
The whole idea is that Python can add features to the language in __future__, that are available at least one version before they become the new default. A script can adopt a new feature ahead of time (e.g. "from __future__ import with_statement").
It wouldn't surprise me if Python 2.6 has __future__ entries for Python 3.0 capabilities. You are correct. Just about all of the useful new features in 3.0 that can reasonably be implemented with __future__ imports will be available in 2.6. This is intended to greatly assist the ease of transitioning to 3.0, which will takes years, but we already knew that.
Not to mention the automatic code translator that they intend to release with 2.0 which should be able to convert most code with little manual intervention (that is the goal anyway).
However, I'm okay with the idea of downloading the very same software (validation being one of the requirements for downloading).
I guess I feel that the "buy then validate" model is a cheat- If I bought it in a store, that should be proof enough. Whereas with downloading, they can do the validation/purchase at the same time.
No you are correct. Note that this whole kit is really a steam integration kit. So the primary purchase method will be online purchase. However, having a physical box sitting on the shelf at Walmart is still great for advertising, and even better for giving as a gift. What I find really weird, is that unlike with Valve's boxed games, the steamworks games will apparently not include the exe file on the CD. The CD will have all the resources, and everything, but the exe itself will need to be downloaded over Steam. The advantage (to the developer) is that the exe downloaded can be watermarked with the name and account information of the downloader, which makes distributing a no-steam crack for the game (which is necessary for widespread piracy) a risky proposition.
One of the ways they double-check the machine is by feeding through a random sampling of ballots and checking the totals on the sample.
Correction:
Obviously this does not eliminate problems occurring at other levels
Ballot switching/stuffing is still not resolved and can occur at a 'lower' level. Well then work at a lower level. Do the initial counts at the polling place. There is no reason for that not to be feasible. It should certainly not take more than a few hours at most average-sized polling places. Then the task is adding a column of numbers at each higher level (the sums get passed onto the next higher level). That is well known skill, and one that can eailly be checked by other concerned parties.
Indeed. But with a little common sense, and the willingness to devote an entire day to the issue (make election day a national holiday) then it seems entirely possible to have the system quite transparent. I never got any response to my last message about a highly sane voting system (at least prior to the centralized summing of the votes from the precints). I will post it again. If I could get any comments on it, I would appreciate it.
This will assume an electronic ballot making machine. Please note it is not a voting machine. It does not attempt to store any information, but merely prints out a ballot. The ballot it prints out will have 2 parts, a human readible portion, and a machine readable portion (using some form of bar code technology or something similar). If somehow the two portions do not agree, the human readable part will prevail. That is because the human readable portion is the part the voter most likely verified.
Now for the way the vote counting works, it works by machine tallying with human oversight. There is a projection screen showing a running tally of the votes. There is also a projector. Each ballot is place on the projector one at a time to allow the audience to see the human readable votes on it. Then the ballot's bar code is scanned, and the vote tallies on the screen update. The audience can thus easily verify that the changes to the running tally match the human readable votes on the ballot. (In a many issue ballot, not everybody would be able to track every issue, but as long as at least a few people from the audience track each issue, things should be fine). People would be watching to be sure that the tallies increase only by one with each vote, never change except when a vote is scanned, and no vote is ever scanned more than once. Lack of a vote on an issue can also be tallied to ensure the sum of the votes and lack of votes tallied is equal to the total number of ballots. The precinct's final certified counts for all the issues would be presented to the audience so they can verify that it does indeed match the final tallies. Then it can be sealed, and sent on. This system would make the entire process up to the precinct level completely transparent.
Obviously this does not eliminate problems occurring at higher levels, but it does seem to work very well for the rest of it. Also note that there is noting about this system that truly requires electronic devices. The ballots could be filled out by hand, and the ballot tally process could be done using a bunch of regular old mechanical counting devices, (the odometer like ones that increase each time the button is pushed). However, here the electronics would be not be black boxes at all. They would simply be helping to speed up the process some. In fact that is quite desirable at the vote counting portion, as the speed is fast enough so that the audience does not fall asleep, but slow enough that the audience an still verify that the tallying is still correct.
Looking forward to any critiques of this system.
So basically you want to have everything handed to you in the beginning? In KOTOR I spent the first quarter of the game without a lightsaber, not much fundamentally different other than in MMOs you can see those players who put forth the effort before you... sounds more like jealousy than the actual game. Rarely does it take months to get beyond the very beginning of the game, in fact the biggest problem with most MMOs is that once you get to the end (level cap), there isn't much to do.
I have tried some where the inflation is to the point that some of the basic equipment (intended to be gotten at the very beginning) really is far out of reach. The ability to get the funds necessary is a real challenge, unless you wish to put in additional real world money into the game by buying funds from other players in violation of the TOS.
But there are other problems with such games. If it is not possible to have a regular playing schedule much of the social aspects of those games can fall apart.
As for the nothing left to do part, the obvious thing is to stop playing. When there is nothing left to do in a non-online game, you arte finished, no more reason to play.
Indeed, I don't think most Windows users really understand that on a Mac most applications are in a bundle form making the entire application look and act like one giant file. So dragging the icon for that file actually removes the program. Indeed, the whole system is why there is nothing like a start menu in OS X. Common programs generally have shortcuts on the doc (which to windows users is a very unusual form of the taskbar), or shortcuts on the desktop. Otherwise users simply browse the /Applications folder for the program they want. (closest equivelent in older vesrions of windows is the "Program files" folder, although IIRC Vista now uses a "C:\Programs", or if you prefer more unixy paths, you can validly call it the "/Programs" folder.
- reasonable cost (that is to say far, far, far better than current wireless data rates, and if at all possible, costing not a cent more than current Cable/DSL offerings)
- high speed internet
- available wirelessly (so available even out in the middle of nowhere, where the only current highspeed internet options are satellite and cellular based, both of which cost way to much).
- with proper consumer-oriented regulation. (The services are not locked to the hardware device, so you could switch providers without buying a new device; a neutral network, the providers may not throttle or forbid any type of traffic; etc.)
Under such a system Google wins (it is in Google's interest for as many people to have affordable high speed internet as possible), and the consumers win. The primary losers would be the telcos. If the only way for this to happen is for Google to purchase some of the spectrum, and refuse to license it to telco companies that will not abide by the consumer-friendly regulations, then it may still be worth it. After all, as long as Google licenses the spectrum at a reasonable cost, this would be the perfect opportunity for smaller companies that could not enter the market because of the overhead of getting license to use a part of the spectrum (which would basically be the big telcos, who obviously have no interest in allowing new competition) would now have the opportunity to enter the wireless broadband market. In either case (phone companies play fair) or (smaller companies join with Google to enter the market) the consumer wins.The problem is, that would still require a review of every existing legacy site to see if it does in fact render correctly in FF and IE8, and if it doesn't to alter the HTML to either use a different doctype/mode or to update the HTML to be standards compliant. That represents a huge investment.
The alternative, to continue using the non-standards compliant engine by default, and to use an IE8 specific tag to force non-default behavior with existing doctypes guaranties that existing pages will render the same as they had before, but allows developers to go forward with a fully standards compliant rendering.
Going forward, as new standards are released and doctypes set, we can hope that MS will remain standards compliant and we won't have to use a non-compliant tag like this to get standard compliant behavior by default. But for the existing realm of doctypes, it makes more sense to not risk the possibility of anything breaking and to give developers a flag to force compliance.
-Rick
The correct thing for Microsoft to do is to just discontinue IE entirely. All new versions of Windows should ship with either Firefox or Opera. Why? Well virtually all of the web seems to work correctly for those browsers. As long as those browsers continue to support the latest standards correctly, and not care that a few sites depending on bugs break occasionally all will be well. I mean sure all those intranet sites would need to be fixed to be standards compliant, but this would pretty much be the last time. Eventually it will be possible for sites to drop IE support entirely. Then they only really need to code to standards, and in the rare case that one of the common browsers don't follow the standards, well that is not much of a problem. Wither the web developer can leave the site broken, and be done with it (the browsers will fix things over time), or just not use the broken feature, or if a different fully standards compliant method does not break any browsers, just use that instead.
I mean since I use Firefox, as long as Firefox follows the standards quite well (as it generally does), and displays only semi-complaint pages reasonably (as it generally does) then all is well.
There's an operating system which actually has drivers for more devices than Windows (since there are some devices which are supported only in older versions of Windows and some devices which are only supported in newer versions of Windows), and it's not generally noted for its instability. The big difference is that unlike Windows, which is renowned for incomplete and occasionally downright wrong API documentation, this operating system has the most complete and correct API documentation it's possible to provide.
It'd be more correct to say that the single largest cause of instability in the Windows operating system is the unavailability of Source Code to device driver developers. My point was that device drivers, specifically faulty and poorly written device drivers are the problem on windows. Obviously device drivers can be done well. Linux shows this fairly well. However, that does not change the fact that the reason why device drivers are so often faulty under windows is not just the bad API documentation or the lack of source code for the Windows kernel. Indeed some companies have access to the source code for the windows kernel. (Any sufficiently large company can get access to most of Windows source code if they are willing to pay, and have a semi-legitimate reason for wanting it. (Device drivers is a good of a reason as any)). The real reason is that the windows device drivers are often thrown together in a hurry, and lack of sufficient internal comments and proper coding standards makes it all to easy for really nasty bugs to crop up. In a kernel mode driver, nasty bugs are a big problem. The code of many windows drivers is in such a state that the code would never get checked into the Linux kernel. If a company tried to get similar quality code into the Linux kernel, somebody would work with them to clean it up. But no such cleanup ever happens on many Windows drivers. I'm quite sure the same would be true of many kernel mode drivers written for the Mac too. The big advantage of drivers for Linux is not that the kernel source is available, but for the vast vast majority of supported devices the source code for the drivers are available. The few Linux drivers that are basically binary blobs (that are not just device firmware) that are available for Linux are actually by the companies that tend to do a better job with drivers all around.
You can argue till your blue in the face that they need to do this, doesn't change what they are doing. If it wasn't DRM'd, it'd run fine on any hardware that met its technical requirements. Well while it would run, it would not be as stable as a Mac. It might also not be as fast (on equivalent hardware). Believe it or not, but the single largest cause of instability in the Windows operating system is device drivers. Further, the major range of different internal hardware makes optimizing the performance of the system quite difficult. Since Apple computers have a much smaller assortment of possible internal hardware needing kernel mode drivers, it is quite possible for Apple to verify that they do not cause problems with each other, and are reasonably well written. Further, it is easier to optimize the system for the specific hardware.
They are planning on dropping this. What they will recommend dumb WYSIWYG ediotrs to use is unclear, but it may just be simple style attributes containing inline CSS. (That is certainly better than the font tag).
How long that takes, noone really knows. More importantly, how easy will this be to use and how useful will the semantic bindings be?
Finally, anyone know if HTML5 mandates any specific version of EMCA/Java-Script? That part seemed vague to me. No, a user agent need not support scripting at all. If it does support an ECMAScript-based scripting language then it would likely be using the third edition or later, as the specification includes an exception system, and try catch blocks were not introduced until the third edition. However, that is no guarantee that that version will be used, as older versions with support for exception added would work as well.
Am I paranoid or gullible or does this worrying piece of software exist on the unit? Is anyone working on a patch to remove it?
With a developer's key (which you can get from the OLPC project) (it might even come with the laptops purchased trough the program) one can turn off virtually all security features, including the one you are referring to. My understanding is that to get the key requires evidence that you obtained the laptop legitimately, and that the laptop has not been reported as stolen. (It is not entirely clear if the key can unlock the laptop if it has been locked. But the key can definitely disable the anti-theft features.) Further the antitheft feature would be disabled by default on the laptops purchased through this program. Turning it on would require the developer's key or the OLPC master key (if one exists). Normally there would be a country key held by the Education Ministry that could also turn this feature on, but presumably there would be no such key installed on the laptops purchased through this program. Oh yeah, the developer's key is specific to the machine to which it was issued.Well not really. The XO is designed to be hacker resistant. The machine has a security system called bitfrost which is meant to prevent the machine from working if it is stolen, and to also prevent programs from obtaining certain combinations of rights, such as video camera & internet functionality at the same time. I suppose it would be possible to hack programs to work within that framework, but certainly not as easily as an Asus EEE PC for example where you can pretty much do anything you like.
Yes, but with a developers key virtually all of the bitfrost features can be disabled. Further all combinations of rights are possible, but an unsigned app wanting certain combinations requires manual user involvement. This can be a good thing if it is not too frequent. For example, if an internet application that had nothing to do with video requested video rights, users may become suspicious. However, they would not find it surprising that a videophone application wants to have camera rights, or that it wants internet rights.It is not nearly so simple. The design standards for transport category aircraft require that the engines and engine installations be designed so that single failures do not cause all engines to stop. For example, each engine would have its own separate Full Authority Digital Engine Control (somewhat like electronic fuel injection on your car), with each FADEC connected to separate sensors. A failure in one FADEC or one sensor would not affect both engines.
But both FADECs would consist of identical hardware and be running identical software correct? So despite the safety precautions, it is still theoretically possible that some command sent to them triggered the exact same bug in both, assuming an actual software or specification problem. (In systems like these a specification can be buggy) That would be one of my suspicions.Let us assume that a computer is a 100% efficient space heater. There actually exists some electrical "heating" systems that are more than 100% efficient. Heat pump systems for example. Then realize that the cost in dollars of resistive heating is more expensive than other heating options such as natural gas.That is how the computers can be inefficient even if we consider them 100% efficient.
This is contrary to my first aid training. The rule I learnt (and this was a first aid course taken less than a year ago) was that if you find someone unconscious, you put them in the recovery position if (or once) they're breathing. The risk of someone suffocating is greater than any potential damage you might do to them in moving them.
You may well have learned that. In actuality, the rolling of a person into that position is designed to have the least possible risk of spinal cord injuries. The course did though tell you not to move (as in drag them around, lift them, etc) unless absolutely necessary. (They are in imminent danger, or there is absolutely no possibility of assistance arriving in a useful time frame (for example out hiking in the woods, cell phone cannot connect to 911, and going to find help would result in a high risk of losing the person in the woods.))
I strongly believe that everyone should at least have a basic level of first aid training
And almost no one does. And what someone who either doesn't know what they are doing or did know and has forgotten would do more than likely will make the situation worse.
In the event of a car accident, the first thing the professionals do (and I am one, and you are not), is to stabalize the spinal cord. The first thing an untrained person would probably try to do is drag the person from the car, possibly killing them in the process.
The sad thing is that quite a few people with some training would do the same thing, because their training did not cover that. Indeed, the local American Red Cross CPR/First-Aid Instructor mentioned how there where some useful or important things she knew but was not allowed to tell us in the course because the American Red Cross forbids teaching certain things at the lower-level courses because they fear it may confuse the average person (average idiot).