Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not a Bug (Score 1) 225

by tedshultz (#29030209) Attached to: Voting Machine Attacks Proven To Be Practical
When I first saw this, my first reaction was "Wow, maybe a good programmer could fix the horrendous interface used now". This voting machine http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=25628 was changing votes by poor design, not malice (I hope...). It wouldn't take much for a decent programmer to fix it up a bit. Maybe the open source voting machine that everyone wants is already here!

Comment: Re:Fast walk? (not run?) (Score 1) 216

by tedshultz (#28912213) Attached to: Toyota Reveals A Humanoid Robot That Can Run
I did read that, and watched the clip. Clearly both feet aren't off the ground for ~1/3 of the time, so the article text is suspect to me. I agree that both white feet are off the ground at 52-53, and no significant load is on either foot at this point. What I am referring to is that it looks like there is an additional part below the foot (perhaps some black shock absorbing/traction material) that remains in contact longer on the back foot, and makes contact sooner on the front foot, with the back foot making full separation after the front foot makes initial contact. This could also easily be a video artifact, shadow, compression error, etc. Either way, if I was the engineer that pulled this off, I would have no hesitations calling it a run, and perhaps my last post was a bit nit-picky (and maybe not justified).

Comment: Fast walk? (not run?) (Score 4, Informative) 216

by tedshultz (#28912051) Attached to: Toyota Reveals A Humanoid Robot That Can Run
It looks to me like their is something below the foot that makes contact before the white part of the foot makes contact. From the high speed camera, it looks like this make contact on the front foot before the back foot leaves the ground. I thought to be running, both feet need to be in the air at once. Otherwise you were walking. Maybe I am just seeing the video wrong? Regardless, it looks very impressive.

Comment: Re:The US needs a modern system (Score 1) 217

by tedshultz (#27542117) Attached to: Voting Machines and 'Calibration Drift'

you'd have to miss by an awful lot (meaning ~40% of the entire screen

I just used the ES&S automark last week (A slightly different machine from the same company). The tolerance of where you need to press is less than the width of my finger. I took a video of this to prove it. http://shultzonline.com/vote/ In the video there are only two candidates, yet they are still right next to each other, and in the video you can clearly see the calibration is off enough to incorrectly select the wrong candidate. You cannot argue that this interface is unacceptable.

Comment: Re:Calibrate Per Use? (Score 4, Informative) 217

by tedshultz (#27542051) Attached to: Voting Machines and 'Calibration Drift'
The calibration was so far off when I voted this week (on an ES&S automark), that I talked the election official about the calibration. More or less it is done the same way you used to with the palm pilot (touch 4 corners). The problem is that there is also some parallax issues as the screen is about 45 degrees off vertical. The result is the calibration can be a little off. A little off is fine and normal if the interface is good, but on the automark machines, they put the candidates names right next to each other so even a small error in calibration will result in the wrong candidate being selected. I took a video of my self voting, (it's here: http://shultzonline.com/vote/ ). in the video is is clear that not the person I am pressing is selected, and that a candidate only 5mm away is selected.

Comment: Re:Calibrate Per Use? (Score 0, Redundant) 217

by tedshultz (#27542007) Attached to: Voting Machines and 'Calibration Drift'
This is also how it work for me. I always use the automark machine because I am interested in it. Last week when I did use it, the calibration was so far off that pressing one candidate would select a different one. I was so surprised I took a video of the process. It is online here http://shultzonline.com/vote/ The idea behind the automark is to help people who have a hard time voting with paper and pencil. These are the exact same people who would have a hard time telling that the wrong person was chosen. I don't worry about intentional vote rigging, as it is easy to detect a problem for most people when the ballot is printed, but I still expect that every vote should count properly.

Comment: Re:Calibrate Per Use? (Score 2, Interesting) 217

by tedshultz (#27541985) Attached to: Voting Machines and 'Calibration Drift'
I used the ES&S automark this past week. The calibration was so far off that I got the vote flipping talked about. I was so alarmed that I took a video with my cell phone. You can see it here. http://shultzonline.com/vote/ I was so upset that I talked to the election officials, and went to the clerks office a few days latter. More or less I found out that all these machines are pieces of crap. A simple solution would have been to add a little space between the names (like they do on ATM machines) so that a small miss calibration would not have been such a serious deal.
Security

Calif. Politican Thinks Blurred Online Maps Would Deter Terrorists 597

Posted by timothy
from the fuzzy-logic-feels-warm-and-soft dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "California Assemblyman Joel Anderson plans to introduce a bill to force Google Earth and similar services to blur images of so-called 'soft targets' like schools, hospitals, churches and government buildings to protect them from terrorists. 'All I'm trying to do is stop terrorists,' said Anderson. 'I don't want California to be helping map out future targets for terrorists.' Concerns that detailed satellite imagery and photographs available on Web services could help terrorists plan attacks are not new, with reports that terrorists have used such imagery to carry out attacks in Iraq and Israel, and an Indian court is considering a ban on Google Earth following reports that its imagery played a part in the Mumbai terrorist attacks."

Comment: Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score 1) 507

by tedshultz (#23675179) Attached to: How To Spot E-Vote Tampering?
My town works similar to the grandparents (you mark a paper ballot that is automatically read by a machine). If you have a disability they have a few booths that help you mark your ballot (it has a machine that reads your choices (into headphone), magnifies the ballot and prints it out for you. I always use the automatic booth because it also checks you ballot for mistakes (warns you if you over or under vote).
Power

+ - Implications of Peak Oil for Atmo CO2 and Climate

Submitted by
Prof. Goose
Prof. Goose writes "James Hansen is a physicist, adjunct professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University and director: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science. Outside the scientific community Hansen is probably best known for accusing the Bush administration of trying to silence him after he gave a lecture in December 2005 calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

In this paper Hansen and Kharecha consider "realistic" (they use EIA data) reserves for oil and gas and conclude that due to approaching peaks it is feasible to keep atmospheric CO2 from exceeding approximately 450ppm as long as coal and unconventional fossil fuels are used responsibly. This article is a discussion of their findings.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2559"
User Journal

Journal: [retrocomputing] Surface mount devices

Journal by Alioth

SMD doesn't seem like a term that goes together with 'retrocomputing'. But I finished the hardware for my Spectrum add-on board today, which included three surface mount (SOT-23 packaged) transistors.

Music

+ - New Royalty Rates Could Kill Internet Radio

Submitted by FlatCatInASlatVat
FlatCatInASlatVat (828700) writes "Kurt Hanson's Radio Internet Newsletter has an analysis of the new royalty rates for Internet Radio announced by the US Copyright Office. The decision is likely to put most internet radio stations out of business by making the cost of broadcasting much higher than revenues. From the article: "The Copyright Royalty Board is rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA)...[The] math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues." Clear Channel, in the meantime, pays nothing. So long Radio Paradise, and all the other wonderful internet stations."

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...