en de pool is wel ontwaakt uit een coma
maar zij lijkt erin gevallen
safe sex or safe scanning ?
Google books are great but you can be very happy when you find some books that are scanned without bad scanning. What is the use of beginning to read a book if halfway you can't read some pages or there are some parts of your page that aren't readable ?
There are two solutions for this. One a quick quality control. Open the document and have a quick look to find the most obvious or give the community of users the chance for a feedback and correct the bad ones. In the second case you will only have to correct the pages that are really asked for.
someone even left a fingerprint....
or is it commercial and do they really want you to buy the stuff because the free stuff is only half readable ?
Dit is op zijn minst het gerucht dat de ronde doet na het vertrek van een aantal personen. Het gebrek aan visie en initiatief doet zich hier al enkele maanden voelen, uitgezonderd een prutske hier en daar.
Er is een geweldig groot gat in safari voor windows. Safari is de Macintosh Apple software ipv Internet Explorer. Het spul is nog geen dag uit of er is al een zero day exploit uit waar nog virus en hackcode moet voor gemaakt worden. Maar in tegenstelling tot het veilige imago van Apple - het is van Apple dus het zal wel veilig zijn zeker - werd de bug die de browser doet met een fuzzer (zoek fouten in software) na 3 minuten ontdekt.
Heeft niemand bij Apple gehoord van preventive testing en zelf eens een fuzzer door hun nieuwe applicatie geduwd ipv hem direct op het net te gooien.
Als het zo doorgaat heeft Apple binnenkort ook een maandelijkse security update nodig en een update server en een controle of al je apple software wel uptodate is en een security center en een security policy en..... mistrust.
Bij De Standaard moeten ze leren Googlen en blogs lezen ipv alles gewoon over te schrijven
PS dit geldt ook voor De Morgen.
Omerta of luiheid ?
Web2.0 and the investment stupidity around it has many programmers thinking that whatever they have or can, they should put it on the web and maybe someone with more money than intelligence will eventually buy it and they will be rich for the rest of their days. What they do forget is that it are users that are driving investors, not technology. Of course you can be bought when it seems that your technology is better than the ones the buyers have and because this seems cheaper than rewriting all their code themselves or taking a license but that is not the primary goal in web2.0 creaziness.
And when you look a bit under the roof of these projects and sites (beta or not) you will find that the number of users is quite small, sometimes even ridiculuous. And even if there are thousands of them, than you see that most new users are test testing it out and leaving it, maybe because it is not yet integrated into bigger applications, networks or platforms.
The most astonishing thing is that they are investing probably most of the money in technology and that promotion and cooperation between projects is not that important. Which is stupid because the most important thing is to stand above the crowd. And even if your technology or platform is not the best, it should be the most used because that is the only thing that matters. Afterwards you can hire away the developers from those that have better code but no traffic. Promotion specialists have a future.
Counting paper ballots can be a daunting task if one doesn't follow some simple rules.
* follow strictly the rules that are set out by the local controllers (in our case the judiciary) and do not think that because you did it this way last time that it will be exactly the same this time.
Note : It would be better to organize a training day for the presidents of the counting groups. If the President knows more or less how to do it, fine but some newbies had a hard time listening to advice and were holding their counters ('volunteers') hostage.
* have at least a presence of informed supervisors present in the places where the major counting is done so questions can be asked directly without going to the courthouse each time.
Having some counters which have done it before at each table or at a later hour to help counting commissions that are drawing in chaos present or stand-by.
* some counting tricks for the next time
count all the papers in the box/sack to control if the numbers on the box/sack correspond
open all the papers and organise them for each party
when you count put them in packages of 10
have a global look at each paper to control if it is really correct
do not let the same people recount the same packages
do not change papers from package without clearly first changing the numbers and totals (you will find mistakes throughout the recountings)
Am I for computerized voting ?
Yes and No. If we use computers, we should have a printout paper proof aside from it and afterwards we should compare the two results at random.
That is the way things are going in the US, the country with the highest number of elections and the longest history of using voting technology. This is based upon a long experience.
In elections (and democracy) you'd better be correct than sorry.