What is "CPE" in this context? It's probably not "Common Platform Enumeration" (my top results for "cpe linux") or "Customer-Premises Equipment." ("cpe networking")
> CPE generally refers to devices such as telephones, routers, network switches, residential gateways (RG), set-top boxes, fixed mobile convergence products, home networking adapters and Internet access gateways that enable consumers to access providers' communication services and distribute them in a residence or enterprise with a local area network (LAN).
I think a CPE could (be/include) a router, but usually it refers to the demarc between the provider's network and the customer's (no matter who owns/manages it).
For a Linux box to be a true CPE you'd likely need somewhat of a specialized card, one that can communicate directly to the next device up the line (e.g, take commercial fiber or cable in, ISDN modem, etc).
If it just shoots out ethernet into some other box next to it, it's likely not a CPE.
Plenty of isps that provide internet over regular ethernet. But it's a ye olde telecom provider term that referred to the phone, that you also didnt own yourself. Doesn't always apply cleanly these days.
Usually it's "something else" that turns into RJ45 (as ethernet has a maximum length) - now if you're in a datacenter you likely can get raw RJ45 Internet).
> CPE generally refers to devices such as telephones, routers, network switches, residential gateways (RG), set-top boxes, fixed mobile convergence products, home networking adapters and Internet access gateways that enable consumers to access providers' communication services
From my understanding any type of device that is used to extend or facilitate provider services is a CPE. So a router just acting as an extender would still be a cpe, as would a modem, as would anything that is on the customer side and facilitates provider services. Only situation a router wouldn't be a cpe is if it was just for a local lan network.
More than that. He was one of the primary external developers back when OpenOffce was at Sun. He was responsible for the go-oo fork due to Sun restrictions and slowness, and was one of (if not the) main reason LibreOffice became its own thing after Sun started sinking.
> It doesn't seem to have a goal or any mechanics --they're just playing dolls on a screen, which is cool but with so little interactivity i think i'd rather they just play with dolls
> Animal crossing has very recently started to take over as "favorite video game", and at least there's a game there...
A large part of the problem here is that folks believe that "game" necessarily implies goals and mechanics.
> 1. a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other
vs
> 2. activity engaged in for diversion or amusement
Lots of folks see it as definition 1 (cooperative is still a contest against some non-player), whereas your girls seem to be operating under definition 2.
The equivalent to your statement from the other side of the fence would be women that deride male competition.
At the end of the day, we likes what we likes. Doing fun things is the fullest definition of a game. So the application of the priciple looks different depending on what the people enjoy.
I touched on it in my way-too-long post elsewhere on here, but I think this is exactly it: there's a (fuzzy at some boundary, sure, but useful) distinction to be drawn on something like where the game happens. Does "the game" (the software) supply most or all of "the game"? Or is "the game" (the software) a toy in service of a game that the player brings and gives shape?
Both types of software plausibly "are video games" but can take extremely different forms, and their appeal may diverge wildly—someone who likes one to an extreme, may have zero interest in the other. Others may like both sorts of play, but not regard them as interchangeable (i.e. if what you're wanting at the moment is an e-sport, a visual novel may not be any amount of a satisfactory substitute, even if you like visual novels).
We tend to draw a "toy/game" distinction (with games perhaps being a subset of "toys", but still its own sub-category, anyway) with physical objects to divide those with built-in goals from those without, and that seems to serve us well, but we've not translated that to the digital realm very well (and maybe we shouldn't, I dunno)
Red teaming, yes. But also, what other signals of fraud are we able to detect? What measures of validity (or signals that sending was attempted) are there? How are they distinguishable from honest voter errors?
It's going to be difficult with our current policies because we've erred on the side of making it as easy as possible for everyone to vote. We don't have a complete whitelist of citizens, it's against the law to require proof of citizenship to register to vote (unless that changed recently) and address verification in most jurisdictions isn't done more than the first time unless it's challenged.
To be clear, though, I don't think non-citizens are voting en-masse. My concern is that if you aren't even verifying they're citizens, you probably aren't really verifying that they are a real and unique person that isn't already registered.
Honestly I think if we actually wanted secure elections, we'd start with the red teaming and go from there. The signal to noise ratio of fraud is too meaningless to resolve without tightening up rules, which the results of the red teaming would give you the political capital to do.
Looks like those were in states that don't require ANY ID to vote, which I find ridiculous, so I guess we agree. I live in VA, we require ID, so the problem shown in NY shouldn't be possible.
And again, you still have to be willing to commit a felony to move the needly by ONE vote, which is not likely to be very common. The risk/reward simply isn't there.
reply