10 years, HAH. The tax giveaways to corporations are so extreme that in order to keep under the 1 trillion dollar/10-year limit, the personal tax cuts expire after only 5 years.
I notice your criteria would allow for Donald Trump, but not Bill Gates; Hillary Clinton, but not Ghandi; George W. Bush, but not Obama (assuming the "earned income" level is set where I'm guessing you'll set it). I'm not 100% sure your system works well.
As I pointed out in the other spot you mentioned scantegrity, the same problems that allow for verification allow anyone who has access to the physical ballots (e.g. recounters, government) to be able to ask you in a verifiable way who you voted for. The secret ballot is too valuable to give up for the microscopic possibility that the scanners cheat and yet it can be detected.
It's in China. They'll handle false positives by executing all the matching faces. After all, 100 innocents dying to get rid of one counter-revolutionary is a cheap price to pay. They have plenty of people.
Unless it's a high muckity muck or their kid. Then they are obviously innocent (unless a higher muckity muck decides against it) and are free to go. Of course the other matches will get shot.
Your contention is, there are a number of people out there who will (in a verifiable way, since they have to produce a serial number indicating they went to the polls), show up and vote for money. But then will vote for the wrong person because they really care about the outcome?
I'm not sure what you'd be actually worried about.
I'm pretty clearly stating the second. However, Uber's insurance doesn't cover you driving to get a far. I'm stating that it must and it doesn't. That's the problem.
In fact, ANY candidate who gets fewer votes than "None of the Above" would be banned from running for any office ever again.
That seems silly. Imagine if, e.g. Gary Johnson decided Trump was unacceptable based on the Access Hollywood tape. It being too late to withdraw from the ballot, he urges his supports to vote for Hillary instead of him. He would be punished in that case.
Why is the origin of the question be identifiable a desirable goal? I can think of a lot of questions (e.g. "how will you protect whistleblowers in XYZ industry") where anonymity is vital.
But I have to give you credit for being the first person not to just dick around with voting methods and tabulation to actually make the results better.
You mean impossible to prove to a third party how you voted.... except for the fact that every ballot has a unique serial number. And you have to know that unique serial number to check the system. Someone with access to all the ballots (either in series or in a lump at the end) who had enough power to get you to divulge your serial could easily look up how you voted (think about Putin's representatives asking for your serial.) It's not like you could make one up that (a) voted the right way and (b) you could guess.
Further, all that proves is that the serial number creation process wasn't hacked. The tabulation totally could have been.
The first step is more expensive than all the others combined. I'm not going to pay for delivery pizza to avoid driving to the store and cooking. I will pay for delivery to avoid leaving the house.
That seems so obvious to me, I'm not sure how else to respond. I'm either going out or not.
I'm not for putting off science. I am for having it run by scientists, sponsored by the government, who only care about not-fucking-this-up. Responsive to the public, public and thorough debate over what choices we make, etc. I am not for a for-profit company making those decisions on behalf of all of us.
I might understand that case before your first fare. However, driving between fares is a clear part of your job. I'm still at my job while on a coffee break, for instance. And I think the insurance company lawyers are well versed enough in the laws to not pay.
I'd like to think that a species-level decision like this wasn't made by a random billionaire. We need to ensure that we don't contaminate our ability to learn (esp. since ancient extinct/hibernating life may be present, probably mono-cellular).
They're only charged if they want to trade those bitcoin in for things from society. If they kept them in bitcoin, they'd be fine. So, you know, printing dollars is kind of a service.
Slashdot Mirror
10 years, HAH. The tax giveaways to corporations are so extreme that in order to keep under the 1 trillion dollar/10-year limit, the personal tax cuts expire after only 5 years.
It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that Microsoft and Facebook were founded by college students living on daddy's dime.
Indeed, and by taxing trust-fund babies to provide welfare services, we incentivize them to work instead of living off inherited wealth.
I notice your criteria would allow for Donald Trump, but not Bill Gates; Hillary Clinton, but not Ghandi; George W. Bush, but not Obama (assuming the "earned income" level is set where I'm guessing you'll set it). I'm not 100% sure your system works well.
As I pointed out in the other spot you mentioned scantegrity, the same problems that allow for verification allow anyone who has access to the physical ballots (e.g. recounters, government) to be able to ask you in a verifiable way who you voted for. The secret ballot is too valuable to give up for the microscopic possibility that the scanners cheat and yet it can be detected.
It's probably only 20 years until non-SDC are illegal. "For safety of course". And motorcycles will also be illegal.
It's in China. They'll handle false positives by executing all the matching faces. After all, 100 innocents dying to get rid of one counter-revolutionary is a cheap price to pay. They have plenty of people.
Unless it's a high muckity muck or their kid. Then they are obviously innocent (unless a higher muckity muck decides against it) and are free to go. Of course the other matches will get shot.
Your contention is, there are a number of people out there who will (in a verifiable way, since they have to produce a serial number indicating they went to the polls), show up and vote for money. But then will vote for the wrong person because they really care about the outcome?
I'm not sure what you'd be actually worried about.
No candidate is against free speech. However, their definition of free speech may be very different from yours.
Veryfew issues (and none you listed) are binary.
Why go out of our way to have special "early voting" results if they are not official?
I'm pretty clearly stating the second. However, Uber's insurance doesn't cover you driving to get a far. I'm stating that it must and it doesn't. That's the problem.
That seems silly. Imagine if, e.g. Gary Johnson decided Trump was unacceptable based on the Access Hollywood tape. It being too late to withdraw from the ballot, he urges his supports to vote for Hillary instead of him. He would be punished in that case.
Why is the origin of the question be identifiable a desirable goal? I can think of a lot of questions (e.g. "how will you protect whistleblowers in XYZ industry") where anonymity is vital.
But I have to give you credit for being the first person not to just dick around with voting methods and tabulation to actually make the results better.
Is this a unified national photo ID card you're advocating for?
You mean impossible to prove to a third party how you voted.... except for the fact that every ballot has a unique serial number. And you have to know that unique serial number to check the system. Someone with access to all the ballots (either in series or in a lump at the end) who had enough power to get you to divulge your serial could easily look up how you voted (think about Putin's representatives asking for your serial.) It's not like you could make one up that (a) voted the right way and (b) you could guess.
Further, all that proves is that the serial number creation process wasn't hacked. The tabulation totally could have been.
The first step is more expensive than all the others combined. I'm not going to pay for delivery pizza to avoid driving to the store and cooking. I will pay for delivery to avoid leaving the house.
That seems so obvious to me, I'm not sure how else to respond. I'm either going out or not.
If I have to get dressed, go outside (in the rain) to get a pizza, why bother ordering it in the first place ?
I'm not for putting off science. I am for having it run by scientists, sponsored by the government, who only care about not-fucking-this-up. Responsive to the public, public and thorough debate over what choices we make, etc. I am not for a for-profit company making those decisions on behalf of all of us.
Happy to have that conversation if you want, but you either need to prove first you're a responsive AC or post with a handle.
I might understand that case before your first fare. However, driving between fares is a clear part of your job. I'm still at my job while on a coffee break, for instance. And I think the insurance company lawyers are well versed enough in the laws to not pay.
I'd like to think that a species-level decision like this wasn't made by a random billionaire. We need to ensure that we don't contaminate our ability to learn (esp. since ancient extinct/hibernating life may be present, probably mono-cellular).
He also announced his support for the program 10 minutes after he expressed pushback.
They're only charged if they want to trade those bitcoin in for things from society. If they kept them in bitcoin, they'd be fine. So, you know, printing dollars is kind of a service.
Whereever the line is drawn, there will be neighbors in different districts. That's how lines work.
Or Austin, Tx. Which is divided, pielike, into five sections that extend quite a bit into the rural areas.