The chairman of the state GOP that had just gotten Diebold voting machines selected to count the votes. I'll agree it's not proof. But it's stronger evidence than anything I've seen that indicate they are honest.
And for your second thought, you're right. True certainty doesn't exist in this universe. But that doesn't mean you can't do your best. The programmers writing the checksumming program probably have neither knowledge nor desire to corrupt it, and don't know where it's going to be used. And if it's open source it *can* be validated. People make mistakes, and sometimes lots of people make the same mistake, but it's a better chance than any alternative I've heard.
You seem to think that only human equivalent general AI is actual AI. Samuel Gompers checkers program was AI. Lots of things don't require, or even benefit from, general AI.
I'll agree that general AI is probably over a decade away, but you shouldn't underestimate the results of the ramping up.
I'm sorry, but to convince me of their integrity it is not sufficient to show that there is no proof that they are corrupt.
FWIW, I still remember the President(?) of Diebold Systems promising to deliver the vote to the Republican candidate as they rolled out their voting machines. It's going to take a lot of very convincing evidence to get me to believe that the machines aren't designed to be corrupt.
Now, to be fair, I believe that the Diebold machines will return the vote in favor of whoever controls them, and that the Diebold company is not that controller. But this is based around plausibility rather than convincing evidence of public statements.
I am totally in favor of the suggestion offered previously of requiring that the code be open, the official binaries signed and checksummed, and the code actually tested that it matches the checksums. But paper ballots probably provide greater security with less chance for confusion. More care, however, needs to go into the ballot numbering system so that they can be traced back to the entity that printed them.
The problem is that, bad as Google sometimes is, the government has many instances of being a lot worse. Google doesn't kill innocent people. Google doesn't lock innocent people up. Etc.
In a way it's like the difference between civil and criminal law. Criminal law rightly has a lot higher requirements and standards of proof.
Now I say this as someone who attempts to keep from being tracked by Google. I don't like them accumulating information about me, or other people. But they will only result in more spam.
If I read the summary correctly, that's not amount removed per year, that's total amount removed. The CO2 reacts with the material to form a new material. The polystyrene beads can hopefully be recycled. The resultant material one might call ash or precipitate (I'm not clear on the reaction process) is not reusable in the reaction. The initial ingredients are consumed by the reaction, and the polystyrene beads are a catalyst (and hopefully reusable).
So it's vitally important that the consumed ingredients be cheap and available without producing more CO2. This, however, seems unlikely as they state that the reaction would happen more slowly without their intervention. This sounds more useful on submarines than as a geo-forming tool.
What *I* wonder about is the production of the raw materials that they use to consume the CO2. It the stuff will normally form automatically (even if slowly), then the base material can't exist exposed to air, so they need to do *something* to make it available.
What are the external costs? I really doubt that it's as smooth and simple as the article would lead you to believe.
I call it "Inverse Spectre" because that's the name it was given when I read about it. Think of it as a name rather than a description. ("Spectre" is very good as a description anyway.) The first time I read about Spectre it was divided into three sub-classes. This is an new sub-class with a new name. I don't know why they named this variant "Inverse", but then I don't know why they named the entire group "Spectre", though I guess it's partially because they use British spelling.
That's true with Meltdown, and with one or two of the Spectre attacks, but I think some of them are shared equally with all extant CPUs that do speculative execution. Of course, those are a bit more difficult to use. And Inverse Spectre seems to have a very low speed of penetration.
There has never been, and will never be, a pure Capitalist country (larger than Luxemborg...it could possibly work on a small enough scale, at least for awhile). There are multiple reasons, but here's two: 1) It's an incomplete specification for a society. You *must* have other elements. 2) It doesn't include any mechanism to prevent accumulation of power into small groups that will then act to prevent potential competitors. Which transitions into a Monarcy or Oligarchy.
I think what's going on is that young people are more energetic in striving for their goals, and older people tend to be more accepting or resigned.
In *EVERY* hierarchical system, more people are on the bottom than are at any higher level. Often than are at all higher levels combined. This is part of the nature of hierarchy. Look at a balanced tree, and count the nodes at each level (with the root node placed at the top). If you have a branching rate of greater than 2, this becomes much more extreme (but you have fewer different levels).
It is interesting. They tend to have a higher suicide rate and a lower murder rate. That's not the only variable between countries, however, so one can't really say that Socialism causes suicide where Capitalism causes murder, but it sort of looks that way. Then there's Japan which has a higher suicide rate and a lower murder rate and is quite capitalist. But there are too many variables to justify any conclusion. One argument has to do with the kind of direction of aggression encouraged by the society, with some societies encouraging inner directed aggression. *Maybe* that's more significant than the economic system along this axis.
That said, the justification for the bullet train is extremely poor. Think of it as welfare for construction companies and it will seem more reasonable...and that's (sort of) what most of California "socialism" is.
The train companies don't want to carry passengers, even where it's a bit profitable, because of the additional costs and regulations that are involved. But they're the ones that own the rails, so passenger trains aren't encouraged. They shoved those off to a separate company (AmTrak) without surrendering the right of ways that they acquired from the government for the purpose of passenger and mail transport.
Socialism has it's problems, but governmental backed capitalism is much worse. (The damn thing doesn't even have a name. And nobody would be daft enough to support an honest description of it. It's Mussolini's fascism without the justification and reasonableness.)
It won't be even a small scale precedent (legally) unless it reached the appellate level, and there's little chance of that happening here.
I just note that Bethesda is another company I don't want to do business with, and move on. Of course, I didn't know who they were until I read the article, as the games I play are a couple of decades old. (I don't accept abusive EULAs.)
To be fair, many smaller sites just can't afford a lawyer to tell them that what they're doing already is legal. You shouldn't assume that they're actually doing something vile, when it's plausible that they just don't know what the law means.
I didn't say all the articles were wrong, I said they weren't reliable. Some of the actually seem correct, and about a large number I have no real opinion. But that's a bit different from thinking them reliable. Reliable means I would trust them without referring to external sources to verify them.
Slashdot Mirror
The chairman of the state GOP that had just gotten Diebold voting machines selected to count the votes. I'll agree it's not proof. But it's stronger evidence than anything I've seen that indicate they are honest.
And for your second thought, you're right. True certainty doesn't exist in this universe. But that doesn't mean you can't do your best. The programmers writing the checksumming program probably have neither knowledge nor desire to corrupt it, and don't know where it's going to be used. And if it's open source it *can* be validated. People make mistakes, and sometimes lots of people make the same mistake, but it's a better chance than any alternative I've heard.
You seem to think that only human equivalent general AI is actual AI. Samuel Gompers checkers program was AI. Lots of things don't require, or even benefit from, general AI.
I'll agree that general AI is probably over a decade away, but you shouldn't underestimate the results of the ramping up.
I'm sorry, but to convince me of their integrity it is not sufficient to show that there is no proof that they are corrupt.
FWIW, I still remember the President(?) of Diebold Systems promising to deliver the vote to the Republican candidate as they rolled out their voting machines. It's going to take a lot of very convincing evidence to get me to believe that the machines aren't designed to be corrupt.
Now, to be fair, I believe that the Diebold machines will return the vote in favor of whoever controls them, and that the Diebold company is not that controller. But this is based around plausibility rather than convincing evidence of public statements.
I am totally in favor of the suggestion offered previously of requiring that the code be open, the official binaries signed and checksummed, and the code actually tested that it matches the checksums. But paper ballots probably provide greater security with less chance for confusion. More care, however, needs to go into the ballot numbering system so that they can be traced back to the entity that printed them.
The problem is that, bad as Google sometimes is, the government has many instances of being a lot worse. Google doesn't kill innocent people. Google doesn't lock innocent people up. Etc.
In a way it's like the difference between civil and criminal law. Criminal law rightly has a lot higher requirements and standards of proof.
Now I say this as someone who attempts to keep from being tracked by Google. I don't like them accumulating information about me, or other people. But they will only result in more spam.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree. One being a problem doesn't make the other less of a problem, but rather more of a problem.
I don't like intrusive trackers, and avoid them to the extent possible. But their existence makes overreaching warrants worse.
If I read the summary correctly, that's not amount removed per year, that's total amount removed. The CO2 reacts with the material to form a new material. The polystyrene beads can hopefully be recycled. The resultant material one might call ash or precipitate (I'm not clear on the reaction process) is not reusable in the reaction. The initial ingredients are consumed by the reaction, and the polystyrene beads are a catalyst (and hopefully reusable).
So it's vitally important that the consumed ingredients be cheap and available without producing more CO2. This, however, seems unlikely as they state that the reaction would happen more slowly without their intervention. This sounds more useful on submarines than as a geo-forming tool.
What *I* wonder about is the production of the raw materials that they use to consume the CO2. It the stuff will normally form automatically (even if slowly), then the base material can't exist exposed to air, so they need to do *something* to make it available.
What are the external costs? I really doubt that it's as smooth and simple as the article would lead you to believe.
I call it "Inverse Spectre" because that's the name it was given when I read about it. Think of it as a name rather than a description. ("Spectre" is very good as a description anyway.) The first time I read about Spectre it was divided into three sub-classes. This is an new sub-class with a new name. I don't know why they named this variant "Inverse", but then I don't know why they named the entire group "Spectre", though I guess it's partially because they use British spelling.
Yes, but you're ignoring all the small pieces that break near the site of the main break (and fall into the boiling water).
That's true with Meltdown, and with one or two of the Spectre attacks, but I think some of them are shared equally with all extant CPUs that do speculative execution. Of course, those are a bit more difficult to use. And Inverse Spectre seems to have a very low speed of penetration.
Nonsense. All they need to do is ensure that all stories in the press blame all CPU chips equally, even when that isn't true.
Yeah, but that's just the ones who both noticed and reported it.
There has never been, and will never be, a pure Capitalist country (larger than Luxemborg...it could possibly work on a small enough scale, at least for awhile). There are multiple reasons, but here's two:
1) It's an incomplete specification for a society. You *must* have other elements.
2) It doesn't include any mechanism to prevent accumulation of power into small groups that will then act to prevent potential competitors. Which transitions into a Monarcy or Oligarchy.
That means that they aren't syndicalist and the aren't communist, not that they aren't socialist.
And neither syndicalism nor communism scale at all well, so you won't find a large version of either existing.
Well, worshiping Adam Smith is also wrong, but he was sure better than those who claim to follow him.
That's not the entire story. Part of it has to do with perceived chance for upwards mobility.
I think what's going on is that young people are more energetic in striving for their goals, and older people tend to be more accepting or resigned.
In *EVERY* hierarchical system, more people are on the bottom than are at any higher level. Often than are at all higher levels combined. This is part of the nature of hierarchy. Look at a balanced tree, and count the nodes at each level (with the root node placed at the top). If you have a branching rate of greater than 2, this becomes much more extreme (but you have fewer different levels).
It is interesting. They tend to have a higher suicide rate and a lower murder rate. That's not the only variable between countries, however, so one can't really say that Socialism causes suicide where Capitalism causes murder, but it sort of looks that way. Then there's Japan which has a higher suicide rate and a lower murder rate and is quite capitalist. But there are too many variables to justify any conclusion. One argument has to do with the kind of direction of aggression encouraged by the society, with some societies encouraging inner directed aggression. *Maybe* that's more significant than the economic system along this axis.
That said, the justification for the bullet train is extremely poor. Think of it as welfare for construction companies and it will seem more reasonable...and that's (sort of) what most of California "socialism" is.
The train companies don't want to carry passengers, even where it's a bit profitable, because of the additional costs and regulations that are involved. But they're the ones that own the rails, so passenger trains aren't encouraged. They shoved those off to a separate company (AmTrak) without surrendering the right of ways that they acquired from the government for the purpose of passenger and mail transport.
Socialism has it's problems, but governmental backed capitalism is much worse. (The damn thing doesn't even have a name. And nobody would be daft enough to support an honest description of it. It's Mussolini's fascism without the justification and reasonableness.)
It won't be even a small scale precedent (legally) unless it reached the appellate level, and there's little chance of that happening here.
I just note that Bethesda is another company I don't want to do business with, and move on. Of course, I didn't know who they were until I read the article, as the games I play are a couple of decades old. (I don't accept abusive EULAs.)
This depends on your definition of "forced". Have you gone to see a doctor recently? Visited an emergency room? Opened a bank account?
To be fair, many smaller sites just can't afford a lawyer to tell them that what they're doing already is legal. You shouldn't assume that they're actually doing something vile, when it's plausible that they just don't know what the law means.
In the case it's not the politicians, but the web sites that are violating your privacy.
That said, most of the sites I visit posted notices saying they weren't doing anything in violation. Like Slashdot did.
I didn't say all the articles were wrong, I said they weren't reliable. Some of the actually seem correct, and about a large number I have no real opinion. But that's a bit different from thinking them reliable. Reliable means I would trust them without referring to external sources to verify them.
Well, it may not necessarily be safer, but I believe that at least it blocks attacks depending on Javascript.