But how can you remotely check those times? The differences between cards are probably minute, so you have to find a way to measure them, while having nothing but a general PC to do it with AND on top of that the PC can lie to you.
But the 'unknown' function has to be sent to the GPU. So the person trying to impersonate can just read it from the data send to him, then impersonate the GPU. And the number of functions that can be used will have to be limited - since the 'correct' results will have to be kept in a database somewhere. So the hacker just has to have access to the original computer at one time, run all of the possible functions on it and store the results.
But isn't it unfair to draw districts for some minorities and not for others? Imagine your scenario, but include that a bit more then half of each neighborhood is white and a bit less then half is black. You can draw the borders to either unify the neighborhoods, or unify the races. Which do you choose? In each case one minority will be left without a voice - either minority defined by race or occupation/education.
Why not have the states (or federal government) issue the IDs for free? The expense will either be minimal or will even reduce costs (no need for voter registration before elections - fewer employees needed)
So what makes that minority's candidate different from all the other candidates that don't win? Every viewpoint that is not one of the 1 or 2 most popular ones suffers underr-epresentation.
So why stop at minorities? Create districts where only the educated, green party, libertarians, sharia supporters,....
Once you start rigging districts to give minorities a unified vote, you suddenly have a whole pile of minorities that don't get the same treatment and are discriminated against.
But the problem is that currency can be produced for close to zero cost. And the exchange rate for goods can change at any time. And that exchange rate is based on belief. If enough people loose 'belief' in a currency, then the prices they charge will skyrocket. So the amount your money can buy will drop like a stone. And there is nothing that you are guaranteed to be able to buy at a certain price, except perhaps the metal in coins.
But they do invest in production - the farmer is paid in advance, and he can use some of that money to finance the harvest (or even the entire growing, if the futures are bought soon enough).
In a way it's ANTI-gambling. Instead of trusting to chance to make money, you reduce the effect of chance. You agree to reduce your potential winnings by X, but taking them 100% certain (you either win or insurance pays out).
Yes, futures are a form of insurance for the farmers. But there is a way bigger market in futures then there are products, since the people who bought the futures in the first place then trade them. And THAT part is pure gambling.
The sad thing is that those policies will never be enacted, since some of the money gained by reducing worker pay goes to 'supporting' politicians that will block any laws that would implement them.
Well the problem is that a single CEO (or even a small group of CEOs) can't create enough jobs to create a middle class. And if their competition is underpaying their workers then they can afford to slash prices for a while, and run the 'insightful' CEOs out of business. So what you'd need is a whole generation(s) of CEOs willing to put the good of the country ahead of their own (and their stockholders) pockets.
Look again at who ends up with all the money. Sure the bureaucrats get more then most workers - they get a middle class salary. The workers who are supposed to get the same don't, since the executives and owners keep all the profit for themselves - and the laws support this - often the middle class will be in the highest tax bracket along with the people earning millions.
So there are two basic solutions: either lower the public employee salaries, then watch what demand there is left in the marketplace drop like a stone OR start taxing the rich at higher lvls again (I think France is about to do this).
Talking about how the rich are the people who create jobs is strange, since they don't seem to be investing much of their money at the moment. And why is that? Simply said, there is not enough buying power in the population to afford many (domestic) products or luxuries. When people are barely surviving they will of course opt for buying cheap Chinese crap instead of a slightly more expensive local product. And the rich simply can't replace the demand of a healthy middle class, no matter how much money you give them. No person can use more then a few thousand new dresses/suits/cars per year.
I was commenting on the grandparent's comment that strict testing should be abolished. Yes, there has to be some protection for the person/company that develops the drug. But on the other hand that protection is often abused. And ending testing would just lead to a lot of dead (or worse) customers.
When was the last time a small inventor won a patent suit? Protection means absolutely nothing without the horde of lawyers you need to actually enforce a patent.
So why not extend this to all creative works? Every new work should be submitted to congress for approval before it can be published. After all it might upset someone or compete with the works already available on the market!
Is it compassion to force someone that wants to die to live? Let's look at the person who committed suicide here - he was probably going to prison, and knowing US prisons death might have been a less cruel alternative. So why not let him die on his own terms?
The contents of the movie drew attention, Then people investigated who made it, and it turned out that he did, under an alias - a violation of his parole. So yes, the arrest happened only because of the contents of his movie, although he wasn't arrested FOR the contents of his movie - they were just the trigger that lead to his parole violation being made known.
Slashdot Mirror
But how can you remotely check those times? The differences between cards are probably minute, so you have to find a way to measure them, while having nothing but a general PC to do it with AND on top of that the PC can lie to you.
But the 'unknown' function has to be sent to the GPU. So the person trying to impersonate can just read it from the data send to him, then impersonate the GPU. And the number of functions that can be used will have to be limited - since the 'correct' results will have to be kept in a database somewhere. So the hacker just has to have access to the original computer at one time, run all of the possible functions on it and store the results.
But isn't it unfair to draw districts for some minorities and not for others? Imagine your scenario, but include that a bit more then half of each neighborhood is white and a bit less then half is black. You can draw the borders to either unify the neighborhoods, or unify the races. Which do you choose? In each case one minority will be left without a voice - either minority defined by race or occupation/education.
Replace the dinosaur with underground cannibalistic piranhas and it was already made.
Why not have the states (or federal government) issue the IDs for free? The expense will either be minimal or will even reduce costs (no need for voter registration before elections - fewer employees needed)
So what makes that minority's candidate different from all the other candidates that don't win? Every viewpoint that is not one of the 1 or 2 most popular ones suffers underr-epresentation.
So why stop at minorities? Create districts where only the educated, green party, libertarians, sharia supporters,....
Once you start rigging districts to give minorities a unified vote, you suddenly have a whole pile of minorities that don't get the same treatment and are discriminated against.
But the problem is that currency can be produced for close to zero cost. And the exchange rate for goods can change at any time. And that exchange rate is based on belief. If enough people loose 'belief' in a currency, then the prices they charge will skyrocket. So the amount your money can buy will drop like a stone. And there is nothing that you are guaranteed to be able to buy at a certain price, except perhaps the metal in coins.
No need for airstrikes, just topple their government.
But they do invest in production - the farmer is paid in advance, and he can use some of that money to finance the harvest (or even the entire growing, if the futures are bought soon enough).
That part of the futures market is a basic business transaction. The part that is gambling is when that same future is resold a dozen times.
In a way it's ANTI-gambling. Instead of trusting to chance to make money, you reduce the effect of chance. You agree to reduce your potential winnings by X, but taking them 100% certain (you either win or insurance pays out).
Yes, futures are a form of insurance for the farmers. But there is a way bigger market in futures then there are products, since the people who bought the futures in the first place then trade them. And THAT part is pure gambling.
The sad thing is that those policies will never be enacted, since some of the money gained by reducing worker pay goes to 'supporting' politicians that will block any laws that would implement them.
Well the problem is that a single CEO (or even a small group of CEOs) can't create enough jobs to create a middle class. And if their competition is underpaying their workers then they can afford to slash prices for a while, and run the 'insightful' CEOs out of business. So what you'd need is a whole generation(s) of CEOs willing to put the good of the country ahead of their own (and their stockholders) pockets.
Look again at who ends up with all the money. Sure the bureaucrats get more then most workers - they get a middle class salary. The workers who are supposed to get the same don't, since the executives and owners keep all the profit for themselves - and the laws support this - often the middle class will be in the highest tax bracket along with the people earning millions.
So there are two basic solutions: either lower the public employee salaries, then watch what demand there is left in the marketplace drop like a stone OR start taxing the rich at higher lvls again (I think France is about to do this).
Talking about how the rich are the people who create jobs is strange, since they don't seem to be investing much of their money at the moment. And why is that? Simply said, there is not enough buying power in the population to afford many (domestic) products or luxuries. When people are barely surviving they will of course opt for buying cheap Chinese crap instead of a slightly more expensive local product. And the rich simply can't replace the demand of a healthy middle class, no matter how much money you give them. No person can use more then a few thousand new dresses/suits/cars per year.
I was commenting on the grandparent's comment that strict testing should be abolished. Yes, there has to be some protection for the person/company that develops the drug. But on the other hand that protection is often abused.
And ending testing would just lead to a lot of dead (or worse) customers.
Ok, but to offset the danger to the public, also make the pharma executives personally responsible for the effects of their products.
When was the last time a small inventor won a patent suit? Protection means absolutely nothing without the horde of lawyers you need to actually enforce a patent.
So why not extend this to all creative works? Every new work should be submitted to congress for approval before it can be published. After all it might upset someone or compete with the works already available on the market!
Is it compassion to force someone that wants to die to live? Let's look at the person who committed suicide here - he was probably going to prison, and knowing US prisons death might have been a less cruel alternative. So why not let him die on his own terms?
So let's say the muslims start rioting whenever a person converts from islam. Does that make it illegal to convert? After all, it would cause a riot.
The contents of the movie drew attention, Then people investigated who made it, and it turned out that he did, under an alias - a violation of his parole. So yes, the arrest happened only because of the contents of his movie, although he wasn't arrested FOR the contents of his movie - they were just the trigger that lead to his parole violation being made known.
In a way making the film WAS the illegal thing he did, since he made it under an alias, thereby violating his parole.
My guess is he was asked something along the lines of :
Have you violated your parole lately? Say by using an alias?