Listen to https://www.npr.org/sections/m.... Basically conservatives fight the idea of taxes being easy to do. They want to make sure that you don't like anything about government.
Here's a problem we're having in the US. A Policy Proposer will propose a policy idea which will then be rebutted by a Trump Supporter. And then Trump Supporter ends up resolving their own problem with the policy, but not realizing that they did. They do so because they had a rebuttal to every point the Policy Proposer made, so they think that they won the debate. The Trump Supporters act like the other side is trying to get the US to be a socialist state regardless of the details, they just want the label to be socialist. The Policy Proposers care less about the label and more about the details.
PP: We should do X.
TS: But that's Socialism! You'll ruin us like Venezuela.
PP: Venezuela doesn't really do X, but the Scandinavian countries do and we can see that it works for them.
TS: But those countries aren't Socialist. See, what a bad idea you have. Check mate, I won.
It's not parents who say that. Anyone who has raised kids dies not want to suffer the pain of getting kids on a new wake schedule before they're ready for it.
The problem was that politicians couldn't help but play politics with it. Some states were going years without Senators because minority parties in some states weren't allowing votes to happen. If it could be arranged such that the vote happened on a normal ballot, on election day, and not during a state legislative session, I could see it possibly working then.
I'm sure that the Republican Senator loves Presidential Emergency powers, and wouldn't mind at all if his bill is overridden by Presidential Emergency powers.
If a human is sending something to me, or my team, it lands in my inbox and I read it. Anything from a bit goes into that bots folder.
So I read hundreds of messages a day. It keeps me on top of things.
Something I hate the most is talking to someone about a thred and they ask "what folder is it in?" Your Inbox, it should be in your inbox.
In On the Wealth of Nations Adam Smith said that educated labor should cost be payable within 5 years. That way fields which make lots of money will be more expensive than those fields that don't. The price of tuition would be set by what the median graduate (of the past 5 years) is making.
When you self proclaim to be virtuous (ie open source is more cirtuous than proprietary) you will eventually attract people who consider themselves to be virtuous. This is a consequence of that.
I believe what happens is that it will un-blur objects which are supposed to be blurry, which then flattens the picture. Slightly blurred items in the background are now fully in focus as if they were in the foreground.
While I like the idea of forcing certain biometric data to have some modicum of security, I have to wonder about this. The only thing I use my fingerprint for right now is to log into my work laptop. So if someone sold my fingerprints on the black market I don't think that there's anything that a nefarious actor to do with them, without also physically getting a hold of my work laptop. As far as I know they're not used to take out credit, make purchases, sign legal contracts, create obligations, or anything like that.
It isn't a situation that is made better by more use of computers, whereas it is a situation made better by more use of manual counting.
But every voter having a wallet for their precinct, is a way for every voter to be part of manual counting. Not just those who manually do the counting and then report in the tallies, and hope that the person they're talking to writes the tallies down correctly.
The point is that with pretty much any system that relies on computers to tally the votes, the results can not be independently verified end-to-end by laymen.
Wouldn't making to blockchain make it more verifiable? Even if I wanted to count ballots, I can't single handedly count every one in every state. The vast majority of people aren't doing anything to verify that the ballots were tallied correctly. But if everyone had a snapshot of the blockchain wallet at the time of the vote, and that verified with the current state of the blockchain, the layman could use their own device to verify that the vote is being properly tallied.
What is blockchain useful for? Verifying that the log history hasn't been altered with. Voting is the one scenario where what you're worried about is a bad actor mis-tallying the votes; ie, modifying the "history" of the votes. With blockchain, when you vote a majority of the other voters have to sign off on what you voted for. Then, your client keeps an offline copy. Each voter can then check that against their voting wallet to see what the result of the election is. If a bad actor somehow pulls off a 51% attack, the history will no longer match lots of voters offline snapshot of the state of the chain after they voted. It would be super easy to catch.
For example, foreign governments could hack into the computer systems that governments use to generate and distribute cryptographic credentials to voters.
What stops them from breaking into the computer system that distributes voter registration information to mess with who votes where?
They could bribe election officials to supply them with copies of voters' credentials.
Pretty sure bribery is an issue with all forms of voting that's not blockchain. Because with the blockchain 51% of the voters have their wallets to see what the results should be.
They could hack into the PCs or smartphones voters use to cast their votes.
And yet we somehow do online banking and online shopping. While they're at it, they could hack into the PC's tallying the paper ballots. Significantly smaller target than 51% of the voters.
They could send voters phishing emails to trick them into revealing their voting credentials
They could confuse voters by having them send in paper ballots to the wrong place.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen to https://www.npr.org/sections/m.... Basically conservatives fight the idea of taxes being easy to do. They want to make sure that you don't like anything about government.
Doesn't Skype meet those requirements?
Anything that discourages GIF infused Meme's should be celebrated.
So was all that old stuff hosted on one server?
Trust me, none of those countries are socialist.
Here's a problem we're having in the US. A Policy Proposer will propose a policy idea which will then be rebutted by a Trump Supporter. And then Trump Supporter ends up resolving their own problem with the policy, but not realizing that they did. They do so because they had a rebuttal to every point the Policy Proposer made, so they think that they won the debate. The Trump Supporters act like the other side is trying to get the US to be a socialist state regardless of the details, they just want the label to be socialist. The Policy Proposers care less about the label and more about the details.
PP: We should do X.
TS: But that's Socialism! You'll ruin us like Venezuela.
PP: Venezuela doesn't really do X, but the Scandinavian countries do and we can see that it works for them.
TS: But those countries aren't Socialist. See, what a bad idea you have. Check mate, I won.
It's not parents who say that. Anyone who has raised kids dies not want to suffer the pain of getting kids on a new wake schedule before they're ready for it.
I think they had it right the first time around.
The problem was that politicians couldn't help but play politics with it. Some states were going years without Senators because minority parties in some states weren't allowing votes to happen. If it could be arranged such that the vote happened on a normal ballot, on election day, and not during a state legislative session, I could see it possibly working then.
I'm sure that the Republican Senator loves Presidential Emergency powers, and wouldn't mind at all if his bill is overridden by Presidential Emergency powers.
If a human is sending something to me, or my team, it lands in my inbox and I read it. Anything from a bit goes into that bots folder. So I read hundreds of messages a day. It keeps me on top of things. Something I hate the most is talking to someone about a thred and they ask "what folder is it in?" Your Inbox, it should be in your inbox.
Wouldn't that create a caste system?
Only if you can't get loans.
In On the Wealth of Nations Adam Smith said that educated labor should cost be payable within 5 years. That way fields which make lots of money will be more expensive than those fields that don't. The price of tuition would be set by what the median graduate (of the past 5 years) is making.
It's a theater, and someone is playing their part very well, to shift the blame in that way.
Yeah, it's really sad how many people who can claim to be adults are falling for it.
When you self proclaim to be virtuous (ie open source is more cirtuous than proprietary) you will eventually attract people who consider themselves to be virtuous. This is a consequence of that.
That's like being in high school, and writing a letter saying that you have your parents permission to not need your parents permission for things.
I believe what happens is that it will un-blur objects which are supposed to be blurry, which then flattens the picture. Slightly blurred items in the background are now fully in focus as if they were in the foreground.
Wait, is the definition of dystopian here that others can know when someone is being honest or not?
Can they ban breast feeding and after birth photos too? Leave those to sites dedicated to them.
While I like the idea of forcing certain biometric data to have some modicum of security, I have to wonder about this. The only thing I use my fingerprint for right now is to log into my work laptop. So if someone sold my fingerprints on the black market I don't think that there's anything that a nefarious actor to do with them, without also physically getting a hold of my work laptop. As far as I know they're not used to take out credit, make purchases, sign legal contracts, create obligations, or anything like that.
It isn't a situation that is made better by more use of computers, whereas it is a situation made better by more use of manual counting.
But every voter having a wallet for their precinct, is a way for every voter to be part of manual counting. Not just those who manually do the counting and then report in the tallies, and hope that the person they're talking to writes the tallies down correctly.
The point is that with pretty much any system that relies on computers to tally the votes, the results can not be independently verified end-to-end by laymen.
Wouldn't making to blockchain make it more verifiable? Even if I wanted to count ballots, I can't single handedly count every one in every state. The vast majority of people aren't doing anything to verify that the ballots were tallied correctly. But if everyone had a snapshot of the blockchain wallet at the time of the vote, and that verified with the current state of the blockchain, the layman could use their own device to verify that the vote is being properly tallied.
If I can verify my vote, someone can peel my skin with a carrot peeler until I verify it.
So you let someone verify your vote, and then go and inform the F.B.I.
Ideally, you would keep the requirement of showing up at the polls.
Why? You register to vote without showing up somewhere.
What is blockchain useful for? Verifying that the log history hasn't been altered with. Voting is the one scenario where what you're worried about is a bad actor mis-tallying the votes; ie, modifying the "history" of the votes. With blockchain, when you vote a majority of the other voters have to sign off on what you voted for. Then, your client keeps an offline copy. Each voter can then check that against their voting wallet to see what the result of the election is. If a bad actor somehow pulls off a 51% attack, the history will no longer match lots of voters offline snapshot of the state of the chain after they voted. It would be super easy to catch.
For example, foreign governments could hack into the computer systems that governments use to generate and distribute cryptographic credentials to voters.
What stops them from breaking into the computer system that distributes voter registration information to mess with who votes where?
They could bribe election officials to supply them with copies of voters' credentials.
Pretty sure bribery is an issue with all forms of voting that's not blockchain. Because with the blockchain 51% of the voters have their wallets to see what the results should be.
They could hack into the PCs or smartphones voters use to cast their votes.
And yet we somehow do online banking and online shopping. While they're at it, they could hack into the PC's tallying the paper ballots. Significantly smaller target than 51% of the voters.
They could send voters phishing emails to trick them into revealing their voting credentials
They could confuse voters by having them send in paper ballots to the wrong place.
Perfection can't be the enemy of the better.
Does Google have any servers in New Zealand? If not I'm surprised they find the latency acceptable.
Given how lots of kids games and shows have educational elements, the kids are getting more advanced and ready for school work at younger ages.