That's why a fraudster could simply swap ballot boxes before the counting began. Or stuff ballots. Or... Well, you get the idea.
Issue (randomly, to prevent identification) numbered ballots to the voters. Any numbers left over at the end of the day are copied down and invalidated. If these ballot numbers turn up in the result, Something Is Wrong.
Voters pick one of N boxes to put their ballots. If the same number appears in two different boxes, Something Is Wrong.
If after counting all the votes, not all of the numbers are accounted for, Something Is Wrong.
This will identify any cases of ballot-stuffing, box swapping and "misplaced" boxes. Got any more problems that need solving?
Since generally speaking, health care in the U.S. is better (there's just less access to it for many)
Let's step back from insurance a second and think about the real problem. With a car analogy!
In the fictional country of Foozbekistan, people are calling for the nation to buy cars for everyone because nobody can afford a car. Lots of people argue that it's not the government's job to buy everyone cars even if everybody needs a car in order to survive, and lots of other people argue that it's the government's job to make sure that the public can survive so the government should buy cars.
Not one single person asks why the only cars for sale are Rolls Royces.
So, back to healthcare. There is an enormous gap between charity clinics and paying top rates for "the best". The problem isn't that "there's just less access to it for many", it's that there's a large gap where there is no access to it, except for the legal requirement that hospitals accept uninsured patients into the ER. Of course, the situation is actually starting to improve, for instance if you've got a basic sniffle or redeye, several chains of drugstores are now hosting Nurse Practitioners (for instance, Take Care Health Systems at Walgreens in a few select cities) where you can get simple stuff fixed up quickly for under $100, but it's still a long way from something like competitively-priced healthcare in general.
They're too busy voting for/against abortion, for/against guns, and for/against the republicans to worry about whether they're voting for/against America.
Wire-tapping is only anti-business if the wire-tappers let the information get out.
Unless the underpaid FBI agent who spent the wiretap money on ale and whores and desperately needs to pay the bill before his boss gets a nastygram from AT&T decides that he can turn a quick buck selling the information to a corporation, in which case it's pro-(that)-business.
That would imply that the suspect has some rights and that the government doesn't strip the accused of every right they have as soon as the finger has been pointed. Don't know how Australia does it, but in the US, look at everyone who gets their gear seized either in a raid or crossing a border. Also look up "civil forfeiture" which gives the government the right to steal your property for its own profit without a crime having occurred.
than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup
Trust me, that one could actually become fairly important, depending on how large the image could be. I've got scripts that produce reports where right now it takes several seconds of database grinding just to give me the table of data and then several seconds again when the browser hits the script in the <img> tag to get the graph, if I could calculate the table once and produce the graph at the same time and insert the graph into the HTML itself, it reduces the wait time to get the report.
I'm not sure that can work, after all the other cars who DO have a "EZ-Jolt" tag would like to get the electricity they're paying for even when they're driving alongside a car who isn't paying.
You seem to be a real smart sorta feller, so why don't you inform us ignorant types about how we should be ensuring the safety of our airlines?
Pass a law to ban the use of metal in shoes and belt buckles, then we can all go through the metal detectors without them setting it off unless there really was a knife or gun in there. This suggestion is no worse than the FBI insisting that the world should change just so they can play in easy mode.
No bigger, much bigger. something that no one has every heard of. Something that sounds like nothing ever heard of, but has a distinctive ring. As if all our lives we were waiting in anticipation for this new term to bring unity to the concept.
That you have to tell the government when you move
Find me a government that doesn't want to know where you live.
Oh sure, in the US you don't, assuming that you don't drive, don't have a government ID, don't vote, are unemployed (and not receiving benefits), don't own a house, and are not a male between the ages of 18 and 26.
But, they cut a deal with the DoJ that said they only had to release so much information
To the DoJ, that is. I doubt that it counts as a "release" of information if their new "privacy counsel" gets her hands on it.
Of course, and this is the tinfoil hat talking here, what if this new "senior privacy counsel" just so happens to moonlight at the DoJ (or is it the other way around? And just so happens to let slip some of that information as a bit of gossip at the DoJ water cooler?
Even from TFS I can see that the patent in question relates to cards redeemable against a specific item, rather than against credit which can be used to purchase various items.
When I was a kid, I would get McDonald's gift certificate books fairly regularly for my birthday (yeah, yeah, I'm still burning off that fat). Sold at the McDonald's register, rather than being valued at a particular dollar amount and good for anything, each page was good for, say, a free ice cream cone. http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2005/september13/ (scroll down to the vibrating bunny girl, I'm not the only person with this particular delusion)
This patent is made of fail and "on the Internet!"
If you ran a taxi service and someone wanted 20 people to be taken from A to B, you wouldn't just charge them for 1 car's worth of people, you'd charge then for however many cars it took.
Judging from their reports, Comcast would just charge them one car's worth, and then drop everyone off in the worst part of town.
If you need more bandwidth, what's wrong with the ISPs expecting you to pay more than someone who uses less?
Everyone has some service level X now. Reducing the level of service leads to a reduction in the perceived value of that service. That perception leads to the expectation that the cost of the service should decrease. While I lack psychic powers, I (and probably everyone else) expect that the people who are already paying more than the grannies to get the "ultimate" speed package are going to have to shell out more.
One of the first things that you learn in (any serious) customer service is how to "manage expectations". It's also one of the first things that companies utterly fail to do, leading to them wandering around in a stupor wondering why everyone is so upset. The only way out for ISPs was to not have played the unreasonable promises game in the first place.
These two are likely true for every kind of whole-drive encryption, unless the encrypted drive is unmounted every time you walk away. As for 1), it's true if you lock the console and walk away from the computer, which quite a lot of people do.
Best workaround would be for A) operating systems to support fixing keys in a single spot in memory and B) drive encryption systems to automatically unmount and scramble the key (in the same place its always been, rather than wherever the OS felt it should be copied to on write) after X minutes of inactivity (prompting the user for the key again when they want to use it again).
Once companies discovers they have to fire the vast majority of their employees because there just aren't as many cookiecutter droids as HR had hoped, and society collapses.
How important is "that important"? As the marginal cost of wiretapping decreases towards zero, I think you'll find that more and more people are going to be "that important".
if we have a right to privacy, as you assert, then WHY is there widespread wiretapping, sneak-and-peeks, secret courts, DMCA takedowns and so on?
The fact that the government ignores these rights doesn't mean you don't have them, it just means the government is infringing on them while making it harder and harder for you to enforce your rights.
If you bothered to read his post instead of spewing inane invective, you'd see that by advertising the contention rate, you'd have enough information to be able to subscribe to an ISP where you don't have to put up with "bandwidth hogs".
Funny, though, if you're not using the bandwidth, then I don't see where it hurts for someone else to be using the bandwidth, and frankly neither does the ISP, since that's how they justify over-subscription in the first place.
Well hopefully, they'll say "if you come out and say that you throttle after X gb transferred or throttle throughput at Y mbps, or throttle protocol Z, then we'll allow it." It'll put an end to "unlimited" bandwidth, secret caps, and so on, and force the companies to actually participate in a market without fraud, which is probably the best we can realistically hope for.
Most likely they'll say "LOL sounds like a FTC issue to us, I don't think we have the right to do anything, take your complaint to..." and then give you directions to the wrong place in true bureaucratic style.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why a fraudster could simply swap ballot boxes before the counting began. Or stuff ballots. Or... Well, you get the idea.
Issue (randomly, to prevent identification) numbered ballots to the voters. Any numbers left over at the end of the day are copied down and invalidated. If these ballot numbers turn up in the result, Something Is Wrong.
Voters pick one of N boxes to put their ballots. If the same number appears in two different boxes, Something Is Wrong.
If after counting all the votes, not all of the numbers are accounted for, Something Is Wrong.
This will identify any cases of ballot-stuffing, box swapping and "misplaced" boxes. Got any more problems that need solving?
Since generally speaking, health care in the U.S. is better (there's just less access to it for many)
Let's step back from insurance a second and think about the real problem. With a car analogy!
In the fictional country of Foozbekistan, people are calling for the nation to buy cars for everyone because nobody can afford a car. Lots of people argue that it's not the government's job to buy everyone cars even if everybody needs a car in order to survive, and lots of other people argue that it's the government's job to make sure that the public can survive so the government should buy cars.
Not one single person asks why the only cars for sale are Rolls Royces.
So, back to healthcare. There is an enormous gap between charity clinics and paying top rates for "the best". The problem isn't that "there's just less access to it for many", it's that there's a large gap where there is no access to it, except for the legal requirement that hospitals accept uninsured patients into the ER. Of course, the situation is actually starting to improve, for instance if you've got a basic sniffle or redeye, several chains of drugstores are now hosting Nurse Practitioners (for instance, Take Care Health Systems at Walgreens in a few select cities) where you can get simple stuff fixed up quickly for under $100, but it's still a long way from something like competitively-priced healthcare in general.
it would show up in the election results
They're too busy voting for/against abortion, for/against guns, and for/against the republicans to worry about whether they're voting for/against America.
Far better to adopt VW's approach: make an entertaining advert and stick it on youtube in its own right.
But will a volkswagon bug blend?
let me play snake on my microwave that I *OWN*!
Nobody's stopping you from trying, and that's the point.
Wire-tapping is only anti-business if the wire-tappers let the information get out.
Unless the underpaid FBI agent who spent the wiretap money on ale and whores and desperately needs to pay the bill before his boss gets a nastygram from AT&T decides that he can turn a quick buck selling the information to a corporation, in which case it's pro-(that)-business.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=479626&cid=22676772
I am in ur site, hax0ring ur posts.
That would imply that the suspect has some rights and that the government doesn't strip the accused of every right they have as soon as the finger has been pointed. Don't know how Australia does it, but in the US, look at everyone who gets their gear seized either in a raid or crossing a border. Also look up "civil forfeiture" which gives the government the right to steal your property for its own profit without a crime having occurred.
than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup
Trust me, that one could actually become fairly important, depending on how large the image could be. I've got scripts that produce reports where right now it takes several seconds of database grinding just to give me the table of data and then several seconds again when the browser hits the script in the <img> tag to get the graph, if I could calculate the table once and produce the graph at the same time and insert the graph into the HTML itself, it reduces the wait time to get the report.
No identifier, no juice
I'm not sure that can work, after all the other cars who DO have a "EZ-Jolt" tag would like to get the electricity they're paying for even when they're driving alongside a car who isn't paying.
Standard procedure is to put new cases onto refurbished hardware
That must be why car repairs are so expensive, every time they change the oil they have to replace the whole body of the car!
it can just as easily be bad.
The devil you know, is still the devil.
You seem to be a real smart sorta feller, so why don't you inform us ignorant types about how we should be ensuring the safety of our airlines?
Pass a law to ban the use of metal in shoes and belt buckles, then we can all go through the metal detectors without them setting it off unless there really was a knife or gun in there. This suggestion is no worse than the FBI insisting that the world should change just so they can play in easy mode.
No bigger, much bigger. something that no one has every heard of. Something that sounds like nothing ever heard of, but has a distinctive ring. As if all our lives we were waiting in anticipation for this new term to bring unity to the concept.
So... Web 2000?
That you have to tell the government when you move
Find me a government that doesn't want to know where you live.
Oh sure, in the US you don't, assuming that you don't drive, don't have a government ID, don't vote, are unemployed (and not receiving benefits), don't own a house, and are not a male between the ages of 18 and 26.
But, they cut a deal with the DoJ that said they only had to release so much information
To the DoJ, that is. I doubt that it counts as a "release" of information if their new "privacy counsel" gets her hands on it.
Of course, and this is the tinfoil hat talking here, what if this new "senior privacy counsel" just so happens to moonlight at the DoJ (or is it the other way around? And just so happens to let slip some of that information as a bit of gossip at the DoJ water cooler?
Even from TFS I can see that the patent in question relates to cards redeemable against a specific item, rather than against credit which can be used to purchase various items.
When I was a kid, I would get McDonald's gift certificate books fairly regularly for my birthday (yeah, yeah, I'm still burning off that fat). Sold at the McDonald's register, rather than being valued at a particular dollar amount and good for anything, each page was good for, say, a free ice cream cone. http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2005/september13/ (scroll down to the vibrating bunny girl, I'm not the only person with this particular delusion)
This patent is made of fail and "on the Internet!"
If you ran a taxi service and someone wanted 20 people to be taken from A to B, you wouldn't just charge them for 1 car's worth of people, you'd charge then for however many cars it took.
Judging from their reports, Comcast would just charge them one car's worth, and then drop everyone off in the worst part of town.
If you need more bandwidth, what's wrong with the ISPs expecting you to pay more than someone who uses less?
Everyone has some service level X now. Reducing the level of service leads to a reduction in the perceived value of that service. That perception leads to the expectation that the cost of the service should decrease. While I lack psychic powers, I (and probably everyone else) expect that the people who are already paying more than the grannies to get the "ultimate" speed package are going to have to shell out more.
One of the first things that you learn in (any serious) customer service is how to "manage expectations". It's also one of the first things that companies utterly fail to do, leading to them wandering around in a stupor wondering why everyone is so upset. The only way out for ISPs was to not have played the unreasonable promises game in the first place.
2) It is on
3) You've entered your crypto keys
These two are likely true for every kind of whole-drive encryption, unless the encrypted drive is unmounted every time you walk away. As for 1), it's true if you lock the console and walk away from the computer, which quite a lot of people do.
Best workaround would be for A) operating systems to support fixing keys in a single spot in memory and B) drive encryption systems to automatically unmount and scramble the key (in the same place its always been, rather than wherever the OS felt it should be copied to on write) after X minutes of inactivity (prompting the user for the key again when they want to use it again).
Workaround: hit the main power off switch.
Workaround: yank the DIMMs while the system's on.
When will the madness stop??!
Once companies discovers they have to fire the vast majority of their employees because there just aren't as many cookiecutter droids as HR had hoped, and society collapses.
You're not that important to the government
How important is "that important"? As the marginal cost of wiretapping decreases towards zero, I think you'll find that more and more people are going to be "that important".
Poorly maintained, bad coverage, iffy signal, rotten roaming (and occasional charges)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
if we have a right to privacy, as you assert, then WHY is there widespread wiretapping, sneak-and-peeks, secret courts, DMCA takedowns and so on?
The fact that the government ignores these rights doesn't mean you don't have them, it just means the government is infringing on them while making it harder and harder for you to enforce your rights.
hogging all the bandwidth
If you bothered to read his post instead of spewing inane invective, you'd see that by advertising the contention rate, you'd have enough information to be able to subscribe to an ISP where you don't have to put up with "bandwidth hogs".
Funny, though, if you're not using the bandwidth, then I don't see where it hurts for someone else to be using the bandwidth, and frankly neither does the ISP, since that's how they justify over-subscription in the first place.
Well hopefully, they'll say "if you come out and say that you throttle after X gb transferred or throttle throughput at Y mbps, or throttle protocol Z, then we'll allow it." It'll put an end to "unlimited" bandwidth, secret caps, and so on, and force the companies to actually participate in a market without fraud, which is probably the best we can realistically hope for.
Most likely they'll say "LOL sounds like a FTC issue to us, I don't think we have the right to do anything, take your complaint to..." and then give you directions to the wrong place in true bureaucratic style.