I think the right to be forgotten could best be applied to things like getting facebook to ACTUALLY delete you account and associated metadata. That's reasonable. But google search results? No.
I didn't say you have a right to food. I said you have a right to free speech. I understand you're making your own point... but your point is not constructive or relevant to my point.
I understand natural rights. I agree. However your point has no relevance to the discussion since all the rights being discussed are natural rights. We are not talking about entitlements.
The further foolishness is that you're only hiding the information from people that don't have resources.
If you do have resources... such as the resources of a nation or a major corporation then you'll know exactly where that information is and will never forget it.
All you're doing is taking the information away from the average person which means you're further separating the haves and the have nots.
This is a bad law. If europe wants its own version of the internet where they practice broad censorship that is fine. But compliance with the law should be that the offending content is blocked from european users not that it is deleted generally.
If we're talking about clearing someone's meta data from the system that might be reasonable. But taking down articles people have written about you or blog posts... no. You don't have a right to silence other people.
That would be the 21st century version of a book burning.
Its far too late. Texas is going the way of california they just don't know it yet.
I'm from california... I can see the pattern... you've been bitten... you'll turn. Sorry... Really, I wish there were a cure for it. Remember, California was the state of Reagan. But once this process gets started its inevitable. First you'll lose Austin... already happened... next Dallas Fortworth... after that it will just be a chain reaction of spots around the state as the whole area is reorganized under new management.
Yeah but you're in california which is not a great place to start or run a company these days. There is a huge outflow of companies from California right now. And many companies that decided to try in california anyway ultimately went out of business due to labor issues, tax issues, and environmental issues.
Look, its a very pretty state. But if I wanted to start a company... a business somewhere... Why would I set up in california? The taxes are high, the regulations are high, the PPP is not favorable... again, very pretty state... but what does that have to do with starting a business. And I'll point out that the prettiness of the state has nothing to do with the state government... california just "is" pretty.
I wouldn't want to start up in Hawaii either and Hawaii is a lot nicer then California for climate.
In regards to businesses where an external cloud does make sense.
1. Businesses with high volatility should still at they very least own the code that is the basis of their service and be able to replicate it should their host become unreliable. One of the larger problems with external clouds is that they are more then hosts. They often have propretary closed source software that their whole service is based upon. If you contract with them and then later have a problem you are FUCKED because you cannot migrate to an internal host or migrate to a competing external host without completely recoding your whole system.
This is one of the reasons companies like to sell these services because they create customer lock in. Once a business starts using your system they become a captive asset that will likely remain a customer for a long time even if they start to dislike your service because the cost of migrating is simply too expensive.
2. In regards to server capacity, there are times when external hosting makes sense. In those cases I wouldn't have a big problem with external hosts. HOWEVER, the host should be just that... a host. A provider of machines and bandwidth. Add in some light security admin to help deal with hackers extra. But if you don't control the code then you are at the mercy of the provider. If they flake out of on you then your business dies right then and there. Over 70 percent of businesses that suffer a major harddrive failure that causes their core database to get wiped without backup do not survive. That is, if most companies lose their core data storage and computer organization they die.
3. As to data security, it isn't just data security. Its control over your software. If I build a business, I don't want another company to be able to fuck with my system without my permission. I want to buy something, control it, and any alterations to that system happen with my approval. You say what if you don't mind getting hacked? Okay... but do you mind the company disabling your whole software package and forcing you to upgrade for no reason? Or do you mind if they change your interface without your permission? Move buttons around, change the nature of the language, etc? Its not appreciated once you have a live project. These companies can make their upgrades and changes BEFORE the product goes into use. Once its live, I don't want them touching anything unless I approve it. End of story.
4. As to being a medium business... neither small nor large... even a mom and pop outlet can self host so I don't see why you can't self host at any level. The only issue with self hosting is the bandwidth. Hosts tend to locate themselves near some kind of ISP nexus and then buy enterprise quantities of bandwidth which they subdivide amongst their customers. The cost of the bandwidth for ONE medium sized company is often not that great especially if you arrange it through one of the subcontracting ISPs that tend to have more flexible packages for those market segments.
Point being... external cloud storage is mostly a product of laziness and ignorance. You can arrange internal cloud or at the very least a private external cloud without a lot of trouble.
The only cloud services I like these days are drop box and mozy. I like drop box because you're just using them as a file server. Nothing sophisticated. Nothing integral. Utterly replaceable. And then you have mozy which is a situation where offsite storage is quite nice and again you can replace them if their terms become unfavorable.
Your point ignores the fact that people are increasingly switching to self power generation... solar power... wind... and yes... lots of off grid diesel generators.
The instant we have a reasonable power storage self power generation will explode.
So your argument is self defeating. People want to move to self generation.
Is physical access... which is impossible with cloud services which means they are inherently insecure.
If I don't control the actual machine that has my data on it then I don't control the data.
Talk to a bank... any of them using cloud services? Yes... but with their own cloud with machines they control.
That is how the cloud should be in the corporate world. The company you buy the cloud from wants to sell it as a service. That's great for them but unacceptable for many customers because the customer often must maintain control over the software, the hardware, etc. For various reason... maybe you want reliability. Maybe you want security... there are lots of reasons.
This cloud argument he's making is also self contradictory because the cloud operators themselves own and operate large server farms. So what they're saying is that THEY should have servers but you should not.
Already its a very hot start up location... the venture capital firms are active there... Its probably better then Silicon Valley at this point if you're just starting out. Its cheaper, it has a similar opportunities, and the state government isn't on a massive tax hiking binge.
For example, they're trying to jack up property taxes in California without going through proper procedure. The voters don't want it... but the government is ramming it through anyway.
You make a good point. This was something that did happen in the US at one point. People were intimidated to vote a given way and bribes were offered for people that voted one way or the other. Typically the bribes were something cheap like free beer or something. The threats were as you said broken bones... or in some cases employers would hang out at the polling station and fire people that voted contrary to his instructions.
So I really do appreciate your point. That said, I would like the confidence to know that my vote was correctly recorded.
As I said, that's a reasonable criticism. The alternative appears to be leaving the system so vague that insiders could easily fake votes, inflate voter roles, or simply miscount the votes.
Again, we've had many districts report in with more people voting then are registered to vote. That isn't possible... unless there is fraud.
You can't be complacient about that and then claim to give a shit about voter intimidation or vote buying. Because at the end of the day creating votes out of thin air is a great deal worse. If someone buys my vote or threatens me then at the very least a significant portion of the public is aware that it happened.
When votes are secretly invented almost no one knows.
That is the only difference.
You are choosing to be ignorant rather then aware.
Forgive me if that sounds offensive... but think about it for a minute.
I'd much rather risk vote buying then have what we have now. The only difference is that under this system the corruption is invisible. Under a more open system you'd see it when it happens.
1. Generally most of the methods that produce it also produce CO2 which begs the question of why to bother when one could just take the god damn petrochemical fuel instead which is cheaper and more practical.
2. The power used to run such systems almost always comes from hydrocarbon energy systems which renders their supposed "green" label almost entirely a self delusion.
3. Generating hydrogen onsite means generating power on site or providing power to that site which is itself produced elsewhere... often from coal.
Nuclear was our best option but the fucktards have decided that because one badly maintained and old reactor in japan failed that the whole nuclear concept is unworkable. Which is itself just ignorant hysterical foolishness.
But fine... no nuclear. Then we're left with coal. Which is hilarious in the context of the same people telling us that we need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Well choose, assholes. Because if you want the sort of power our electrical grids suck down on a daily basis it isn't coming from wind power or solar.
And while I would TRULY love to have our power come from such sources that is utterly impossible until we have means of storing that power during the day to use at night. Furthermore, we need means to store the power not just for day but week or months. renewable energy is often seasonal or subject to variation. Our power demands are going to be out of sync with our generation unless the power can be cached. Coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc all allow for the caching of power. I can store coal in giant piles until I need it. I can warehouse nuclear fuel rods. Water can be reserved and managed to sustain generating capacity in a hydro electric dam.
Solar has no such ability because our batteries do not scale logistically or economically.
Hydrogen is a waste of time because it is at best a different type of battery and not a very good one.
Less then 1 percent of our population has ever really understood the system. What percentage of internet users actually understand the internet?
Probably less then 1 percent.
Your argument that they need to understand it for it to be practical is absurd. People interact with and use things all the time without fully understanding their inner workings.
What is most important is that those inner workings are self consistent with stated goals, transparent, efficient, and sustainable.
The existing system runs contrary in many aspects to the stated goal. It is generally closed off from public scrutinty in that we appoint people to audit it but the actual auditing process is rarely exposed to the public. And our current voting system is so inefficient that it costs tens of millions to billions of dollars every election cycle which makes it impractical for us to have elections with much frequency.
A secure digital system would also be much more efficient which would give voters more opportunities to vote which would also likely make the government more responsive to public opinion.
We could have minor elections all the time. Major city council decisions could be put to a full city vote on a weekly basis. Log in... cast your vote... log out... wait for the election results... query what your vote was recorded as... they should match... the number of people that are real versus those that are registered should match. The number of people that voted should equal the number of ballots recorded.
I don't see the problem with my scheme in regards to trust. Only I can identify which vote is mine. The votes are anonymous. The ID on each vote would at most say where the vote was cast not who cast it. I would know which vote was mine because I would record the ID number of MY ballot at the time of casting the vote. That ballot ID would not be associated with my identity in any way. Further, that ballot's encrypted ballot would only be accessible to me and only if decrypted it with my password. The point of which would only be to compare the official recording of the ballot with an encrypted file created at the same time which should mirror that ballot.
If A does not match B then you know there is a problem. That is the point.
Auditing all the ballots would require literally everyone that voted to individually decrypt every single ballot personally. Obviously not possible for more then a small sample set. Which the voting public under my scheme would be encouraged to do on their own.
Anyone that found a mismatch would then be encouraged to contact the authorities to begin an investigation.
The above would make some types of vote tampering more complicated. The issue I'm most worried about though is ballot box stuffing. Where some individual or group fills out hundreds or thousands of illegitimate ballots and submits them for counting.
To address this, you need voter ID and you need to have good records of who voted in each election. They compare the list of registered voters to the census beuro/IRS to make sure they actually exist as real people. And then you compare the total number of votes counted with the total number of people that were recorded as voting.
All three records should match.
All people that vote should be real people.
And the number of people that voted should equal the number of votes recorded.
I suspect that if you applied this standard to many elections the numbers would not match. I think many people that are said to vote are not actually real people. Some of them are dead. Some of them are entirely fictitious. Mickey Mouse has been known to vote occasionally. And of course sometimes there are a lot more ballots cast then the number of people that actually voted. The most striking examples of this is when the number of people voting exceeds the number of people registered to vote. Which is impossible unless non-registered voters are voting... a non registered voter voting is sort of like a non-registered driver driving. Yes, you have a right to vote while driving is a privilege... but only citizens with no felonies on their record are allowed this right... and they have to be alive and not cartoon characters.
1. As to submariners, the point is that they're hardly nuclear engineers or physicists. Their instructions are literally picture diagrams. Little cartoons that tell them what to do in situation A1-F, etc.
2. As to education required to read a test, I am not taking away the doctor. By all means go to the hospital every single time if that's what floats your boat. However, some of us would prefer to have direct control over our healthcare and this would give us that.
You think that's unwise? Fine. I would never force you to use it. However, do not have the arrogance to suggest you have a right to force me.
If the public in general has the option to buy a kit and self diagnose, a significant portion of the population will buy the kits and use them. Will some of them kill themselves with a false positive or false negative? Yes. But then that also happens in hospitals and I personally feel as if I'm clever enough to figure it out if given reasonable instructions. You disagree? Its my body. My choice.
Hospitals are already outright abusive with their cost structure. People are already compromising their health simply because they're afraid of these medical costs. We are a first world country.... that is bullshit. Now obviously here is where the state healthcare lobby chimes in to tell us how we wouldn't have this problem if we just opted for state healthcare. Well, maybe and maybe not. Under that idea we all pay higher taxes and then are at the mercy of whatever monstrosity the government concocts. Given how they've run public education and a dozen other half assed institutions you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly confident in their competence.
I am an American... I want to be free. I want to go off do my own thing and be left the fuck alone. And I'd rather not die of some terrible disease or otherwise suffer in any way what so ever simply for wanting to be left alone. And for that to have a chance in hell, I need these kits or I am going to be sitting in some hospital paying through the nose for tests that I probably could have done myself given half a chance.
3. As to supply side devaluing the quality of a good or service, this is of course true. However, the quality of the good or service is ultimately what people feel is reasonable. A good example of this is food. Many people eat low quality food despite food being very abundant in the US. However, the low quality food is very cheap and so people will often buy it because they don't really care about the difference in quality.
Even so, food is so abundant in the US that the quality of our food is going up even though people don't like paying much for it. Fresh fruit and vegetables are more common and the quality of those goes up all the time without an increase in cost.
Supply side lowers costs, increases quality, and is generally good for everyone except for those that thrive on scarcity.
4. Your shelter example was actually a demand side comparison which I pointed out actually was counter productive. It gave poor people homes but also inflated the value of homes by pumping more money into the home BUYING market. That caused many people that otherwise would have had no trouble buying homes to need more extensive loans. This created a feed back loop as the government and the banks kept offering bigger loans with looser requirements to try and increase home ownership. The end result was the mortgage collapse.
Now, consider the alternative... Build homes. Don't buy homes for people. Don't give them money. Build homes. Build millions of them. That will LOWER home prices. That causes problems IF you do it all at once but if you do it a consistent and predictable basis and do only so much to keep home prices affordable... then you won't annoy home owners. And while the very poor will still not be able to buy homes, everyone else in society will have an easier time owning them. As to the very poor, expecting them to own homes is itself an unreasonable goal unless you set them up in a wilderness/nomansland. Short of
Okay, first off hydrogen fuel cell cars are electric. They just don't use a conventional battery.
Second, hydrogen fuel cell cars are not remotely competitive. Batteries are better and they're terrible.
Electric is just marginally competitive with gas and even then only in certain circumstances.
Someone is boundless going to tell me something great about hydrogen... but the problem is that its logistically difficult to move around, it escapes from any vessel you put it in especially under pressure. And ultimately you have to get the gas by pouring electrical grid power into some sort of electrolysis machine. And where is the grid power coming from? About half of it is still coal. So... by all means... get your green car and accomplish nothing.
We need fewer of these flash in the pan solutions and more ACTUAL solutions.
We need municipal power storage. Something more reasonable then deep cycle batteries. There are some places that pump water from a reservoir to a higher one to store power and then run that water through a hydroelectric dam to recover it. So far the most scalable power storage system we know. But we don't have enough of those. We need to look at flow batteries.
Once we're storing renewable energy electric cars will ACTUALLY have an impact on carbon emissions. Until then... irrelevant.
No one can know what you did in the voting booth without the voter's encryption key. Under the system I laid out, the vote could be counted without the voter's encryption key. However, the votes could not be verified without that key.
The point of the encryption is to create an independent and untouchable tally of the vote.
It would be very impractical to audit the list since it would require every voter personally decrypt their vote and cross check it. But it would be secure. No one besides the person that cast the vote would be able to tamper with the vote without it being detected.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the right to be forgotten could best be applied to things like getting facebook to ACTUALLY delete you account and associated metadata. That's reasonable. But google search results? No.
I didn't say you have a right to food. I said you have a right to free speech. I understand you're making your own point... but your point is not constructive or relevant to my point.
I understand natural rights. I agree. However your point has no relevance to the discussion since all the rights being discussed are natural rights. We are not talking about entitlements.
The further foolishness is that you're only hiding the information from people that don't have resources.
If you do have resources... such as the resources of a nation or a major corporation then you'll know exactly where that information is and will never forget it.
All you're doing is taking the information away from the average person which means you're further separating the haves and the have nots.
The internet is free. Leave it alone.
I'd agree... that's my point.
This is a bad law. If europe wants its own version of the internet where they practice broad censorship that is fine. But compliance with the law should be that the offending content is blocked from european users not that it is deleted generally.
So if I didn't burn the books... I just deleted them from the card catalog that would be okay?
If we're talking about clearing someone's meta data from the system that might be reasonable. But taking down articles people have written about you or blog posts... no. You don't have a right to silence other people.
That would be the 21st century version of a book burning.
Its far too late. Texas is going the way of california they just don't know it yet.
I'm from california... I can see the pattern... you've been bitten... you'll turn. Sorry... Really, I wish there were a cure for it. Remember, California was the state of Reagan. But once this process gets started its inevitable. First you'll lose Austin... already happened... next Dallas Fortworth... after that it will just be a chain reaction of spots around the state as the whole area is reorganized under new management.
Yeah but you're in california which is not a great place to start or run a company these days. There is a huge outflow of companies from California right now. And many companies that decided to try in california anyway ultimately went out of business due to labor issues, tax issues, and environmental issues.
Look, its a very pretty state. But if I wanted to start a company... a business somewhere... Why would I set up in california? The taxes are high, the regulations are high, the PPP is not favorable... again, very pretty state... but what does that have to do with starting a business. And I'll point out that the prettiness of the state has nothing to do with the state government... california just "is" pretty.
I wouldn't want to start up in Hawaii either and Hawaii is a lot nicer then California for climate.
In regards to businesses where an external cloud does make sense.
1. Businesses with high volatility should still at they very least own the code that is the basis of their service and be able to replicate it should their host become unreliable. One of the larger problems with external clouds is that they are more then hosts. They often have propretary closed source software that their whole service is based upon. If you contract with them and then later have a problem you are FUCKED because you cannot migrate to an internal host or migrate to a competing external host without completely recoding your whole system.
This is one of the reasons companies like to sell these services because they create customer lock in. Once a business starts using your system they become a captive asset that will likely remain a customer for a long time even if they start to dislike your service because the cost of migrating is simply too expensive.
2. In regards to server capacity, there are times when external hosting makes sense. In those cases I wouldn't have a big problem with external hosts. HOWEVER, the host should be just that... a host. A provider of machines and bandwidth. Add in some light security admin to help deal with hackers extra. But if you don't control the code then you are at the mercy of the provider. If they flake out of on you then your business dies right then and there. Over 70 percent of businesses that suffer a major harddrive failure that causes their core database to get wiped without backup do not survive. That is, if most companies lose their core data storage and computer organization they die.
3. As to data security, it isn't just data security. Its control over your software. If I build a business, I don't want another company to be able to fuck with my system without my permission. I want to buy something, control it, and any alterations to that system happen with my approval. You say what if you don't mind getting hacked? Okay... but do you mind the company disabling your whole software package and forcing you to upgrade for no reason? Or do you mind if they change your interface without your permission? Move buttons around, change the nature of the language, etc? Its not appreciated once you have a live project. These companies can make their upgrades and changes BEFORE the product goes into use. Once its live, I don't want them touching anything unless I approve it. End of story.
4. As to being a medium business... neither small nor large... even a mom and pop outlet can self host so I don't see why you can't self host at any level. The only issue with self hosting is the bandwidth. Hosts tend to locate themselves near some kind of ISP nexus and then buy enterprise quantities of bandwidth which they subdivide amongst their customers. The cost of the bandwidth for ONE medium sized company is often not that great especially if you arrange it through one of the subcontracting ISPs that tend to have more flexible packages for those market segments.
Point being... external cloud storage is mostly a product of laziness and ignorance. You can arrange internal cloud or at the very least a private external cloud without a lot of trouble.
The only cloud services I like these days are drop box and mozy. I like drop box because you're just using them as a file server. Nothing sophisticated. Nothing integral. Utterly replaceable. And then you have mozy which is a situation where offsite storage is quite nice and again you can replace them if their terms become unfavorable.
But anything more invasive then that? Never.
Your point ignores the fact that people are increasingly switching to self power generation... solar power... wind... and yes... lots of off grid diesel generators.
The instant we have a reasonable power storage self power generation will explode.
So your argument is self defeating. People want to move to self generation.
Is physical access... which is impossible with cloud services which means they are inherently insecure.
If I don't control the actual machine that has my data on it then I don't control the data.
Talk to a bank... any of them using cloud services? Yes... but with their own cloud with machines they control.
That is how the cloud should be in the corporate world. The company you buy the cloud from wants to sell it as a service. That's great for them but unacceptable for many customers because the customer often must maintain control over the software, the hardware, etc. For various reason... maybe you want reliability. Maybe you want security... there are lots of reasons.
This cloud argument he's making is also self contradictory because the cloud operators themselves own and operate large server farms. So what they're saying is that THEY should have servers but you should not.
This is nonsense.
There is a significant startup and tech community in Austin which is why I mentioned it.
Which means what? Lower taxes and BBQ? OH NOES!
You're saying "Sac" is better then Austin? That's what people call it in NorCal. Its a pit.
Already its a very hot start up location... the venture capital firms are active there... Its probably better then Silicon Valley at this point if you're just starting out. Its cheaper, it has a similar opportunities, and the state government isn't on a massive tax hiking binge.
For example, they're trying to jack up property taxes in California without going through proper procedure. The voters don't want it... but the government is ramming it through anyway.
You make a good point. This was something that did happen in the US at one point. People were intimidated to vote a given way and bribes were offered for people that voted one way or the other. Typically the bribes were something cheap like free beer or something. The threats were as you said broken bones... or in some cases employers would hang out at the polling station and fire people that voted contrary to his instructions.
So I really do appreciate your point. That said, I would like the confidence to know that my vote was correctly recorded.
I don't know... its a problem.
As I said, that's a reasonable criticism. The alternative appears to be leaving the system so vague that insiders could easily fake votes, inflate voter roles, or simply miscount the votes.
Again, we've had many districts report in with more people voting then are registered to vote. That isn't possible... unless there is fraud.
You can't be complacient about that and then claim to give a shit about voter intimidation or vote buying. Because at the end of the day creating votes out of thin air is a great deal worse. If someone buys my vote or threatens me then at the very least a significant portion of the public is aware that it happened.
When votes are secretly invented almost no one knows.
That is the only difference.
You are choosing to be ignorant rather then aware.
Forgive me if that sounds offensive... but think about it for a minute.
I'd much rather risk vote buying then have what we have now. The only difference is that under this system the corruption is invisible. Under a more open system you'd see it when it happens.
1. Generally most of the methods that produce it also produce CO2 which begs the question of why to bother when one could just take the god damn petrochemical fuel instead which is cheaper and more practical.
2. The power used to run such systems almost always comes from hydrocarbon energy systems which renders their supposed "green" label almost entirely a self delusion.
3. Generating hydrogen onsite means generating power on site or providing power to that site which is itself produced elsewhere... often from coal.
Nuclear was our best option but the fucktards have decided that because one badly maintained and old reactor in japan failed that the whole nuclear concept is unworkable. Which is itself just ignorant hysterical foolishness.
But fine... no nuclear. Then we're left with coal. Which is hilarious in the context of the same people telling us that we need to reduce CO2 emissions.
Well choose, assholes. Because if you want the sort of power our electrical grids suck down on a daily basis it isn't coming from wind power or solar.
And while I would TRULY love to have our power come from such sources that is utterly impossible until we have means of storing that power during the day to use at night. Furthermore, we need means to store the power not just for day but week or months. renewable energy is often seasonal or subject to variation. Our power demands are going to be out of sync with our generation unless the power can be cached. Coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc all allow for the caching of power. I can store coal in giant piles until I need it. I can warehouse nuclear fuel rods. Water can be reserved and managed to sustain generating capacity in a hydro electric dam.
Solar has no such ability because our batteries do not scale logistically or economically.
Hydrogen is a waste of time because it is at best a different type of battery and not a very good one.
Less then 1 percent of our population has ever really understood the system. What percentage of internet users actually understand the internet?
Probably less then 1 percent.
Your argument that they need to understand it for it to be practical is absurd. People interact with and use things all the time without fully understanding their inner workings.
What is most important is that those inner workings are self consistent with stated goals, transparent, efficient, and sustainable.
The existing system runs contrary in many aspects to the stated goal. It is generally closed off from public scrutinty in that we appoint people to audit it but the actual auditing process is rarely exposed to the public. And our current voting system is so inefficient that it costs tens of millions to billions of dollars every election cycle which makes it impractical for us to have elections with much frequency.
A secure digital system would also be much more efficient which would give voters more opportunities to vote which would also likely make the government more responsive to public opinion.
We could have minor elections all the time. Major city council decisions could be put to a full city vote on a weekly basis. Log in... cast your vote... log out... wait for the election results... query what your vote was recorded as... they should match... the number of people that are real versus those that are registered should match. The number of people that voted should equal the number of ballots recorded.
I don't see the problem with my scheme in regards to trust. Only I can identify which vote is mine. The votes are anonymous. The ID on each vote would at most say where the vote was cast not who cast it. I would know which vote was mine because I would record the ID number of MY ballot at the time of casting the vote. That ballot ID would not be associated with my identity in any way. Further, that ballot's encrypted ballot would only be accessible to me and only if decrypted it with my password. The point of which would only be to compare the official recording of the ballot with an encrypted file created at the same time which should mirror that ballot.
If A does not match B then you know there is a problem. That is the point.
Auditing all the ballots would require literally everyone that voted to individually decrypt every single ballot personally. Obviously not possible for more then a small sample set. Which the voting public under my scheme would be encouraged to do on their own.
Anyone that found a mismatch would then be encouraged to contact the authorities to begin an investigation.
The above would make some types of vote tampering more complicated. The issue I'm most worried about though is ballot box stuffing. Where some individual or group fills out hundreds or thousands of illegitimate ballots and submits them for counting.
To address this, you need voter ID and you need to have good records of who voted in each election. They compare the list of registered voters to the census beuro/IRS to make sure they actually exist as real people. And then you compare the total number of votes counted with the total number of people that were recorded as voting.
All three records should match.
All people that vote should be real people.
And the number of people that voted should equal the number of votes recorded.
I suspect that if you applied this standard to many elections the numbers would not match. I think many people that are said to vote are not actually real people. Some of them are dead. Some of them are entirely fictitious. Mickey Mouse has been known to vote occasionally. And of course sometimes there are a lot more ballots cast then the number of people that actually voted. The most striking examples of this is when the number of people voting exceeds the number of people registered to vote. Which is impossible unless non-registered voters are voting... a non registered voter voting is sort of like a non-registered driver driving. Yes, you have a right to vote while driving is a privilege... but only citizens with no felonies on their record are allowed this right... and they have to be alive and not cartoon characters.
1. As to submariners, the point is that they're hardly nuclear engineers or physicists. Their instructions are literally picture diagrams. Little cartoons that tell them what to do in situation A1-F, etc.
2. As to education required to read a test, I am not taking away the doctor. By all means go to the hospital every single time if that's what floats your boat. However, some of us would prefer to have direct control over our healthcare and this would give us that.
You think that's unwise? Fine. I would never force you to use it. However, do not have the arrogance to suggest you have a right to force me.
If the public in general has the option to buy a kit and self diagnose, a significant portion of the population will buy the kits and use them. Will some of them kill themselves with a false positive or false negative? Yes. But then that also happens in hospitals and I personally feel as if I'm clever enough to figure it out if given reasonable instructions. You disagree? Its my body. My choice.
Hospitals are already outright abusive with their cost structure. People are already compromising their health simply because they're afraid of these medical costs. We are a first world country.... that is bullshit. Now obviously here is where the state healthcare lobby chimes in to tell us how we wouldn't have this problem if we just opted for state healthcare. Well, maybe and maybe not. Under that idea we all pay higher taxes and then are at the mercy of whatever monstrosity the government concocts. Given how they've run public education and a dozen other half assed institutions you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly confident in their competence.
I am an American... I want to be free. I want to go off do my own thing and be left the fuck alone. And I'd rather not die of some terrible disease or otherwise suffer in any way what so ever simply for wanting to be left alone. And for that to have a chance in hell, I need these kits or I am going to be sitting in some hospital paying through the nose for tests that I probably could have done myself given half a chance.
3. As to supply side devaluing the quality of a good or service, this is of course true. However, the quality of the good or service is ultimately what people feel is reasonable. A good example of this is food. Many people eat low quality food despite food being very abundant in the US. However, the low quality food is very cheap and so people will often buy it because they don't really care about the difference in quality.
Even so, food is so abundant in the US that the quality of our food is going up even though people don't like paying much for it. Fresh fruit and vegetables are more common and the quality of those goes up all the time without an increase in cost.
Supply side lowers costs, increases quality, and is generally good for everyone except for those that thrive on scarcity.
4. Your shelter example was actually a demand side comparison which I pointed out actually was counter productive. It gave poor people homes but also inflated the value of homes by pumping more money into the home BUYING market. That caused many people that otherwise would have had no trouble buying homes to need more extensive loans. This created a feed back loop as the government and the banks kept offering bigger loans with looser requirements to try and increase home ownership. The end result was the mortgage collapse.
Now, consider the alternative... Build homes. Don't buy homes for people. Don't give them money. Build homes. Build millions of them. That will LOWER home prices. That causes problems IF you do it all at once but if you do it a consistent and predictable basis and do only so much to keep home prices affordable... then you won't annoy home owners. And while the very poor will still not be able to buy homes, everyone else in society will have an easier time owning them. As to the very poor, expecting them to own homes is itself an unreasonable goal unless you set them up in a wilderness/nomansland. Short of
Okay, first off hydrogen fuel cell cars are electric. They just don't use a conventional battery.
Second, hydrogen fuel cell cars are not remotely competitive. Batteries are better and they're terrible.
Electric is just marginally competitive with gas and even then only in certain circumstances.
Someone is boundless going to tell me something great about hydrogen... but the problem is that its logistically difficult to move around, it escapes from any vessel you put it in especially under pressure. And ultimately you have to get the gas by pouring electrical grid power into some sort of electrolysis machine. And where is the grid power coming from? About half of it is still coal. So... by all means... get your green car and accomplish nothing.
We need fewer of these flash in the pan solutions and more ACTUAL solutions.
We need municipal power storage. Something more reasonable then deep cycle batteries. There are some places that pump water from a reservoir to a higher one to store power and then run that water through a hydroelectric dam to recover it. So far the most scalable power storage system we know. But we don't have enough of those. We need to look at flow batteries.
Once we're storing renewable energy electric cars will ACTUALLY have an impact on carbon emissions. Until then... irrelevant.
Yeah but... we don't know of anything can bend space time on a galactic level besides mass.
No one can know what you did in the voting booth without the voter's encryption key. Under the system I laid out, the vote could be counted without the voter's encryption key. However, the votes could not be verified without that key.
The point of the encryption is to create an independent and untouchable tally of the vote.
It would be very impractical to audit the list since it would require every voter personally decrypt their vote and cross check it. But it would be secure. No one besides the person that cast the vote would be able to tamper with the vote without it being detected.
has a lot of mass... so... this might a difference without distinction.