Over 1/4 of total household power use in AZ is Airconditioning, during the day that is obviously most of the household use. Guess what is not needed after a tropical storm with cloud cover? It also helps the wind and hydro power will then be driven up to take over any excess. Also cloud cover doesn't end solar, still get 25% of the capacity, so when daytime demand is cut in half you will still have 1/4 of the solar power, so not that much makeup would be needed if PV was providing half the power, all is still good.
Keep in mind, apple got law enforcement requests for data from 500,000 devices just last year, even without the ability to get into many of their devices. And would then have to keep track of, and keep secure the device keys for the 200 million iphones it sells each year.
The more access they have, you would then expect even more requests.
> They can't have the authority in one case and not have it in another.
Not sure that it is true that they cannot claim both sides in separate cases, especially since at this point it is just a legal statement by their lawyers. Will California also be disposed to choose a single side of this argument for both cases?
It could be a smart legal move by the FCC, use the civil case to get the states to defend the FCC's legal authority, but the FCC could still win the civil case based on other claims. Thus make it more difficult for the states to dispute the FCC authority in the other case. Of course politically I think this is a loser for the FCC, but they don't seam to care about that.
Not sure they are years ahead on anything but possibly charge station network. While their competitors are decades ahead in things like dealer support, parts delivery, build quality, and most importantly paying down their debts. Their are many companies with decades of more experience on mass producing electric drive trains over Tesla. Panasonic is the primary holder of the battery technology, and manufacturing even at the Giga factory.
Personally their is no way I would consider a car that is locked down in DRM, from a company that maintains a list of VIN's that they will not sell parts for. Also no service or repair manuals, and so far demonstrated an inability to deliver repair parts at any scale. Especially one that is so deep in debt and tied up in a couple car models, one big recall and they are bankrupt.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying short Tesla or anything close to predicting they will fail. Just that while I clearly have no idea how much of the population is like me, that would gladly pay $10k more for the support of BMW over the restrictions of Tesla. And they are just one mistake away from turning over their market lead to any one of nearly a dozen competitors.
The earlier 2010 case was not the Supreme court, and in that case where no self incriminating evidence, could someone be forced to re-provide access to data (ie to persue others.)
So their is only a pretty narrow case law on if this is legal. It isn't well decided like you claim, and unless you can provide a Supreme Court case, as of 2012 the law is still upheld that with a lack of a Supreme court case it still case law that the 5th amendment still protects you from having to supply a password that could be self incriminating.
> is that a system can be scientifically proven to make driving 30% to 40% safer and the headline and most of the story is apparently about the downside risks rather than the opportunity
No, I think the story is more about how people think these systems replace the need for them to be as aware. IE my car will stop for me, so I can now text and drive. Or watch that viral video; or drive while tired or drunk in the rain. Or drive faster even when my vision is obscured. IE if I trust the system to save me, and then take more risks that more than wipe out the safety benefits.
You are correct about having the systems do more, the question is if the system cannot mitigate the risks of accidents that are not the drivers fault (IE slow down further back than necessary to avoid being rear ended if the car in front doesn't move as expected) Should it be advertised as preventing collisions when so many people won't understand this isn't a license to completely leave the driving to the semi-autonomy when convenient.
> I have a hard time believing that partial automation isn't a net win.
It is,if it doesn't alter the drivers behavior. For example my brother has lane assist, auto braking, adaptive cruise; now because his vehicle is safer he thinks it is ok to have one more beer, and work or party an hour or 2 later as his car has always saved him from any minor accidents. He paid the extra $10k for a lifestyle change, not because he cared for the extra safety feature.
If the driver is drunk, texting on the phone, or watching a movie; the partial autonomy clearly will make them safer than doing the same without the feature. But it isn't going to make them safer, than if they only drove when they could pay 100% attention to driving. Especially since they are sharing the road with people without these features. So if my brother isn't paying attention and not slowing and his system has to slam on the brakes suddenly, instead of a more gradual, or a lane change; the cars behind have to react faster as well.
Not as misleading as your post. As your link confirms my statement. "Obamacare hasnâ(TM)t led to a shift from full-time employment to part-time."
"it does appear that some employers are reining in workersâ(TM) hours to stay under the 30-hour cap."
Why so watered down conclusion to "appears", you might ask. Because the 1% of Americans in that 30-34 hour group before ACA, was then a survey sample size of just 30 people from the poll. A single person change would shift that "appears" instead be a increase in the hours of part time workers. IE the expected number of people in that group for no affect to be observed was around 30.3; so if the survey would have found 31 people instead of 30, then the conclusion would have been that Obamacare appeared to cause employers to increase the hours of part time employees so they would be eligible. IE the survey results that support your statement had too small of a sample to conclusively determine. And it didn't matter to the truth of the statement, that the ACA didn't cause more part time, as the numbers of part time has since started a downward turn in the years since that article.
You do realize, this doesn't appear to have anything to do with what farmers agreed to when they buy a tractor, new or used. This is a manufacture burying DRM into their product, and it doesn't matter if the customer knows, the manufacture can choose to enforce the DRM at any time. This is likely coming to you, Tesla for example has do not fix/update VIN code lists of cars they will not sell parts to or update software on, because they appear to them to have unauthorized repairs.
Without the right for owners to overcome these restrictions, it will continue to spread outside of tractors. Deere/Tesla/etc goes bankrupt, the patent troll buys the rights, and all of a sudden they get to decide if your machine is worth anything, and how much you have to pay them to keep it.
> If you want to make a controller for a game console expect to buy a license.
So a special agent in every house, and watching your every move? To each his own I guess. Personally, anyone who buys a piece of hardware/software and takes it home should be allowed to do what they want in the privacy of their home. And even be able to share what they learned with anyone they want. That is the only way to have a free society and freedom of speech. Now the government doesn't have to allow you to make a profit, and we can agree on reasonable terms to require licenses for profiting if it is built on the work of others... But making it illegal to figure things out, find the truth so to speak, and share it should not be infringed by the government in the USA. Those who want that are not the friends of the people.
This one doesn't work for all cars. Most cars would require you to get the FOB and push a button and relay that to the car, then a separate vulnerability to replicate the key action as well. As their is no information transmitted without physical action by the owner, it isn't at all the same. The Tesla FOB automatically unlocks with proximity, and requires no KEY to then drive off at that point.
The Tesla system (used by a couple other luxary cars as well) just requires the hackers to be close to the car for a few seconds, then close to the key for a few seconds. As the car constantly sends out a challenge to the key, they record that, then play that challenge to the FOB, after 2 valid responses they can duplicate the FOB as they have generate a 2Tb lookup to catch the key code. After that point they have everything needed to operate the car normally without any contact with the original fob again.
They do have a Fix, if the owner purchases a better FOB, then software can protect this with a larger encryption key. Relay attacks without touching the original FOB would still work. Tesla now allows owners to have a password to start the car. Personally I would rather have a key, than having to carry a FOB, and enter a password each time to be as secure.
Definitely Interesting points, but I am not sure I agree with the fix. Once commercial interests got interested with big money, I don't think you can fallback to the open anonymous community approach. IE the concept of miners protecting their own bitcoin interest was more the theory, the groupings of for profit miners isn't going away with big money still moving.
The computing power and network power is now grouped into these coordinated block of miners, they will likely be ready to jump into any crypto work scheme to be at 51%, making the work easier won't change that math. Making the math so asics weren't so dominate would help. The issues with de-centralized ledgers when hundreds of millions of $ are on the line has been exposed, and the only fix I can see for this, is that you will need to de-anonymize the ledger holders, so they can be held accountable. Likely that means regulatory oversight.
My understanding is, while every president increased the debt, deficit spending was decreased during the administrations of: "Bill Clinton (reduced from 280Billion to 18 Billion)"; and "Barack Obama (reduced from 1.6T to 700 Billion; Stimulus act passed and enacted by Bush.) Let see the deficit went way up most significantly under the administrations of "Ronald Regain from 144 billion to 255 billion", "Donald Trump (700 Billion to 1.2 Trillion) Bush 43 (400 Billion to 1.6T) Bush 41 (255Billion to 347 Billion) Carter did increase from 78 Billion to 90 Billion, pretty insignificant comparatively to the other increases. Granted, The Democrats mostly had Republicans in charge of the house when they brought down the deficit. Reagan had democrats in the house; But the biggest increases were when we had Republican in control of both houses and the presidency.
Of course economy is a big contributor to some of those changes also.
I think Alibaba just helps you find a friend in China now. IE find a $25 bluetooth headset and basically add it to your wishlist. Then you send a $25 "Cash Gift" to your new friend through Ali, now if your new friend likes your Gift, and low and behold he has a brand new bluetooth headset he has never used, and sends it to you as a gift. Well it was a gift, so no tariff.
> Verifying that your vote is counted doesn't tell you the election is untampered; and verifying that your vote has been counted opens up the election to tampering via vote-buying.
That everyone can verify their votes are un-tampered, actually does tell us exactly that. And no, we only allow you to prove you voted to others. Their are several proposals that have been discussed to do this. Where you can leave with your vote encrypted on paper, and you can provide any number of false keys to prove whatever you want anyone else to see, only if they were in the both with you could they get the real key. You would only give a small % of volunteers from each machine the option to verify the true keys are used throughout. The other option is to allow multiple votes, such that only the last one is counted. again only a small % are required to be given the true decryption keys to validate the process is working and we don't have a massive corruption of the process.
> We must verify that the ballots as a whole are counted, collected, and summed.
Exactly, that is why you allow everyone to validate their true ballot is cast. You also allow as many servers collecting results, with the same open source software. You can verify and validate they all get the same results, if any official servers differ, or sufficient private servers differ to raise concern of a mass fraud, then you can re run all the ballots and find the difference. The states would have the keys for every machine in the state, and verify all machines reported in their results, and no extra machines reported extra results.
By having states generate their own private keys, you would have multiple keys, one for voter identity, one for candidates, another for each polling places id. After the election is over and the server data is verified received, you release the candidates private key, and every server can tabulate the results (their is proof of concept of doing math on encrypted data, without the keys, so it is possible all results could be calculated and compared before receiving the private keys, only need the private keys to declare the winner, and can be done after all servers have verified they came to the same winning result.) That way the private key cannot be used during the election to generate any more public keys...
As long as the private key for voter id is kept secret from all but a single validation location, even if you give your voter id to someone else, they cannot find your vote information. You can only verify the complete and un-altered vote you cast was received at every server. Since every vote, polling place cast, ID cast... is public information. Select people, in isolation using all the private keys can validate the entire election process.
The great thing about ssl, is we only care if the voting machine is secure, the encrypted packet can be path agnostic. Votes could all be printed and carried on paper and scanned. They could be flash drives, people could scan them at home and broadcast them. You can send the packets in 50 different ways, and state actors would have to block/corrupt all 50 ways to block that vote. duplicates are discarded. Until the private key is released, all is secured.
> I like pork.
Not all government would be by direct vote, that isn't how states with ballot initiatives work. But currently a bill like national health care could never get passed cleanly, as their is no way to pass it without paying off the special interests in DC. That is not true with ballot initiatives, if it is good for the majority and isn't being done through the normal process, this is where the corrupt process bypass happens. A health initiative or public university project could produce the bill that is then taken outside of partisan politics for passage. The standard process still stands for bills where that system is working.
Their have been academic papers proposing electronic system that would be safe, where you could verify that your vote was counted (IE received at the server.)
In theory with open software, hardware, and multiple servers (again all open source) we could have a very robust electronic voting system. This would require a large project likely done with universities, and it may even be similar to some bitcoin concepts.
The technology side is very solvable, getting the project started, past the politics, and accepted by people who aren't able to understand the theory behind it is the hard part.
I am confident currently political parties are strongly against starting down this path. As once it was implemented we could do things like nationwide ballot initiatives, and those can bypass lobbyist and pork barrel politics.
It is already illegal for congress to pass a tax to target a specific company, it is an across the board proposal.
>having to take government benefits to get by
Also, just as a FYI, a single person with a full time job making minimum wage is NOT eligible for SNAP. What can make this tough on a employer is if they hire a women with 8 dependents, and no other income or savings, with a $50k/year job she is eligible for SNAP, while if no kids it is $14k/year.
This bill would also give incentive to a company to not provide family friendly benefits (like daycare, flexible hours, etc.) so that they hire and keep fewer employees with kids.
> you can drill through treated aluminum again and again with a good drill bit, though
Of course you CAN. Once you have hand drilled 10,000 rivet holes with a 1/8" drill bit, only then will you understand what this guy's job is like and how wrong your statements are for this application.
> I mean, when I drill aluminum, the result does not look anywhere this bad and I am just an amateur.
Yes, but how many holes does your drill have to make in aluminium before it can be replaced or sharpened with a jig.
It could still be more about equipment, and poor factory management than about unskilled labor. A slightly bent drill bit does exactly those marks, and using a punch on every one of thousands of rivet panels might not be required/allowed at that place.
I just finished a factory five chassis, drilling many many thousands of rivet holes in aluminum, likely very similar to what work was done on this body. Drill bits get killed doing this job by hand easily, as you line the two panels overtop each other before drilling to make sure the holes align correctly, and drill through both. You will occasionally have a gap (that rivets would eventually pull together) and the bit jumps between those sheets (after drilling though the top sheet into the bottom sheet) it will inevitably not come through clean and side load the bit causing it to be bent or chipped. Most of the time a drill bit was dead on average of 10-20 holes, but it could be after one, or a hundred drills. And these type of factory jobs in lower wage/class oriented countries tend to be overly stressed on preventing theft by over control of access to all supplies.
And I bet those aluminum panels are every bit as tough or more than the ones on my car. It isn't like drilling into freshly cast aluminium, these panels have been worked to have a hardened surface.
Yeah the plastic 3d printer gun plans are just a distraction mostly for people with irrational fears and little knowledge of guns. The gun parts schematics for receivers and the precedents are more interesting. That a AR is defined by the lower unit and everything else is considered a gun accessory and thus production and distribution is not regulated in the US; this leaves the possibility of lowering the bar for a reliable high rate of fire ghost gun may soon be down to a design where you can pickup a few unregulated parts, print a receiver (that probably doesn't look at all like a weapon) at the local libraries 3d printer and snap together a legal near military grade weapon in a afternoon (and perhaps even allow a auto fire modification, that is mostly illegal today, with no tools.)
As a lower receiver that holds together a metal barrel and firing pin, etc; theoretically would have no requirement to be stronger than what a 3d printer is capable of printing in plastic.
I am in a strong military family, I know if a drive by happens to my family, I will choose them as they are worth the risk of desertion.
If military force is illegally used inside the states to suppress civilian dissent, I predict every soldier with a family will be at home protecting them and their possessions from mobs within days.
Their is a reason military overthrows always happen in countries with a strong class structure. Putin can kill because he doesn't have family or friends outside of his class so he only has to protect/worry about those in that class. It is a well drawn line that everyone knows, and the oppressed classes don't have weapons or free association with other classes. US you cannot divide that as long as we prevent that class structure from taking hold, which cannot be easily drawn, because when you get a large class and suppress them, they will break that with force, and guns are the force multiplier that helps prevent that from forming. A group of 300 armed is as strong as a group of 30,000 unarmed. So a armed populace is 100* less likely to become a oppressed population than a unarmed population.
> Those GI peeps got jets, drones, real guns, bombs, aircraft carriers and the solid right to use them .
Where do those GI's friends, parents, kids, grandparents, other family members live where they can all be protected from all handguns wielded by over 100 million Americans? Will a aircraft carrier, or any other one of those be able to stop everyone with a gun from crossing a street? let alone stop every bullet from crossing the street.
Or do you think the families of those who are getting killed by bombs dropped by their neighbors will just decide that it would be unfair to target the politicians and military families while their own families are being slaughtered by them?
Slashdot Mirror
Over 1/4 of total household power use in AZ is Airconditioning, during the day that is obviously most of the household use. Guess what is not needed after a tropical storm with cloud cover? It also helps the wind and hydro power will then be driven up to take over any excess. Also cloud cover doesn't end solar, still get 25% of the capacity, so when daytime demand is cut in half you will still have 1/4 of the solar power, so not that much makeup would be needed if PV was providing half the power, all is still good.
Keep in mind, apple got law enforcement requests for data from 500,000 devices just last year, even without the ability to get into many of their devices. And would then have to keep track of, and keep secure the device keys for the 200 million iphones it sells each year.
The more access they have, you would then expect even more requests.
> They can't have the authority in one case and not have it in another.
Not sure that it is true that they cannot claim both sides in separate cases, especially since at this point it is just a legal statement by their lawyers. Will California also be disposed to choose a single side of this argument for both cases?
It could be a smart legal move by the FCC, use the civil case to get the states to defend the FCC's legal authority, but the FCC could still win the civil case based on other claims. Thus make it more difficult for the states to dispute the FCC authority in the other case. Of course politically I think this is a loser for the FCC, but they don't seam to care about that.
Not sure they are years ahead on anything but possibly charge station network. While their competitors are decades ahead in things like dealer support, parts delivery, build quality, and most importantly paying down their debts. Their are many companies with decades of more experience on mass producing electric drive trains over Tesla. Panasonic is the primary holder of the battery technology, and manufacturing even at the Giga factory.
Personally their is no way I would consider a car that is locked down in DRM, from a company that maintains a list of VIN's that they will not sell parts for. Also no service or repair manuals, and so far demonstrated an inability to deliver repair parts at any scale. Especially one that is so deep in debt and tied up in a couple car models, one big recall and they are bankrupt.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying short Tesla or anything close to predicting they will fail. Just that while I clearly have no idea how much of the population is like me, that would gladly pay $10k more for the support of BMW over the restrictions of Tesla. And they are just one mistake away from turning over their market lead to any one of nearly a dozen competitors.
I think you too need the NAL disclaimer, because that the 5th amendment prevents you from having to provide a password. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The earlier 2010 case was not the Supreme court, and in that case where no self incriminating evidence, could someone be forced to re-provide access to data (ie to persue others.)
So their is only a pretty narrow case law on if this is legal. It isn't well decided like you claim, and unless you can provide a Supreme Court case, as of 2012 the law is still upheld that with a lack of a Supreme court case it still case law that the 5th amendment still protects you from having to supply a password that could be self incriminating.
And no, I am not a lawyer either.
> is that a system can be scientifically proven to make driving 30% to 40% safer and the headline and most of the story is apparently about the downside risks rather than the opportunity
No, I think the story is more about how people think these systems replace the need for them to be as aware. IE my car will stop for me, so I can now text and drive. Or watch that viral video; or drive while tired or drunk in the rain. Or drive faster even when my vision is obscured. IE if I trust the system to save me, and then take more risks that more than wipe out the safety benefits.
You are correct about having the systems do more, the question is if the system cannot mitigate the risks of accidents that are not the drivers fault (IE slow down further back than necessary to avoid being rear ended if the car in front doesn't move as expected) Should it be advertised as preventing collisions when so many people won't understand this isn't a license to completely leave the driving to the semi-autonomy when convenient.
> I have a hard time believing that partial automation isn't a net win.
It is,if it doesn't alter the drivers behavior. For example my brother has lane assist, auto braking, adaptive cruise; now because his vehicle is safer he thinks it is ok to have one more beer, and work or party an hour or 2 later as his car has always saved him from any minor accidents. He paid the extra $10k for a lifestyle change, not because he cared for the extra safety feature.
If the driver is drunk, texting on the phone, or watching a movie; the partial autonomy clearly will make them safer than doing the same without the feature. But it isn't going to make them safer, than if they only drove when they could pay 100% attention to driving. Especially since they are sharing the road with people without these features. So if my brother isn't paying attention and not slowing and his system has to slam on the brakes suddenly, instead of a more gradual, or a lane change; the cars behind have to react faster as well.
Not as misleading as your post. As your link confirms my statement. "Obamacare hasnâ(TM)t led to a shift from full-time employment to part-time."
"it does appear that some employers are reining in workersâ(TM) hours to stay under the 30-hour cap."
Why so watered down conclusion to "appears", you might ask. Because the 1% of Americans in that 30-34 hour group before ACA, was then a survey sample size of just 30 people from the poll. A single person change would shift that "appears" instead be a increase in the hours of part time workers. IE the expected number of people in that group for no affect to be observed was around 30.3; so if the survey would have found 31 people instead of 30, then the conclusion would have been that Obamacare appeared to cause employers to increase the hours of part time employees so they would be eligible. IE the survey results that support your statement had too small of a sample to conclusively determine. And it didn't matter to the truth of the statement, that the ACA didn't cause more part time, as the numbers of part time has since started a downward turn in the years since that article.
>. Well, now we have a bunch of professions that no longer work full time"
Except it didn't happen. The number of part time employees has been slowly decreasing since ObamaCare passed.
https://tradingeconomics.com/u...
> package number goes into "the system" as soon as it's scanned
Are the scanners error proof? If they occasionally mis read and get a invalid number, then this action doesn't make sense.
You do realize, this doesn't appear to have anything to do with what farmers agreed to when they buy a tractor, new or used. This is a manufacture burying DRM into their product, and it doesn't matter if the customer knows, the manufacture can choose to enforce the DRM at any time. This is likely coming to you, Tesla for example has do not fix/update VIN code lists of cars they will not sell parts to or update software on, because they appear to them to have unauthorized repairs.
Without the right for owners to overcome these restrictions, it will continue to spread outside of tractors. Deere/Tesla/etc goes bankrupt, the patent troll buys the rights, and all of a sudden they get to decide if your machine is worth anything, and how much you have to pay them to keep it.
> If you want to make a controller for a game console expect to buy a license.
So a special agent in every house, and watching your every move? To each his own I guess. Personally, anyone who buys a piece of hardware/software and takes it home should be allowed to do what they want in the privacy of their home. And even be able to share what they learned with anyone they want. That is the only way to have a free society and freedom of speech. Now the government doesn't have to allow you to make a profit, and we can agree on reasonable terms to require licenses for profiting if it is built on the work of others... But making it illegal to figure things out, find the truth so to speak, and share it should not be infringed by the government in the USA. Those who want that are not the friends of the people.
This one doesn't work for all cars. Most cars would require you to get the FOB and push a button and relay that to the car, then a separate vulnerability to replicate the key action as well. As their is no information transmitted without physical action by the owner, it isn't at all the same. The Tesla FOB automatically unlocks with proximity, and requires no KEY to then drive off at that point.
The Tesla system (used by a couple other luxary cars as well) just requires the hackers to be close to the car for a few seconds, then close to the key for a few seconds. As the car constantly sends out a challenge to the key, they record that, then play that challenge to the FOB, after 2 valid responses they can duplicate the FOB as they have generate a 2Tb lookup to catch the key code. After that point they have everything needed to operate the car normally without any contact with the original fob again.
They do have a Fix, if the owner purchases a better FOB, then software can protect this with a larger encryption key. Relay attacks without touching the original FOB would still work. Tesla now allows owners to have a password to start the car. Personally I would rather have a key, than having to carry a FOB, and enter a password each time to be as secure.
Definitely Interesting points, but I am not sure I agree with the fix. Once commercial interests got interested with big money, I don't think you can fallback to the open anonymous community approach. IE the concept of miners protecting their own bitcoin interest was more the theory, the groupings of for profit miners isn't going away with big money still moving.
The computing power and network power is now grouped into these coordinated block of miners, they will likely be ready to jump into any crypto work scheme to be at 51%, making the work easier won't change that math. Making the math so asics weren't so dominate would help. The issues with de-centralized ledgers when hundreds of millions of $ are on the line has been exposed, and the only fix I can see for this, is that you will need to de-anonymize the ledger holders, so they can be held accountable. Likely that means regulatory oversight.
My understanding is, while every president increased the debt, deficit spending was decreased during the administrations of: "Bill Clinton (reduced from 280Billion to 18 Billion)"; and "Barack Obama (reduced from 1.6T to 700 Billion; Stimulus act passed and enacted by Bush.) Let see the deficit went way up most significantly under the administrations of "Ronald Regain from 144 billion to 255 billion", "Donald Trump (700 Billion to 1.2 Trillion) Bush 43 (400 Billion to 1.6T) Bush 41 (255Billion to 347 Billion)
Carter did increase from 78 Billion to 90 Billion, pretty insignificant comparatively to the other increases.
Granted, The Democrats mostly had Republicans in charge of the house when they brought down the deficit. Reagan had democrats in the house; But the biggest increases were when we had Republican in control of both houses and the presidency.
Of course economy is a big contributor to some of those changes also.
I think Alibaba just helps you find a friend in China now. IE find a $25 bluetooth headset and basically add it to your wishlist. Then you send a $25 "Cash Gift" to your new friend through Ali, now if your new friend likes your Gift, and low and behold he has a brand new bluetooth headset he has never used, and sends it to you as a gift. Well it was a gift, so no tariff.
Never new I had so many Friends...
> Verifying that your vote is counted doesn't tell you the election is untampered; and verifying that your vote has been counted opens up the election to tampering via vote-buying.
That everyone can verify their votes are un-tampered, actually does tell us exactly that. And no, we only allow you to prove you voted to others. Their are several proposals that have been discussed to do this. Where you can leave with your vote encrypted on paper, and you can provide any number of false keys to prove whatever you want anyone else to see, only if they were in the both with you could they get the real key. You would only give a small % of volunteers from each machine the option to verify the true keys are used throughout. The other option is to allow multiple votes, such that only the last one is counted. again only a small % are required to be given the true decryption keys to validate the process is working and we don't have a massive corruption of the process.
> We must verify that the ballots as a whole are counted, collected, and summed.
Exactly, that is why you allow everyone to validate their true ballot is cast. You also allow as many servers collecting results, with the same open source software. You can verify and validate they all get the same results, if any official servers differ, or sufficient private servers differ to raise concern of a mass fraud, then you can re run all the ballots and find the difference. The states would have the keys for every machine in the state, and verify all machines reported in their results, and no extra machines reported extra results.
By having states generate their own private keys, you would have multiple keys, one for voter identity, one for candidates, another for each polling places id. After the election is over and the server data is verified received, you release the candidates private key, and every server can tabulate the results (their is proof of concept of doing math on encrypted data, without the keys, so it is possible all results could be calculated and compared before receiving the private keys, only need the private keys to declare the winner, and can be done after all servers have verified they came to the same winning result.) That way the private key cannot be used during the election to generate any more public keys...
As long as the private key for voter id is kept secret from all but a single validation location, even if you give your voter id to someone else, they cannot find your vote information. You can only verify the complete and un-altered vote you cast was received at every server. Since every vote, polling place cast, ID cast... is public information. Select people, in isolation using all the private keys can validate the entire election process.
The great thing about ssl, is we only care if the voting machine is secure, the encrypted packet can be path agnostic. Votes could all be printed and carried on paper and scanned. They could be flash drives, people could scan them at home and broadcast them. You can send the packets in 50 different ways, and state actors would have to block/corrupt all 50 ways to block that vote. duplicates are discarded. Until the private key is released, all is secured.
> I like pork.
Not all government would be by direct vote, that isn't how states with ballot initiatives work. But currently a bill like national health care could never get passed cleanly, as their is no way to pass it without paying off the special interests in DC. That is not true with ballot initiatives, if it is good for the majority and isn't being done through the normal process, this is where the corrupt process bypass happens. A health initiative or public university project could produce the bill that is then taken outside of partisan politics for passage. The standard process still stands for bills where that system is working.
Their have been academic papers proposing electronic system that would be safe, where you could verify that your vote was counted (IE received at the server.)
In theory with open software, hardware, and multiple servers (again all open source) we could have a very robust electronic voting system. This would require a large project likely done with universities, and it may even be similar to some bitcoin concepts.
The technology side is very solvable, getting the project started, past the politics, and accepted by people who aren't able to understand the theory behind it is the hard part.
I am confident currently political parties are strongly against starting down this path. As once it was implemented we could do things like nationwide ballot initiatives, and those can bypass lobbyist and pork barrel politics.
He is an author. He made over a million in royalties from the books he has authored, in just the last year alone.
> They should do this to Wal-Mart also
It is already illegal for congress to pass a tax to target a specific company, it is an across the board proposal.
>having to take government benefits to get by
Also, just as a FYI, a single person with a full time job making minimum wage is NOT eligible for SNAP. What can make this tough on a employer is if they hire a women with 8 dependents, and no other income or savings, with a $50k/year job she is eligible for SNAP, while if no kids it is $14k/year.
This bill would also give incentive to a company to not provide family friendly benefits (like daycare, flexible hours, etc.) so that they hire and keep fewer employees with kids.
> Aluminum isn't just worked for hardening, it's heat treated.
Were talking about thin plate,
It is not strengthened by heat treatment; instead, it becomes stronger due to strain hardening or cold working of the material.
> you can drill through treated aluminum again and again with a good drill bit, though
Of course you CAN. Once you have hand drilled 10,000 rivet holes with a 1/8" drill bit, only then will you understand what this guy's job is like and how wrong your statements are for this application.
> I mean, when I drill aluminum, the result does not look anywhere this bad and I am just an amateur.
Yes, but how many holes does your drill have to make in aluminium before it can be replaced or sharpened with a jig.
It could still be more about equipment, and poor factory management than about unskilled labor. A slightly bent drill bit does exactly those marks, and using a punch on every one of thousands of rivet panels might not be required/allowed at that place.
I just finished a factory five chassis, drilling many many thousands of rivet holes in aluminum, likely very similar to what work was done on this body. Drill bits get killed doing this job by hand easily, as you line the two panels overtop each other before drilling to make sure the holes align correctly, and drill through both. You will occasionally have a gap (that rivets would eventually pull together) and the bit jumps between those sheets (after drilling though the top sheet into the bottom sheet) it will inevitably not come through clean and side load the bit causing it to be bent or chipped. Most of the time a drill bit was dead on average of 10-20 holes, but it could be after one, or a hundred drills. And these type of factory jobs in lower wage/class oriented countries tend to be overly stressed on preventing theft by over control of access to all supplies.
And I bet those aluminum panels are every bit as tough or more than the ones on my car. It isn't like drilling into freshly cast aluminium, these panels have been worked to have a hardened surface.
Yeah the plastic 3d printer gun plans are just a distraction mostly for people with irrational fears and little knowledge of guns. The gun parts schematics for receivers and the precedents are more interesting. That a AR is defined by the lower unit and everything else is considered a gun accessory and thus production and distribution is not regulated in the US; this leaves the possibility of lowering the bar for a reliable high rate of fire ghost gun may soon be down to a design where you can pickup a few unregulated parts, print a receiver (that probably doesn't look at all like a weapon) at the local libraries 3d printer and snap together a legal near military grade weapon in a afternoon (and perhaps even allow a auto fire modification, that is mostly illegal today, with no tools.)
As a lower receiver that holds together a metal barrel and firing pin, etc; theoretically would have no requirement to be stronger than what a 3d printer is capable of printing in plastic.
I am in a strong military family, I know if a drive by happens to my family, I will choose them as they are worth the risk of desertion.
If military force is illegally used inside the states to suppress civilian dissent, I predict every soldier with a family will be at home protecting them and their possessions from mobs within days.
Their is a reason military overthrows always happen in countries with a strong class structure. Putin can kill because he doesn't have family or friends outside of his class so he only has to protect/worry about those in that class. It is a well drawn line that everyone knows, and the oppressed classes don't have weapons or free association with other classes. US you cannot divide that as long as we prevent that class structure from taking hold, which cannot be easily drawn, because when you get a large class and suppress them, they will break that with force, and guns are the force multiplier that helps prevent that from forming. A group of 300 armed is as strong as a group of 30,000 unarmed. So a armed populace is 100* less likely to become a oppressed population than a unarmed population.
> Those GI peeps got jets, drones, real guns, bombs, aircraft carriers and the solid right to use them .
Where do those GI's friends, parents, kids, grandparents, other family members live where they can all be protected from all handguns wielded by over 100 million Americans? Will a aircraft carrier, or any other one of those be able to stop everyone with a gun from crossing a street? let alone stop every bullet from crossing the street.
Or do you think the families of those who are getting killed by bombs dropped by their neighbors will just decide that it would be unfair to target the politicians and military families while their own families are being slaughtered by them?