Nah. the floppy discs work just fine. I remember getting them with cereal boxes in the mid to late 90s. You could do about anything other then fold them in half and they would still work for a while. After about 20 uses, you needed another though.
Here is an example. I think they were made of cardboard but some were made out of the plastic like what you would see on a floppy cutting board. Usually they were part of the box and you needed to cut them out in order to use them.
I'm confused here. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; among other things not pertinent to this discussion. But in nowhere that I can find does no law seem to imply "only if you agree to act in a certain way". Can you please point out to us where this might be? From what I can tell, no law means it would bar even the establishment of criteria in order to qualify as "the press" in the first place as it would limit who can be the press. and this is still ignoring the free speech portion of the same article that intends to limit the powers of government.
The government can grant privileges; it can't grant rights. It can only protect specific rights.
Well, that is the way it is supposed to work in a free country. The people are the sovereign and they hold all the rights, the government is the subject and outside a few specific roles, they are to be bystanders in our prosperity. The people are presumed to be able to do anything unless there is a law barring the action. The US constitution even makes this clear in the 9th and 10th amendments
Somehow, in modern times, we have shifted from that concept to one which seems to specifically requires permission from the government in so many ways. This is probably because of the over regulation and the use of regulation as law to avoid a public debate in congress over the so called new law (regulation with the force of law). Along with that regulation comes licensing and so on and exists at almost every level in government to some degree. If you start a business in some areas and do not obtain proper permits or licenses, you can be fined or even jailed. I remember a story about a kid's lemonade stand being shut down a while back because they lacked the appropriate health department permits or licensing and it doesn't seem to be an isolated incident.
So I can see how some people might start thinking the government grants you rights. It's just a shame that it is possible for that to happen.
eg. the response to Snowden showed many think their "lords and masters" are more important than the violations of the constitution on show
I don't think it is that way at all. Some just don't like spies that work against the US. Sure Snowden exposed what the government was doing against it's own people (and many already thought it was happening but relegated to conspiracy nutters) but he also exposed activities completely outside of anything constitutionally protected like not only that we have spied on other countries but how we did it too. If he limited his actions to only those that are unconstitutional and happening by the government, then I would hail him as a whistle blower, but he exposed a lot more then that and he did so to at least 3 different foreign countries, two of which can be considered a potential enemy.
So I have no special admiration of our "lords and masters", but I still dislike Snowden and what he did. I think he is a traitor who needs to suffer a traitor's end. It isn't a if A then B. It can be an "I hate A and B" which is what I think most of those dissing Snowden show.
When your budget is broken by a doctors visit, you typically do not go in for routine checkups. When all the cheap food is the chemical laden processed crap, you typically end up buying junk food instead of the expensive natural whatever.
Eating well and going to the doctor is somewhat of a luxury the poor do not enjoy. They so however eat a lot- probably because their body is sensing malnutrition and is constantly hungry. But that is only a guess on my end. I know when I went through a job loss, money was tight so I ended up buying all the cheap processed crap and found myself eating a lot more then I normally would have. But then again, that could have been nerves or something.
Unless the poor is on medicaid or medicare, you are not paying their health care. Many poor simply will not go to the doctors until it is something devastating so chances are, the poor won't be bothering you.
And if you think they show up at the hospital and don't pay so your costs are higher, think again. All non-profit hospitals have to give a certain amount of care as charity in order to maintain a non-profit status. This includes every county hospital and about 90% of all the others out there.
Without the subsidies and price supports, you soon would not have many farms growing food. Or are we to ignore the lead up to the dust bowl and great depression in order to make a point that farmers are rich or something?
The Idea of paying farmers not to farm (which doesn't happen much any more since we export so much now) is specifically to stop all the farms from going under when prices fall below the costs of production and concentrating production into a few large factory farms that will create severe shortages when a natural or other disaster takes them offline for a season. Having stable food prices is pretty much a necessity of modern society.
The majority of markup from the costs of food comes from middle men, not the farm. whether it's investors purchasing commodities in order to turn a profit or packaging companies, the majority of the costs go elsewhere. The American farmer only sees about 12 percent of every dollar you spend on food.
I don't think you understand the significance of private commercial space launches.
It has little to do with an invisible hand and more to do with less restrictions on who can get what up there. Right now, it is all corporatist communistic capitalistic space anyways. Yes, all three at once because those who actually make it into space are either government or doing so at the behest of the government using technology developed by the government but refined for their particular usages, with the intent of eventually being available to anyone who isn't a government also. The end result is that you don't have to compete with some senators pork project to get something into space. You don't have to comply with only what the government wants in order to get something into space. And if all works out well, you will be able to visit space as a tourist if not just briefly.
You really do not want the government being the only entity controlling this. Right now, we already have commercial launches using government rockets but what if you wanted to put your own Hubble telescope into space or service a satellite you purchased or do anything the government entity isn't wanting to do. Such missions would be at the mercy of the government until private missions can be funded and committed solely at the will of private parties. Such future is possible with private launches.
Interesting you mention a kid causing chaos. Ever hear of a molly guard and how it got it's name?
Negligence is not criminal though. That was the point of my comment. Negligence that happened in the past without advanced knowledge of the future cannot be criminal. It can be short sighted, stupid, clumsy and a number of other things, but not criminal. Many of these exposed systems were developed before the 90's and switched to using the internet during the 90's to save costs. Many of these systems were put into use using industry standards which did not catch up to the level of knowledge about the put falls you have today. I still see companies with sensitive customer information using WIFI with WPA type encryption because it was industry standard when implemented.
After the Snowden debacle, it isn't entirely positive that many of the other secure industry standard are exactly secure any more either. In 10 years, we will be having the same discussion about companies who continue using products that just work because they just work before realizing that everything about them is easily exploitable.
As for the NSA, I can blame others. To take the position otherwise would seem to validate the NSA doing what they did. I don't want to be in that position. But in keeping things realistic, we cannot blame companies who have entire switching hardware and gateways with NSA or other back doors in them because the multi million dollar investment was industry standard at the time of install and we just now find there might be issues with it. Eventually, through discussion about the dangers and perhaps a few incidents, it will be replaced with more industry standard equipment and procedures and we will end up having the same discussions in the future.
Until someone cracks their way in. Then the falsity of this economic model is exposed.
Sure, but when it was developed, this entire threat was pretty much non existent in reality. That has changed but the model hasn't exactly caught up yet. That is why exposure and working on it needs to happen.
This can be done over something other than the Internet, as several people have explained.
Sometimes it can be and some times it cannot be done. The problem is actually having both sides participate in doing so which isn't always the case or even possible to some degree. Anything can be done if the technology permits it, but if the manufacturer or some piece in the necessary puzzle doesn't participate, then you are screwed into doing something else. And even when it can be done, all it takes is a compromised machine inside the network in order to undo anything related to securing the systems.
As long as the other end you are needing to contact will use one too, this is viable. However, that isn't always the case or possible. VPNs can also be exploited and defeated. If one machine that is allowed in the VPN becomes compromised, the entire security model of a VPN is defeated. It really is a lot more complicated then doing one thing.
Putting and approving to put critical infrastructure directly accesible on the open internet, that can have present or future vulnerabilities is bordering criminal behaviour.
Lets stop being overly dramatic and think about reality. When a lot of these systems were placed in the open, the entire thought of exploiting them was pretty much non existent. It's like the early Microsoft security models that completely missed the communications implications of the internet and the reason why after windows 98, they started- rather unsuccessfully I might add, working on improving the security. Windows XP started getting some of it right with a built in firewall but still had blaring flaws in IE, allowing root log in as a primary desktop and in some cases requiring it for popular software to function correctly, and other portions of it.
The bottom line is that nothing involved with how we got where we are is borderline criminal unless you consider not knowing the future to be criminal. Now that we do know, we have to make a competent cost effective plan to address and limit the implications and bringing the information about the security risks and potentials for exploitation to the front is the start of that plan. If everything was fixed today, in 20 years, something else will crop up and we will be having the same discussions about things that weren't even envisioned at the time we implemented the changes to secure the older systems.
So they can be monitored and administered from a central office 2000 miles away by a few employees at a location which houses all the accountants, sales reps, and so forth that the companies rely on in order to maintain production levels. This allows them to drastically reduce costs of administering them as a t1 connection is about 1/10 or less of the cost of one of several IT staffers that would be required to maintain them at local only access. And much more cheaper then travel and housing expenses of transporting central IT employees to the sites.
Another reason is that some SCADA systems aren't actually purchased. They are sort of rented and need to contact a server in order to validate their installs and operate periodically. This happens when there is a yearly or some sort of fee associated with the devices. It seems the more you spend on devices, the more common this seems to be. Even in the software world, I watched a company spend over $20k on a hospitality management suit in order to manage about 100 rentals and they had to purchase a license yearly for around the same amount in order to keep using it. One year, I blocked internet access to it through a change in the firewall rules months before the renewal process and it couldn't update it's license and stopped working for half a day before I figured out what happened. The only reason it ever needed internet access was specifically to update it's license once a year when the contract was renewed. Credit card processing happened on the phone lines using POTS through the PBX until the phone system got replaced and the changed to an entirely different system offering free in country phone calls to all guests.
I think you missed the "crap" science joke about studying the "poop" of extinct species. It is literally crap science and he had to find a way to put that in a post.
So lets take a second, pull not knots out of our panties because the got all bunched up over a comment, and get back to treating people respectfully.
Here, I will help you out and let you use religious rhetoric also. Before the biblical flood, everyone and everything , was a vegan. So strike one up for science I guess. err.. something like that.
It can be but that wasn't the point of "affecting the severity of the sentence". Presumably, someone would have already have been convicted of a crime before being sentences. The person has an opportunity to say something to the court before the sentence is passed down. Often people will plead for leniency by downplaying their actions as un-ordinary or a special case or something and describe themselves as otherwise upstanding citizens who pose a benefit to society or having them serve time would create an extreme hardship for an innocent party. Most of the time, the lawyer will make this case but sometimes the convicted do it themselves. It goes to the character of the accused and a judge can sometimes impose less of a sentence if you persuade them you are a good person who made a mistake. This is also often the difference between a lawyer and a good lawyer- how well they can convince a judge of your good character can often get you by with a slap on the wrist compared to the maximum penalties.
What this allows is the police or the prosecution to step in afterwards and say, this is not true, see from his face book page, he is around guns all the time and talks about participating in criminal activities either he or people his associates participated in. Most of this would already be included or summarized in a pre sentencing investigation report but instead of asking your neighbors, you are telling the police directly what kind of person you are or want to be seen as.
You won't need to give up any liberties. In order for these new found thug tactics to be effective, they have to be in the open which is about like taking an ad out in the news paper, placing a sign in your front yard or someone else's yard or something. There is nothing wrong with the cops reading the news paper or looking at billboards or even looking at your public postings on social media.
So are you trying to say there was a point to his idiocy other then making an ass of himself?
I mean otherwise, we are saying the same things, you just attempted to sugar coat it with some sort of admiration or something mixed with a bit of racism. Please explain your point a little more.
I'm not sure these people even care about Snowden or even heard of him or the details of his exploits. They aren't the type of people to pick up a news paper or watch the evening news unless someone they know is in it. I'm not sure if that makes them morons, but it certainly doesn't help them not be one. But remember, many times in life it is better to be more on then off- especially when near the edge of a cliff.
Actually, the time we understand only existed after the beginning, before that, we do not know if time existed or not. But according to our definition of time, it had to of existed to some form or another, we just do not comprehend it well because time is relative ans constructed to our understanding of it.
In short, time is like a circle, no real beginning and no real end, only reference points placed on it by people trying to understand a concept of or with it.
I predict a rebound for desktop computing in a few years when people start to realize that it was way easier to get real work done on one.
I doubt it. Most people on the computer are not on the computer or tablet or whatever to get work done. They are on it for entertainment and occasional menial tasks. For many, writing their resume on the computer is the most work they will actually do.
Well, you are in for a treat because the PPACA specifically requires ID to be shown when it takes full effect. It's a federal regulation when opening a bank account after 911 too. So if you get medical treatment, change plans, or need another bank account, Or even get a job after 1986, you have to show ID.
As for Texas, I guess you're stuck voting by mail if you have no form of acceptable photo ID and are too bothered going and getting one. You can also get a voter ID card at the drivers license place free of charge. So it doesn't amount to a poll tax as you are capable of still voting- even if there is no DMV in your county and you choose not to have a car.
Yeah, or it might blow the transmission to dust, ending you up in permanent neutral;)
It wouldn't matter if the transmission blew up too. The entire point of the situation or hypothetical is to keep your life at the cost of the car instead of losing both. Losing the car is already a given (remember, someone tampered with your brakes in order to kill you), the only possible difference is how seriously you will be harmed in the result of it.
But I doubt it would blow the transmission up. The tires would lock up first as the traction between them and the road is the weakest link. The next weakest link would be the clutch engagement process. You would likely cause damage to the transmission but again, damage to the vehicle is already a given, your goal is to not die because of no brakes, not save the car to be passed on to your heirs.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. the floppy discs work just fine. I remember getting them with cereal boxes in the mid to late 90s. You could do about anything other then fold them in half and they would still work for a while. After about 20 uses, you needed another though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chex_Quest
Here is an example. I think they were made of cardboard but some were made out of the plastic like what you would see on a floppy cutting board. Usually they were part of the box and you needed to cut them out in order to use them.
I'm confused here. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; among other things not pertinent to this discussion. But in nowhere that I can find does no law seem to imply "only if you agree to act in a certain way". Can you please point out to us where this might be? From what I can tell, no law means it would bar even the establishment of criteria in order to qualify as "the press" in the first place as it would limit who can be the press. and this is still ignoring the free speech portion of the same article that intends to limit the powers of government.
Well, that is the way it is supposed to work in a free country. The people are the sovereign and they hold all the rights, the government is the subject and outside a few specific roles, they are to be bystanders in our prosperity. The people are presumed to be able to do anything unless there is a law barring the action. The US constitution even makes this clear in the 9th and 10th amendments
Somehow, in modern times, we have shifted from that concept to one which seems to specifically requires permission from the government in so many ways. This is probably because of the over regulation and the use of regulation as law to avoid a public debate in congress over the so called new law (regulation with the force of law). Along with that regulation comes licensing and so on and exists at almost every level in government to some degree. If you start a business in some areas and do not obtain proper permits or licenses, you can be fined or even jailed. I remember a story about a kid's lemonade stand being shut down a while back because they lacked the appropriate health department permits or licensing and it doesn't seem to be an isolated incident.
So I can see how some people might start thinking the government grants you rights. It's just a shame that it is possible for that to happen.
I don't think it is that way at all. Some just don't like spies that work against the US. Sure Snowden exposed what the government was doing against it's own people (and many already thought it was happening but relegated to conspiracy nutters) but he also exposed activities completely outside of anything constitutionally protected like not only that we have spied on other countries but how we did it too. If he limited his actions to only those that are unconstitutional and happening by the government, then I would hail him as a whistle blower, but he exposed a lot more then that and he did so to at least 3 different foreign countries, two of which can be considered a potential enemy.
So I have no special admiration of our "lords and masters", but I still dislike Snowden and what he did. I think he is a traitor who needs to suffer a traitor's end. It isn't a if A then B. It can be an "I hate A and B" which is what I think most of those dissing Snowden show.
That is somewhat true.
When your budget is broken by a doctors visit, you typically do not go in for routine checkups. When all the cheap food is the chemical laden processed crap, you typically end up buying junk food instead of the expensive natural whatever.
Eating well and going to the doctor is somewhat of a luxury the poor do not enjoy. They so however eat a lot- probably because their body is sensing malnutrition and is constantly hungry. But that is only a guess on my end. I know when I went through a job loss, money was tight so I ended up buying all the cheap processed crap and found myself eating a lot more then I normally would have. But then again, that could have been nerves or something.
Unless the poor is on medicaid or medicare, you are not paying their health care. Many poor simply will not go to the doctors until it is something devastating so chances are, the poor won't be bothering you.
And if you think they show up at the hospital and don't pay so your costs are higher, think again. All non-profit hospitals have to give a certain amount of care as charity in order to maintain a non-profit status. This includes every county hospital and about 90% of all the others out there.
Without the subsidies and price supports, you soon would not have many farms growing food. Or are we to ignore the lead up to the dust bowl and great depression in order to make a point that farmers are rich or something?
The Idea of paying farmers not to farm (which doesn't happen much any more since we export so much now) is specifically to stop all the farms from going under when prices fall below the costs of production and concentrating production into a few large factory farms that will create severe shortages when a natural or other disaster takes them offline for a season. Having stable food prices is pretty much a necessity of modern society.
The majority of markup from the costs of food comes from middle men, not the farm. whether it's investors purchasing commodities in order to turn a profit or packaging companies, the majority of the costs go elsewhere. The American farmer only sees about 12 percent of every dollar you spend on food.
I don't think you understand the significance of private commercial space launches.
It has little to do with an invisible hand and more to do with less restrictions on who can get what up there. Right now, it is all corporatist communistic capitalistic space anyways. Yes, all three at once because those who actually make it into space are either government or doing so at the behest of the government using technology developed by the government but refined for their particular usages, with the intent of eventually being available to anyone who isn't a government also. The end result is that you don't have to compete with some senators pork project to get something into space. You don't have to comply with only what the government wants in order to get something into space. And if all works out well, you will be able to visit space as a tourist if not just briefly.
You really do not want the government being the only entity controlling this. Right now, we already have commercial launches using government rockets but what if you wanted to put your own Hubble telescope into space or service a satellite you purchased or do anything the government entity isn't wanting to do. Such missions would be at the mercy of the government until private missions can be funded and committed solely at the will of private parties. Such future is possible with private launches.
Interesting you mention a kid causing chaos. Ever hear of a molly guard and how it got it's name?
Negligence is not criminal though. That was the point of my comment. Negligence that happened in the past without advanced knowledge of the future cannot be criminal. It can be short sighted, stupid, clumsy and a number of other things, but not criminal. Many of these exposed systems were developed before the 90's and switched to using the internet during the 90's to save costs. Many of these systems were put into use using industry standards which did not catch up to the level of knowledge about the put falls you have today. I still see companies with sensitive customer information using WIFI with WPA type encryption because it was industry standard when implemented.
After the Snowden debacle, it isn't entirely positive that many of the other secure industry standard are exactly secure any more either. In 10 years, we will be having the same discussion about companies who continue using products that just work because they just work before realizing that everything about them is easily exploitable.
As for the NSA, I can blame others. To take the position otherwise would seem to validate the NSA doing what they did. I don't want to be in that position. But in keeping things realistic, we cannot blame companies who have entire switching hardware and gateways with NSA or other back doors in them because the multi million dollar investment was industry standard at the time of install and we just now find there might be issues with it. Eventually, through discussion about the dangers and perhaps a few incidents, it will be replaced with more industry standard equipment and procedures and we will end up having the same discussions in the future.
Sure, but when it was developed, this entire threat was pretty much non existent in reality. That has changed but the model hasn't exactly caught up yet. That is why exposure and working on it needs to happen.
Sometimes it can be and some times it cannot be done. The problem is actually having both sides participate in doing so which isn't always the case or even possible to some degree. Anything can be done if the technology permits it, but if the manufacturer or some piece in the necessary puzzle doesn't participate, then you are screwed into doing something else. And even when it can be done, all it takes is a compromised machine inside the network in order to undo anything related to securing the systems.
As long as the other end you are needing to contact will use one too, this is viable. However, that isn't always the case or possible. VPNs can also be exploited and defeated. If one machine that is allowed in the VPN becomes compromised, the entire security model of a VPN is defeated. It really is a lot more complicated then doing one thing.
Lets stop being overly dramatic and think about reality. When a lot of these systems were placed in the open, the entire thought of exploiting them was pretty much non existent. It's like the early Microsoft security models that completely missed the communications implications of the internet and the reason why after windows 98, they started- rather unsuccessfully I might add, working on improving the security. Windows XP started getting some of it right with a built in firewall but still had blaring flaws in IE, allowing root log in as a primary desktop and in some cases requiring it for popular software to function correctly, and other portions of it.
The bottom line is that nothing involved with how we got where we are is borderline criminal unless you consider not knowing the future to be criminal. Now that we do know, we have to make a competent cost effective plan to address and limit the implications and bringing the information about the security risks and potentials for exploitation to the front is the start of that plan. If everything was fixed today, in 20 years, something else will crop up and we will be having the same discussions about things that weren't even envisioned at the time we implemented the changes to secure the older systems.
So they can be monitored and administered from a central office 2000 miles away by a few employees at a location which houses all the accountants, sales reps, and so forth that the companies rely on in order to maintain production levels. This allows them to drastically reduce costs of administering them as a t1 connection is about 1/10 or less of the cost of one of several IT staffers that would be required to maintain them at local only access. And much more cheaper then travel and housing expenses of transporting central IT employees to the sites.
Another reason is that some SCADA systems aren't actually purchased. They are sort of rented and need to contact a server in order to validate their installs and operate periodically. This happens when there is a yearly or some sort of fee associated with the devices. It seems the more you spend on devices, the more common this seems to be. Even in the software world, I watched a company spend over $20k on a hospitality management suit in order to manage about 100 rentals and they had to purchase a license yearly for around the same amount in order to keep using it. One year, I blocked internet access to it through a change in the firewall rules months before the renewal process and it couldn't update it's license and stopped working for half a day before I figured out what happened. The only reason it ever needed internet access was specifically to update it's license once a year when the contract was renewed. Credit card processing happened on the phone lines using POTS through the PBX until the phone system got replaced and the changed to an entirely different system offering free in country phone calls to all guests.
I think you missed the "crap" science joke about studying the "poop" of extinct species. It is literally crap science and he had to find a way to put that in a post.
So lets take a second, pull not knots out of our panties because the got all bunched up over a comment, and get back to treating people respectfully.
Here, I will help you out and let you use religious rhetoric also. Before the biblical flood, everyone and everything , was a vegan. So strike one up for science I guess. err.. something like that.
It can be but that wasn't the point of "affecting the severity of the sentence". Presumably, someone would have already have been convicted of a crime before being sentences. The person has an opportunity to say something to the court before the sentence is passed down. Often people will plead for leniency by downplaying their actions as un-ordinary or a special case or something and describe themselves as otherwise upstanding citizens who pose a benefit to society or having them serve time would create an extreme hardship for an innocent party. Most of the time, the lawyer will make this case but sometimes the convicted do it themselves. It goes to the character of the accused and a judge can sometimes impose less of a sentence if you persuade them you are a good person who made a mistake. This is also often the difference between a lawyer and a good lawyer- how well they can convince a judge of your good character can often get you by with a slap on the wrist compared to the maximum penalties.
What this allows is the police or the prosecution to step in afterwards and say, this is not true, see from his face book page, he is around guns all the time and talks about participating in criminal activities either he or people his associates participated in. Most of this would already be included or summarized in a pre sentencing investigation report but instead of asking your neighbors, you are telling the police directly what kind of person you are or want to be seen as.
You won't need to give up any liberties. In order for these new found thug tactics to be effective, they have to be in the open which is about like taking an ad out in the news paper, placing a sign in your front yard or someone else's yard or something. There is nothing wrong with the cops reading the news paper or looking at billboards or even looking at your public postings on social media.
So are you trying to say there was a point to his idiocy other then making an ass of himself?
I mean otherwise, we are saying the same things, you just attempted to sugar coat it with some sort of admiration or something mixed with a bit of racism. Please explain your point a little more.
I'm not sure these people even care about Snowden or even heard of him or the details of his exploits. They aren't the type of people to pick up a news paper or watch the evening news unless someone they know is in it. I'm not sure if that makes them morons, but it certainly doesn't help them not be one. But remember, many times in life it is better to be more on then off- especially when near the edge of a cliff.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/
He is referencing a comment Obama made and taking it to an extreme.
Actually, the time we understand only existed after the beginning, before that, we do not know if time existed or not. But according to our definition of time, it had to of existed to some form or another, we just do not comprehend it well because time is relative ans constructed to our understanding of it.
In short, time is like a circle, no real beginning and no real end, only reference points placed on it by people trying to understand a concept of or with it.
If there wasn't nothing, what was there and where did it come from- or how did it get there?
Are you a religious nutter? Your rhetoric seems to indicate that.
I doubt it. Most people on the computer are not on the computer or tablet or whatever to get work done. They are on it for entertainment and occasional menial tasks. For many, writing their resume on the computer is the most work they will actually do.
Well, you are in for a treat because the PPACA specifically requires ID to be shown when it takes full effect. It's a federal regulation when opening a bank account after 911 too. So if you get medical treatment, change plans, or need another bank account, Or even get a job after 1986, you have to show ID.
As for Texas, I guess you're stuck voting by mail if you have no form of acceptable photo ID and are too bothered going and getting one. You can also get a voter ID card at the drivers license place free of charge. So it doesn't amount to a poll tax as you are capable of still voting- even if there is no DMV in your county and you choose not to have a car.
It wouldn't matter if the transmission blew up too. The entire point of the situation or hypothetical is to keep your life at the cost of the car instead of losing both. Losing the car is already a given
(remember, someone tampered with your brakes in order to kill you), the only possible difference is how seriously you will be harmed in the result of it.
But I doubt it would blow the transmission up. The tires would lock up first as the traction between them and the road is the weakest link. The next weakest link would be the clutch engagement process. You would likely cause damage to the transmission but again, damage to the vehicle is already a given, your goal is to not die because of no brakes, not save the car to be passed on to your heirs.