Considering just how insecure the average user is and how likely it is that his machine is infected, online voting is one of the biggest threats to real democracy that we face today
Of all the reasons not to use online voting, this one has to be the most confusing to me. Any kind of infection on the voters machine would only be used to steal information after you've already submitted your vote. Why would it be dangerous for an infection to possibly find out you voted for Candidate X? Someone probably already knows you are voting for Candidate X based on your "Candidate X 2012" bumper sticker, those nasty things you say about Candidate Y on Facebook, or perhaps even your browsing history. If an infection managed to steal your voter login/password, what use would it be after you've already submitted your one and only vote?
Considering what it takes to make a battery, what to do with them when they go bad, and how much of a toxic trouble they are in an accident.
Actually, the batteries in electric cars are made from lithium metal oxides with no lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBBs or PBDEs. There are no heavy metals or toxic materials. Plus, they can be easily recycled (96% recyclable versus, say...only 38% of glass can be recycled).
An electric car starts at $40,000 and will need $5,000 or more in new batteries every 5 or 6 years
I'm not quite sure where you're getting your numbers from...
The Nissan Leaf is supposed to cost $25,280 with tax breaks - and the battery comes with an 8 year warranty.
The Chevy Volt is supposed to cost $33,500 with tax breaks - and the battery also comes with an 8 year warranty.
The Tesla Model S is supposed to cost around that much - but we'll see what happens.
Add in the fact that the "power" the car uses comes from a power plant that burns coal or crude. All you have done is moved where the carbon footprint takes place at.
This is the same crap argument I hear all the time. To start with, don't you think it would be better to stop buying foreign oil and instead bring this cash flow into our own country, causing bigger investments in our energy programs? Second, in the United States right now - your electricity generation is 23.4% natural gas, 20.3% nuclear, 6.9% hydroelectric, and 3.6% other renewable like wind and solar. Your car uses 100% petroleum. It is estimated that an electric car would use about 115 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, versus 250 grams for a gas powered car. Cut your carbon footprint in half, save money by not buying gas, stop buying foreign oil, invest in our own country....sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
I'm bringin' telnet back.
Them other protocols don't know how to act.
I think it's special what's inside your rack.
So enable the service and I'll begin to hack.
Aside from all the technological and social advancements it made..it was just simply AWESOME. It inspired people everywhere to become scientists or astronauts. It is considered one of the, if not THE, greatest achievement of mankind. I can't even begin to understand your rationale here.
_
Caveman: I made fire!
You: Meh. The sun is just as bright. There are other ways to keep warm.
Egyptians: We built the pyramids!
You: So they're pretty big, so what? I could build that on a small scale.
Wright Brothers: I flew!
You: Pfft. Birds fly higher, and faster. I can just walk where I want to go.
...what the point of getting humans to the moon is? It's not science. We have closely orbited it many times. It's not resources. There's nothing *there* worth bringing back.
Sounds like NASA doing what it does best. Avoiding practical real world missions at all costs. Guess why people want to cut their budgets?
Reagan also halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget, reduced research spending on photovoltaics by two-thirds, and removed energy tax credits for homeowners. I think Reagans track record on energy policies can basically sum up how he felt about those solar panels.
And regarding Bush: TFA that you link states that:
Since September, a grid of 167 solar panels on the roof of a maintenance shed has been delivering electricity to the White House grounds. James Doherty, an architect for the National Park Service, decided to install the systems a few years ago.
"A few years ago" from when they were installed in September 2002 would have been before Bush was even president. So how does he get credit for those solar panels, exactly?
I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“
The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.
I think this is also a misunderstanding in terms that people think are used interchangeably. "Global Warming" is solely related to the change in global temperature. Whereas "Climate Change" is related to long term changes in weather phenomenon. Global warming is not climate change - global warming causes climate change.
I 100% agree. A well configured IE browser is just as secure as Firefox. I never have any problems with IE, and where I work we get just as many PC's with problems that use Firefox and think that they are going to be perfectly safe on the internet thanks to all the hype. In most cases, an educated end user is the answer - not Firefox.
I think most people here are using the wrong type of analogy for this case. The "theft" wasn't performed by any form of trespassing - so analogies of "borrowing" someones car because they didn't lock it is absurd. The AP is broadcasting information that is coming onto my property - I didn't go into his house to use it. There is no correct analogy for this - but the best may be with trees. If my neighbor has a tree that is growing on the boundary of our properties, and the trunk is on his side of the property - the tree is legally his. HOWEVER - I am legally allowed to trim the tree back to the boundary between our properties - even if it is HIS tree. But what about the fruit that falls from his tree onto MY property? This is where the law gets fuzzy (and why we will probably never have a good answer for the issue with open AP's). According to long-standing law doctrine - the fruit belongs to the owner of the tree - as well as any limbs, leaves, or anything else that falls from his tree. Therefore, if you ask your neighbor to remove any of these annoyances that happen to be landing on your property and he does not remove them - he can be held liable for any damages or costs to remove any such items. Sure, you can take any fruit from his tree that falls on your property (or is on a limb growing on your property) is he is okay with that - but if he decides he has a problem with that and he has evidence of you taking the fruit - he will win in court every time. The same could be said for your open AP - even if you are just "borrowing" his bandwidth without his knowledge and he finds out - you can bet your ass you are still stealing and can be held liable. The bottom line - even if he is broadcasting into YOUR house, it's still not your's for the taking. Try asking your neighbor is he has a problem with you using his open AP next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering just how insecure the average user is and how likely it is that his machine is infected, online voting is one of the biggest threats to real democracy that we face today
Of all the reasons not to use online voting, this one has to be the most confusing to me. Any kind of infection on the voters machine would only be used to steal information after you've already submitted your vote. Why would it be dangerous for an infection to possibly find out you voted for Candidate X? Someone probably already knows you are voting for Candidate X based on your "Candidate X 2012" bumper sticker, those nasty things you say about Candidate Y on Facebook, or perhaps even your browsing history. If an infection managed to steal your voter login/password, what use would it be after you've already submitted your one and only vote?
Considering what it takes to make a battery, what to do with them when they go bad, and how much of a toxic trouble they are in an accident.
Actually, the batteries in electric cars are made from lithium metal oxides with no lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBBs or PBDEs. There are no heavy metals or toxic materials. Plus, they can be easily recycled (96% recyclable versus, say...only 38% of glass can be recycled).
An electric car starts at $40,000 and will need $5,000 or more in new batteries every 5 or 6 years
I'm not quite sure where you're getting your numbers from...
The Nissan Leaf is supposed to cost $25,280 with tax breaks - and the battery comes with an 8 year warranty.
The Chevy Volt is supposed to cost $33,500 with tax breaks - and the battery also comes with an 8 year warranty.
The Tesla Model S is supposed to cost around that much - but we'll see what happens.
Add in the fact that the "power" the car uses comes from a power plant that burns coal or crude. All you have done is moved where the carbon footprint takes place at.
This is the same crap argument I hear all the time. To start with, don't you think it would be better to stop buying foreign oil and instead bring this cash flow into our own country, causing bigger investments in our energy programs? Second, in the United States right now - your electricity generation is 23.4% natural gas, 20.3% nuclear, 6.9% hydroelectric, and 3.6% other renewable like wind and solar. Your car uses 100% petroleum. It is estimated that an electric car would use about 115 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, versus 250 grams for a gas powered car. Cut your carbon footprint in half, save money by not buying gas, stop buying foreign oil, invest in our own country....sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
I'm bringin' telnet back.
Them other protocols don't know how to act.
I think it's special what's inside your rack.
So enable the service and I'll begin to hack.
_
Caveman: I made fire!
You: Meh. The sun is just as bright. There are other ways to keep warm.
Egyptians: We built the pyramids!
You: So they're pretty big, so what? I could build that on a small scale.
Wright Brothers: I flew!
You: Pfft. Birds fly higher, and faster. I can just walk where I want to go.
...what the point of getting humans to the moon is? It's not science. We have closely orbited it many times. It's not resources. There's nothing *there* worth bringing back.
Sounds like NASA doing what it does best. Avoiding practical real world missions at all costs. Guess why people want to cut their budgets?
Get my point?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carter-white-house-solar-panel-array
Reagan also halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget, reduced research spending on photovoltaics by two-thirds, and removed energy tax credits for homeowners. I think Reagans track record on energy policies can basically sum up how he felt about those solar panels.
And regarding Bush: TFA that you link states that:
Since September, a grid of 167 solar panels on the roof of a maintenance shed has been delivering electricity to the White House grounds. James Doherty, an architect for the National Park Service, decided to install the systems a few years ago.
"A few years ago" from when they were installed in September 2002 would have been before Bush was even president. So how does he get credit for those solar panels, exactly?
I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“
The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.
I think this is also a misunderstanding in terms that people think are used interchangeably. "Global Warming" is solely related to the change in global temperature. Whereas "Climate Change" is related to long term changes in weather phenomenon. Global warming is not climate change - global warming causes climate change.
It's kind of fun to tinker with, but I haven't decided yet how useful it will be.
Exactly..I keep asking it how to reverse entropy and all it keeps telling me is: "insufficient data for a meaningful answer".
It wants its buzzword back. Please stop using "Cyber-". Thank you.
Would you prefer iCommand?
Foldit
I only get violent when I lose. My theory is...all these kids lost to me in some online game. I feel better already.
I 100% agree. A well configured IE browser is just as secure as Firefox. I never have any problems with IE, and where I work we get just as many PC's with problems that use Firefox and think that they are going to be perfectly safe on the internet thanks to all the hype. In most cases, an educated end user is the answer - not Firefox.
"Don't press the green power button" Would solve a lot more of the problems I have to fix than simply shying away from IE.
I think most people here are using the wrong type of analogy for this case. The "theft" wasn't performed by any form of trespassing - so analogies of "borrowing" someones car because they didn't lock it is absurd. The AP is broadcasting information that is coming onto my property - I didn't go into his house to use it. There is no correct analogy for this - but the best may be with trees. If my neighbor has a tree that is growing on the boundary of our properties, and the trunk is on his side of the property - the tree is legally his. HOWEVER - I am legally allowed to trim the tree back to the boundary between our properties - even if it is HIS tree. But what about the fruit that falls from his tree onto MY property? This is where the law gets fuzzy (and why we will probably never have a good answer for the issue with open AP's). According to long-standing law doctrine - the fruit belongs to the owner of the tree - as well as any limbs, leaves, or anything else that falls from his tree. Therefore, if you ask your neighbor to remove any of these annoyances that happen to be landing on your property and he does not remove them - he can be held liable for any damages or costs to remove any such items. Sure, you can take any fruit from his tree that falls on your property (or is on a limb growing on your property) is he is okay with that - but if he decides he has a problem with that and he has evidence of you taking the fruit - he will win in court every time. The same could be said for your open AP - even if you are just "borrowing" his bandwidth without his knowledge and he finds out - you can bet your ass you are still stealing and can be held liable. The bottom line - even if he is broadcasting into YOUR house, it's still not your's for the taking. Try asking your neighbor is he has a problem with you using his open AP next time.