The state of the art is inadequate to ensure secure, valid, accurate vote acquisition and tabulation. And there is no reason to expect it will be any time soon.
Just stop. Those most interested in electronic voting are either profiting from the deployment, or profiting from manipulating the results.
Look and learn. They really do believe they are not merely 'better', but more deserving, and merely paying a bit of money to ensure their offspring have the advantages yours will not, and will not because they take them from yours, doesn't bother them a bit.
And all this for the 'right' school. Do you doubt they expect their offspring to graduate, likely with honors, no matter the cost of that?
And, if you're paying attention, that they consider your offspring not merely unentitled, but undeserving of even a fair chance, should tell you they care not a bit for your, your offspring, your anything.
They've set the standard of unmerited privilege long ago. They are more enlightened than you, more talented, more important, more caring, thoughtful, and gosh darn it, they are just better than you. Better.
And they should be in charge, in power, because they are just better than you, and the rest of you.
Remember this. Their attitude pervades every part of their lives, and impacts every part of yours.
The theory is consumerist capitalism seemed to me to be a false dichotomy. A free marketplace permits responses to consumer demand. If the free market includes advertising, well, of course the capitalist seeks maximum profit, and so maximum sales usually, and so would happily 'manipulate' demand.
Your argument doesn't make sense lot of sense to me. Both dynamics are at work and are not exclusive.
If you're in SF or LA, JINS is cool to walk into. It seems mailorder they are about 60% more expensive than Zenni, but very affordable to me. It's just that they show me about 30 choices that work for me, while Zenni shows me hundreds.
Oh, you want the Government to get involved and make them play nice?
Sure, regulation can't possibly increase their costs, right? And of course some agency knows better how the market work, being as they are actually part of a free market themselves.
"The entire justification of market economies hinges on the central premise that competition drives the retail price towards the marginal cost of production. "
No.
Market economies that drive competition also drive choice. This is a foundation of consumerism. So if you regulate my market economy sufficiently, you may reduce choice, and I get a pair of the same thick black frames everyone else has, no matter if they are heavy, narrow, and fragile.
Part of this market economy that provides choice also provides, often, lower cost solutions driven by cost of production.
In any case, market economies outperform all others, if you measure performance by satisfaction, fulfillment, and sustainability. Change my mind.
Frames are fashionable. Lenses are perhaps well described as 'medical'. But as I use progressive lenses, there are a variety of technologies, with benefits and disadvantages, and costs. Three year old tech still works just like it did 3 years ago. I'm satisfied. I suspect much new tech is driven as much by marketing and profit as it is by improved performance. And it seems that lately new lens tech is all about new processes. Yay team.
Now I have to work pout the computer thing, since it seems to work. My work monitor is usually 30" away, home monitor about the same, but I regularly work with my Surface Pro at about 18-25" away. Not a simple solution.
Yeah. My first pair of prescription glasses, were about $600, 25 years ago. I paid for progressive lenses (accommodation syndrome the diagnosis), flexible frames, optometrist's shop. That was a superb experience, and the next 3 pairs were at similar shops, but a variety of styles. Some were great, one pair had to go back and be redone, none were less than $600. After insurance it was still $400 out of pocket.
The last full price pair I bought, 4 years ago, were $845, the frames just $125, out of pocket about $500. These taught me a lot. First, they were enameled, allegedly, but actually painted. Paint failed. I made the mistake of researching this, and found these frames retailed online for $89, could be had off eBay for $60 or so. I don't begrudge my shop a profit, though. So I took it, but it taught me that even the best shop sells average or worse frames.
Oh, and his optometrist, independent contractor, found astigmatism, the first of 4 to find this in me. I'll actually be visiting an ophthalmologist this summer to get the second opinion, judge my cataracts, and generally double-check things. It's been at least 12 years since I was refracted by an MD.
And it taught me that there are online services. So I looked into one. My prescription did not include pupillary distance, so I asked and they provided it. It seems to agree with the ruler I got later. And I ordered progressives, online, a rimless/hingeless frame virtually identical to the most popular and mostly most expensive brand in shops. $129. With 2 clip on sunglass lenses. All the options except photochromic, Took 5 weeks to arrive. My second pair actually broke after 2 years, and were welded back together locally for $60. Feh.
It took me a few days to get them adjusted correctly, and they were superb. NO complaint.
Now, my lenses three back were fairly high end progressives, a design with a little distance added into the bottom edge, to help with walking. I noticed that. Changing shops I got a different technology, and they were fine. Going online, a different and older technology, and they were just fine. If you can search for a patent number, you can determine what the offshore shops are using, since they are often obliged to disclose that. Having the latest tech is interesting, but no longer critical for me.
Saving $700? Almost Priceless.
I'm wearing my third pair now, and they took 2 weeks to arrive, price now is $129. The frames were loosely assembled, but they come with a tool, spare bolts and nuts, etc, and the clip ons were kinda wierd shaped. All bendable. It took me almost a week to get these right, but I usually don't take them to a shop for help, it's not right to ask and one shop told me a fitting would be $100. But, my wife buys locally, she has single vision prescriptions, and her guy said he would be HAPPY to fit these for me, gratis. He's a nice guy,
Local shop, $850. Offshore, $129. This is no longer a hard choice for me.
Now, in fairness, my sunglasses fetish is no longer affordable, first because designer and brand-name frames are not going to be available at the offshore shops. I'm partial to Persol and Ray-Ban, and that means full price shops or online no-deal shops. But I learned that Persol acetate frames are nearly indestructible, like Ray-Bans, and Persol polarized glass lenses are so damned good. Even Oakley lenses were not that much better that I would suffer their frame fit issues. I've got a wide head, and wide frames are very difficult to find because, well, the same reason fashion clothing in large sizes is hard to find, designers seem to prefer smaller, it seems to them to look better. Another few months on a carnivore diet should help with this, but my head size will never be small. Rimless and hingeless give me good options, but it's tough to get the larger frames from designers, they seem to reserve that inventory for special customers. At one time Persol simply sent collections to movie stars without asking, and if you look, they are very common in films. Easy to spot
Nothing to do with the reports that she violated 18 US S 1519, S 793(f), S 1924, , both by the then-FBI director, publicly, and in his memos? And, based on this and other public reports, 18 US S 2071(b) (or S 641), S 1505, S 1031, S 1343...?
Oh, and before her husband was President, 18 US S 1001, S 1014, S 371, and S 1341, all in connection with real estate transactions and financing,
Besides being perceived by some as an 'unlikable' person, which is not much of an impediment for many other candidates, her well-publicized legal transgressions should have resulted in indictments, as many of them do not require intent. And as a candidate, claims that 'I didn't understand the regulations' or 'I didn't know they were classified' would not be tolerated from any other candidate, possibly, even, other Democrat candidates.
How would the competitive market for social media look?
Would it be interconnected platforms, sharing posts and content, permitting users to have privileges on those other, competing platforms? How would the different user agreements coexist, be enforceable, and understandable?
Would these competing but cooperating platforms enforce censorship of unacceptable* content? How would such content be defined? How would disagreements be resolved?
If I block a user on another platform, would they be able to register on a third platform and still get through to me? Would there be a federated identity system to prevent, for instance, abuse by people under court order to not contact me? I this already a problem, and would a competitive but cooperative marketplace be able effectively deal with this?
How would platforms share unique, proprietary intellectual property? If not, would this defeat the intention of a cooperative marketplace?
How do we avoid favored and disfavored platforms, and the antitrust concerns arising? Would a new platform be able to petition for inclusion, and if so, based on subscriptions, or user demand, or what?
A 'competitive' market is such an attractive term and goal, but the reality is that unlike cars, it's not as simple (f this example is simple at all) as agreeing on the size of fuel nozzles, parking spaces, or safety devices. That may be an appropriate model, but then again, we actually DO HAVE a competitive marketplace. It's just not consistent in UI, in content type, in shape and appearance. Facebook isn't like Twitter like Instagram like Pinterest. Amazon is just a big retailer, so I expect Granny Warren to also demand Walmart be 'broken up' also, for one.
Which exposes the futility of all this. Even if you break up a Walmart and Amazon, what do you get? Fewer stores? New competitors? The breakup of AT&T resulted in the 'Baby Bells', with locks on their markets. Changing the rules to require competitors be permitted access to their networks changed
* - 'unacceptable' being my term for content that any platform determines cannot be permitted for distribution. This is often described as 'hate speech', 'inflammatory speech', or 'objectionable speech'. How it is named isn't as important for the purposes of this discussion as how it is defined, and currently there are not a lot of definitions that are consistently used or even disclosed.
Encrypted, so they can pretend they don't really know what we are saying or doing. Except for when they receive complaints, and then they will continue to decide if they wish to act or not, and how, and against whoever, at their whim. Even written policy will be sufficiently vague to permit action or inaction as they choose.
Ephemeral, so that they can pretend they didn't see never knew, can't be held responsible. Unless someone complains, and then they will continue to decide if they wish to act or not, and how, and against whoever, at their whim. Even written policy will be sufficiently vague to permit action or inaction as they choose.
Nothing changes.They will take full advantage of their control to punish enemies, promote friends, advance their agenda in any realm, and defeat the agenda of any they oppose.
And they know that already the attention market has peaked. As more sophisticated methods permit totally faked videos and pictures that are indistinguishable from reality to be published, as media companies transition fully from merely ignoring actual facts and events to fabricating content to discredit their adversaries, refusing to publish even retractions, because they will refuse to acknowledge rebuttals, as the media and attention markets complete their conversion tl purely manipulative media, we will, all of us, lose interest and find other pursuits.
And they will follow US. Devise new methods to infiltrate our existences, be it games predicated only on shaping attitudes and beliefs, mocking and ridiculing their opponents, or presenting naked propaganda as entertainment, going past the current practice and not even pretending to be mere 'entertainment', and publishing their malicious content as 'setting the record straight', when it is plainly anything but. Tell the lie long enough and loud enough, and it will be taken for truth.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, you apparently didn't read even the summary. And are too lazy to read the article.
OTOH, you are an AC.
I would, but I've been shadowbanned from moderation. Feh.
And the next hole. And the next.
The state of the art is inadequate to ensure secure, valid, accurate vote acquisition and tabulation. And there is no reason to expect it will be any time soon.
Just stop. Those most interested in electronic voting are either profiting from the deployment, or profiting from manipulating the results.
Look and learn. They really do believe they are not merely 'better', but more deserving, and merely paying a bit of money to ensure their offspring have the advantages yours will not, and will not because they take them from yours, doesn't bother them a bit.
And all this for the 'right' school. Do you doubt they expect their offspring to graduate, likely with honors, no matter the cost of that?
And, if you're paying attention, that they consider your offspring not merely unentitled, but undeserving of even a fair chance, should tell you they care not a bit for your, your offspring, your anything.
They've set the standard of unmerited privilege long ago. They are more enlightened than you, more talented, more important, more caring, thoughtful, and gosh darn it, they are just better than you. Better.
And they should be in charge, in power, because they are just better than you, and the rest of you.
Remember this. Their attitude pervades every part of their lives, and impacts every part of yours.
Shift+F2 my friend.
I get F16 with shift+F4. 3270 land. Learn it, live it, love it.
The theory is consumerist capitalism seemed to me to be a false dichotomy. A free marketplace permits responses to consumer demand. If the free market includes advertising, well, of course the capitalist seeks maximum profit, and so maximum sales usually, and so would happily 'manipulate' demand.
Your argument doesn't make sense lot of sense to me. Both dynamics are at work and are not exclusive.
One of my terminal based apps uses F12 to exit the app.
Just when you think the world plays by the same rules all the time...
F1 was not the Help key in WordPerfect
Zenni is mailorder/web order, based in HK.
If you're in SF or LA, JINS is cool to walk into. It seems mailorder they are about 60% more expensive than Zenni, but very affordable to me. It's just that they show me about 30 choices that work for me, while Zenni shows me hundreds.
Good site though, I'll be looking there.
Oh, you want the Government to get involved and make them play nice?
Sure, regulation can't possibly increase their costs, right? And of course some agency knows better how the market work, being as they are actually part of a free market themselves.
Oh, wait...
I can buy prescription glasses for $300 or $1300. I'm free to choose.
That is one feature of a free market.
Oh, and I'm ABLE to choose, I have sufficient funds to do so. And entirely because of a free market for my services.
"The entire justification of market economies hinges on the central premise that competition drives the retail price towards the marginal cost of production. "
No.
Market economies that drive competition also drive choice. This is a foundation of consumerism. So if you regulate my market economy sufficiently, you may reduce choice, and I get a pair of the same thick black frames everyone else has, no matter if they are heavy, narrow, and fragile.
Part of this market economy that provides choice also provides, often, lower cost solutions driven by cost of production.
In any case, market economies outperform all others, if you measure performance by satisfaction, fulfillment, and sustainability. Change my mind.
'Medical Equipment'?
Frames are fashionable. Lenses are perhaps well described as 'medical'. But as I use progressive lenses, there are a variety of technologies, with benefits and disadvantages, and costs. Three year old tech still works just like it did 3 years ago. I'm satisfied. I suspect much new tech is driven as much by marketing and profit as it is by improved performance. And it seems that lately new lens tech is all about new processes. Yay team.
We can all bend metal, and some even acetate.
Knowing HOW to bend, and in which direction, and how much, that is a certain specific set of skills...
Ditto on Zenni.
Now I have to work pout the computer thing, since it seems to work. My work monitor is usually 30" away, home monitor about the same, but I regularly work with my Surface Pro at about 18-25" away. Not a simple solution.
Yeah. My first pair of prescription glasses, were about $600, 25 years ago. I paid for progressive lenses (accommodation syndrome the diagnosis), flexible frames, optometrist's shop. That was a superb experience, and the next 3 pairs were at similar shops, but a variety of styles. Some were great, one pair had to go back and be redone, none were less than $600. After insurance it was still $400 out of pocket.
The last full price pair I bought, 4 years ago, were $845, the frames just $125, out of pocket about $500. These taught me a lot. First, they were enameled, allegedly, but actually painted. Paint failed. I made the mistake of researching this, and found these frames retailed online for $89, could be had off eBay for $60 or so. I don't begrudge my shop a profit, though. So I took it, but it taught me that even the best shop sells average or worse frames.
Oh, and his optometrist, independent contractor, found astigmatism, the first of 4 to find this in me. I'll actually be visiting an ophthalmologist this summer to get the second opinion, judge my cataracts, and generally double-check things. It's been at least 12 years since I was refracted by an MD.
And it taught me that there are online services. So I looked into one. My prescription did not include pupillary distance, so I asked and they provided it. It seems to agree with the ruler I got later. And I ordered progressives, online, a rimless/hingeless frame virtually identical to the most popular and mostly most expensive brand in shops. $129. With 2 clip on sunglass lenses. All the options except photochromic, Took 5 weeks to arrive. My second pair actually broke after 2 years, and were welded back together locally for $60. Feh.
It took me a few days to get them adjusted correctly, and they were superb. NO complaint.
Now, my lenses three back were fairly high end progressives, a design with a little distance added into the bottom edge, to help with walking. I noticed that. Changing shops I got a different technology, and they were fine. Going online, a different and older technology, and they were just fine. If you can search for a patent number, you can determine what the offshore shops are using, since they are often obliged to disclose that. Having the latest tech is interesting, but no longer critical for me.
Saving $700? Almost Priceless.
I'm wearing my third pair now, and they took 2 weeks to arrive, price now is $129. The frames were loosely assembled, but they come with a tool, spare bolts and nuts, etc, and the clip ons were kinda wierd shaped. All bendable. It took me almost a week to get these right, but I usually don't take them to a shop for help, it's not right to ask and one shop told me a fitting would be $100. But, my wife buys locally, she has single vision prescriptions, and her guy said he would be HAPPY to fit these for me, gratis. He's a nice guy,
Local shop, $850. Offshore, $129. This is no longer a hard choice for me.
Now, in fairness, my sunglasses fetish is no longer affordable, first because designer and brand-name frames are not going to be available at the offshore shops. I'm partial to Persol and Ray-Ban, and that means full price shops or online no-deal shops. But I learned that Persol acetate frames are nearly indestructible, like Ray-Bans, and Persol polarized glass lenses are so damned good. Even Oakley lenses were not that much better that I would suffer their frame fit issues. I've got a wide head, and wide frames are very difficult to find because, well, the same reason fashion clothing in large sizes is hard to find, designers seem to prefer smaller, it seems to them to look better. Another few months on a carnivore diet should help with this, but my head size will never be small. Rimless and hingeless give me good options, but it's tough to get the larger frames from designers, they seem to reserve that inventory for special customers. At one time Persol simply sent collections to movie stars without asking, and if you look, they are very common in films. Easy to spot
So Justice goes out of style?
Isn't this actually the problem?
Strategery, my friend.
Let all these made-up accusations of collusion and such be cleared as best they can. Let all this run its course.
Then begin the work. Knowing that ALL of Washington will oppose him...
"Republicans seem to be willing to go to any lengths for power, "
Really? Romney, McCain, GHW Bush, these are men who would and did 'go to any lengths for power'?
Really?
"and generally wasnâ(TM) (sic)t well liked,"
Nothing to do with the reports that she violated 18 US S 1519, S 793(f), S 1924, , both by the then-FBI director, publicly, and in his memos? And, based on this and other public reports, 18 US S 2071(b) (or S 641), S 1505, S 1031, S 1343...?
Oh, and before her husband was President, 18 US S 1001, S 1014, S 371, and S 1341, all in connection with real estate transactions and financing,
Besides being perceived by some as an 'unlikable' person, which is not much of an impediment for many other candidates, her well-publicized legal transgressions should have resulted in indictments, as many of them do not require intent. And as a candidate, claims that 'I didn't understand the regulations' or 'I didn't know they were classified' would not be tolerated from any other candidate, possibly, even, other Democrat candidates.
No, of course not.
To PLU, it sure does. We figured this out a while ago.
How would the competitive market for social media look?
Would it be interconnected platforms, sharing posts and content, permitting users to have privileges on those other, competing platforms? How would the different user agreements coexist, be enforceable, and understandable?
Would these competing but cooperating platforms enforce censorship of unacceptable* content? How would such content be defined? How would disagreements be resolved?
If I block a user on another platform, would they be able to register on a third platform and still get through to me? Would there be a federated identity system to prevent, for instance, abuse by people under court order to not contact me? I this already a problem, and would a competitive but cooperative marketplace be able effectively deal with this?
How would platforms share unique, proprietary intellectual property? If not, would this defeat the intention of a cooperative marketplace?
How do we avoid favored and disfavored platforms, and the antitrust concerns arising? Would a new platform be able to petition for inclusion, and if so, based on subscriptions, or user demand, or what?
A 'competitive' market is such an attractive term and goal, but the reality is that unlike cars, it's not as simple (f this example is simple at all) as agreeing on the size of fuel nozzles, parking spaces, or safety devices. That may be an appropriate model, but then again, we actually DO HAVE a competitive marketplace. It's just not consistent in UI, in content type, in shape and appearance. Facebook isn't like Twitter like Instagram like Pinterest. Amazon is just a big retailer, so I expect Granny Warren to also demand Walmart be 'broken up' also, for one.
Which exposes the futility of all this. Even if you break up a Walmart and Amazon, what do you get? Fewer stores? New competitors? The breakup of AT&T resulted in the 'Baby Bells', with locks on their markets. Changing the rules to require competitors be permitted access to their networks changed
* - 'unacceptable' being my term for content that any platform determines cannot be permitted for distribution. This is often described as 'hate speech', 'inflammatory speech', or 'objectionable speech'. How it is named isn't as important for the purposes of this discussion as how it is defined, and currently there are not a lot of definitions that are consistently used or even disclosed.
Encrypted, so they can pretend they don't really know what we are saying or doing. Except for when they receive complaints, and then they will continue to decide if they wish to act or not, and how, and against whoever, at their whim. Even written policy will be sufficiently vague to permit action or inaction as they choose.
Ephemeral, so that they can pretend they didn't see never knew, can't be held responsible. Unless someone complains, and then they will continue to decide if they wish to act or not, and how, and against whoever, at their whim. Even written policy will be sufficiently vague to permit action or inaction as they choose.
Nothing changes.They will take full advantage of their control to punish enemies, promote friends, advance their agenda in any realm, and defeat the agenda of any they oppose.
And they know that already the attention market has peaked. As more sophisticated methods permit totally faked videos and pictures that are indistinguishable from reality to be published, as media companies transition fully from merely ignoring actual facts and events to fabricating content to discredit their adversaries, refusing to publish even retractions, because they will refuse to acknowledge rebuttals, as the media and attention markets complete their conversion tl purely manipulative media, we will, all of us, lose interest and find other pursuits.
And they will follow US. Devise new methods to infiltrate our existences, be it games predicated only on shaping attitudes and beliefs, mocking and ridiculing their opponents, or presenting naked propaganda as entertainment, going past the current practice and not even pretending to be mere 'entertainment', and publishing their malicious content as 'setting the record straight', when it is plainly anything but. Tell the lie long enough and loud enough, and it will be taken for truth.
But it's still the lie.