"Pulling in every favor" - and your evidence is?

You do realize that it's an explicit violation of the Swedish extradition treaty with the US to extradite someone for political, military, or intelligence crimes, don't you? They couldn't even hand over Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector to the Soviets during the cold war, and he didn't even have the cover of being a journalist (Sweden having the strongest whistleblower protections on Earth, as repeatedly noted by Assange at the time when he was moving there). And I assume that you know that someone surrendered under an EAW requires both the consent of the receiving (Sweden) *and* sending state (Britain) to be forward-extradited to a third state, meaning that being surrendered under an EAW only increases your protections against extradition. Britain, of course, being the country that took most of a decade to hand over Abu Hamza, a guy everyone hated and who was setting up terrorist training camps in the US, and which wouldn't hand over at all Gary McKinnon (the most costly hacker of US military systems in history) because he (like Assange) has Aspergers. Oh, and I'm sure you you know the ECHR, the world's greatest refuge for people seeking to avoid extradition, has the final say.

Lets just see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat. For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the the UK, or any of the vast numbers of far-easier countries that Assange regularly globetrots to. No, it has to be Sweden. Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason. Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden when the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to frame him for a crime? Yeah! And let's pick a crime that has a pathetically low conviction rate! Let's not only frame him for rape, but let's frame him for rape but use a case that involves the women having consented to certain acts but not others, have them do delays and other actions that could potentially hurt their case, etc, just like in real rape situations, where victims don't live their lives as though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of a phony "knife to the throat" hollywood-style rape case." Why? Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way, stop asking questions! And because our CIA psychics have foreseen this event for decades in advance, we can now activate Sleeper Agent SW who we've had spend decades misleadingly cultivating herself as a young Swedish museum worker with a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex. Now, let's install our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, to prosecute him - because of course, we at the CIA have infiltrated the top levels of all of the major governments' of the world's judicial systems just for this purpose (we also run all of their courts, so that we can have the Svea Court of Appeals, the Swedish Supreme Court, the UK District Court, the UK High Court, and the UK Supreme Court each rule against him in turn). But, for fun, let's have the prosecutor take several weeks to get him, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run. And let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him. Then when he exhausts his legal options in the UK and jumps bail to run into the embassy of a country with an anti-western leader who's a fan of his, let's do absolutely nothing - it'll be fun!

Is this how it went down, in your mind? Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy. Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

Just like the Calle 13 rap, the Lady Gaga hangout, and the mulletted "You're The Voice" music video did.

Typical Slashdot. "New peer reviewed science study says something. But random guy on the internet says they're wrong!"

Or just forget about all the facial recognition stuff and use the phone itself. We were looking at this back when I was in the auto industry. You can have it detect, via what phones approach which door, a unique identity for each passenger and have custom configuration or access rights for said users. The owner can require or disable the additional use of passwords or other athentication forms (swipe, thumbprint, whatever). And of course you and do various remote access features - for example, if the car is stolen, the ability to take pictures or video of the driver and passengers, the ability to communicate back over the speaker system, the ability to cut power, the ability to send out a code so that (for whatever car components support it) they're rendered inoperable until they receive a code to reinable it (aka, chop shop resistance - we were looking at several other things in this regard too, such as a facility to let parts authenticate on startup, with swap-out requring authorization), the ability to track the car, the ability to override door locks, and so forth. And we were looking at various ways to allow access but limit it, mainly for parents with teenagers or people loaning their car out - for example, accleration limitation, alerts to reckless driving, alerts to them entering certain areas, alerts to them driving outside of a given range, passenger limitations, etc.

In Estonia, if your card is taken from you can call in immediately and invalidate its signatures and have the right to contest any fraudulent use of it. There's also discussion about allowing for alternative / backup / temporary ID cards in the future. And of course, an ID card is hardly the only approach one can take for an internet voting system, Estonia just wanted to tie voting into their system.

Nor am I "pretending that doing stuff with computers is always better". I'm simply pointing out that most people complaining have no clue about the actual implementations of the sort of systems they're complaining about.

And as for the urn, in both cases, the person can't take a *video* showing which one they're placing in the urn, why?

Hydrogen doesn't just require "modifications to the gas mains", it requires a complete reconstruction, and it'd probably be a really dumb idea. Hydrogen embrittles metals. You put it in any sort of regular pipe, and your system will start springing leaks everywhere from distribution to end-user consumption. It also leaks through almost everything, but especially things not specifically designed for it. But it gets worse, because after it leaks it tends to pool in explosive mixtures under overhangs. Also, if you have multiple pipes running parallel, and there's hydrogen in the lower one but not in the upper one, part of the hydrogen leaking out of the lower pipe ends up in the upper pipe, where it can follow it to its destination and pools there. Beyond that, H2 has combustible fuel air mixtures way, way wider than of methane, 4-75% in air. And unlike methane, it can readily undergo deflagration-to-detonation transitions under STP conditions. NASA safety guidelines require any facility handling more than a dozen or so kilograms of hydrogen to have a roof designed to be blown away in an explosion. And hydrogen ignites with a tenth the ignition energy of methane. We're used to fuels that require a visible, audible spark to ignite, but hydrogen ignites with the sort of tiny static or electrics discharges that you don't even see in everyday life; ordinary electronics are not designed to be safe in an environment where a combustible hydrogen mix might leak into.

Beyond that, producing hydrogen then burning it is a ridiculously wasteful approach. Even using it in a SOFC after producing it is still ridiculously wasteful. And it's also a very expensive process. Producing methane from atmospheric CO2, however, is so bad it makes even hydrogen look efficient by comparison.

Obviously, the efficient way to store electricity is batteries. Given DC and not too fast of a charge rate, li-ions, for example, can be over 99% efficient. But obviously the price for storage would be way too high. There's various cheaper techs on the market, including some forms of flow storage, with radically cheaper ones in development, and there's talk of using used EV batteries for grid storage; we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Also far cheaper and more efficient (~75% net) than hydrogen production is pumped hydro, with or without a river present. Compressed air storage is relatively cheap, but inefficient (~10-30%); however there's some lab-scale attempts at isothermal storage which might get that signficantly higher.

Sometimes you see claims on hydrogen or compressed air production that are higher efficiency, but that's just PR flak; they get those numbers by assuming you make use of the waste heat for some other industry that would otherwise have to burning something to produce said head. But you can say that about every system on earth, because everything has waste heat. The number that matters is how efficiently you can store your electricity.

But of course, that difference is way outweighed by the fact that the new gassification plants are about 40% efficient, versus 25%-ish for the plants they're replacing. Also the new plants are designed for rapid ramp up/ramp down. That means that while they're baseload for now, the more renewables in the future come to dominate the grid, the more they'll switch over to being peaking plants. I actually don't think it's a bad strategy at all. I think it makes a lot more sense than relying on Russian NG. It's lower carbon, but more expensive, and it leaves you reliant on a country that tries to use its market dominance as geopolitical blackmail. And the extra money you spend on NG could instead be spent on increasing your renewables deployment.

On the other hand, if some of the European nations that are interested in fracking end up going that route, perhaps they get low carbon *plus* low cost and geopolitical stability. It's really hard to know what NG prices are going to be in the EU in the long term. If EU does go the fracking route, Russia's going to be in a world of hurt. Before the US fracking boom, US and EU NG prices were about the same. Since then, EU prices have doubled while US prices have halved; US prices are now a quarter of what they pay in Germany. If the EU could get gas prices even close to what they are in the US, the Russian natural gas industry will pretty much collapse, there's no way they can afford that sort of pricing.

Yeah, by not giving people a commandline worth anything in the first place. But you are right: MS realizes their customers are incompetent, immature whiners that would blame MS is they used MS products to shoot themselves in the foot. So the function to shoot anything was removed.

You have noting to contribute but could not keep your mouth shut?

If you do not do input sanitization, you are screwed anyways. If you do input sanitization, this is not a security problem anymore. Stop trying to fix problems in the wrong place.

You do not seem to understand what this discussion is about. It is about security, not safety. And when it is about security, the wildcards come from somewhere else and need to be sanitized in that path. A user doing this to himself is just stupid, but not a security issue. (And yes, as somebody that once had to recompile bash to get a longer commandline-buffer, I know exactly where the expansion happens.)

And not everybody has any business writing security-critical code. You are asking for the illiterate to be allowed and encouraged to write poetry. That cannot ever work.

No, but they can (and often do) take losses themselves.

If you can prove it wasn't you who did the transaction. If you can't, it's your loss.

Yet people use it. Clearly people consider the risk acceptable. So why isn't it acceptable for choosing a school board commissioner?

They can (and do) also add extensive monitoring systems, which involves a lot of tracking and analysis of each individual and aggregate money flow.

They track who spends what for what goods/from what retailer. A voter registrar needs to know, in order to count the vote, who votes and for whom. So the key difference on collected data is....?

It's also unlikely that large-scale fraud goes undetected for years, for obvious reasons.

You've clearly never looked at the auditing methods used by actual e-voting systems. They're generally way, way more transparent and provable than paper voting systems.

The simple fact is, bank accounts do get hacked, and people do lose money that they don't get back. Yet people are perfectly fine with that in exchange for the convenience they get. Even though they're dealing with their life's savings. So why not the school board commissioner too?

There is one severe issue with online voting. It doesn't occur in a controlled environment. As a result, it's possible to check what other person actually voted for.

In Straw-Man Voting Systems internet voting software, you're absolutely right!

Meanwhile, in the non-straw-man case, this is a well recognized problem with dozens of easy solutions which anyone spending 15 seconds thinking about the problem could solve. For example, Estonia lets people vote as many times as they want, either in person or on the computer, only the last one counts, and in-person always overrides electronic. So unless you're literally holding crowds hostage all day until the election is over, no, that's inapplicable. And if you're holding crowds hostage to control their voting preference, that's no difference from holding a crowd of opposing voters hostage and not letting them vote in any other system.

Another example solution is letting people cast "test votes" or "dummy votes" which look exactly like real votes, but aren't tallied. The user knows whether they're logged in to cast a test/dummy vote because they know what information they chose at the registrar's office when they registered, but not only does the "buyer" not see a difference, but there's no way that the user can even prove it to them if they wanted to. They can *say* "this is my real account", but the "buyer" has to take them on their word.

These are just two examples among many. Meanwhile, in traditional voting someone can just buy off / force a person to submit an absentee paper ballot for whoever they want, or have them snap a cell phone shot in the polling booth.