It will continue until they are physically restricted from doing these things.
Get real. Putting the Green or Libertarian parties in charge of the presidency and both houses of congress, with an overwhelming mandate to fix these issues, would be much, much easier and more successful than waging a successful war of violence on the federal government. "Grab your rifles and rise up" only works when you have the public at large passionately on your side. When that is the case in a modern republic, there are better tools available.
Um, what? Insane pseudoscience at its finest.
Of course that's all bullshit since irrational numbers don't exist in our quantum Universe.
I was soclose to modding you up for an otherwise good technical explanation, until I got to this ridiculous last sentence. Oh well.
Needless, inane, editorializing in the summary, as usual. So sad. Especially when the article itself is concise, factual, and free of such nonsense.
I admit that the article doesn't go into any technical details, but the number of comments here that are completely ignorant of what formal verification is and reject that it is even possible is...disturbing. (See CompCert for a real-world example of this practice.) Since the article was so bad, I don't know what the team actually did, but "mathematically proven to be invulnerable to large classes of attack" is exactly the sort of prudent statement I would expect from someone who has done good work making a hardened system.
Is that a complete list of countries where homeschooling is a crime? If so, it's not a very big list.
For comparison, Wikipedia lists the following counties where alcohol is illegal: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, India (some parts), Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. Not quite as many, but within a factor of two.
This piece is by the New York Times editorial board, not a politician. Would you propose no one talk about the power of money in politics, just because it affects both parties? I, for one, would prefer that people talk about the corrupting influence of money on the political process whenever it occurs, so that, maybe some day, enough people will be fed up with it to do something about it.
That doesn't mean I support a politician with big money backers using the fact that his opponent accepts campaign contributions as a cheap ad hominem, however, but that's not what this is.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Let's not dilute the word by using it for other bad things.