Does anyone else think that its getting too dangerous to keep some information in a digital form? Is some information destined to forever be kept in a printed form?
Both digital and analogue information cannot be secured perfectly; because some banks know not to change the default administrator from the well-known one is not a statement on how best to store a particular piece of information.
ABS is dangerous to people who learned to drive without it.
Only if the driver does not adapt to the new circumstance. Left-hand drive cars are dangerous in the hands of a driver who learned to drive a right-hand drive car for a similar reason: muscle memory not in-line with reality. The same can be said of transmission type, presence of power steering, torque, drive train, etc.
The only time I have ever slid though a stop sign in the snow was in an ABS vehicle.
That's one data point and says nothing about the safety of ABS versus not-ABS. It speaks only that your expectations and the actual performance of the cars systems differed and caused a dangerous situation. Thankfully muscle-memory is re-trainable.
Because it's at least trying to do something, even if you know it's a wasted effort.
Sounds like you have some hope then, which is very different than truly believing voting is absolutely pointless.
Not in my dreams. I did not discover a huge new type of shark yesterday nor did I end up in Brazil selling a guy a bunch of old US yellowpages for $50.
It's hard to make your claim unless you remember all of your dreams.
So getting less sleep I can become more popular? Because, seriously, from my interactions in this world it seems that intelligent and helpful thoughts are actively discouraged. Maybe it's better to be dumb and happy.
If your goal is popularity, then go ahead and pander. If your goal is the betterment of yourself then find friends that don't discourage your growth and value the quality over quantity.
Apathy is the NSA's most powerful tool.
That is the most important sentence I've read here. It also applies to more than just the NSA.
You can vote in government elections, you can vote with your wallet by supporting business that better support privacy, you can vote with your wallet form opting out from business models that make privacy impossible and you can communicate your views to others.
Democracy has always fared better when the public discourse was contributing. Businesses have always looked at their bottom lines first.
For example, I have three options for an ISP: Comcast, the local Telco and an old-school ISP. I go with the old-school ISP despite that I can only get 3MB DSL on my line and it costs more than Comcast. I do this because 3MB is enough for my needs. They don't filter any ports, they give me a static IP address and let me run any server I damn well please, they let me max out the line 24/7, they answer their phone in minutes with a competent tech when I call and I don't support a business who's hostile towards me. Three Mb/s is enough to stream SD, download HD for offline viewing, patch giant computer games overnight and send my backup data offsite. Yes, it's not as fast as 30 MB/s that Comcast offers me, but the more money they have to advance an agenda that harms most of the people in this country.
I'm just one persona and I am sure my $100 a month Comcast doesn't see does little, but if there were 100 million of me? That would send a message. Same goes for voting. Same goes for expressing what I do and why I do it.
I do vote and write to representatives - I'm just not foolish enough to think it actually makes a difference.
If you believe voting is a no-op, then why do you expend the mental and physical energy to do so? That seems irrational.
How do you know what the revolutionary army capable of defeating the US federal government will do when it seizes control? How is that any better? How is it not, in fact, far less predictable?
I never said it was better. There are more than those two options.
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
How do you know what the Green or Libertarians will do when they have that kind of power?
This OP meant "allowed to turn when traffic signal shows red and directional arrow", like this:
If that's the case, it's still unusual. I've never been to a place where there was a sign required. Here in Seattle if there's a left turn green arrow, one may enter the intersection. In fact, signs are pretty rare. (Turn lane markings are not but we're talking about permission to turn not which lane one can turn from). It's the same, from what I recall in PA, NY, MA, FL and CA.
As it should be. Why shouldn't the taxation and services provided by government be clear rather than obfuscated with road markings that contradict written rules. I much rather raise taxes and have clear markings than have to read 60,000 regulations for every municipality I visit.
How NYC has to increase taxes because of "increased costs" of Open Data, which will amount to about 60-100k a year...
Nothing wrong with that. If the city needs money they should present their case and raise their taxes. Doing it through obfuscated parking regulations does everyone a disservice.
and what happens in California becomes the standard in the nation and the world
That's quite a tall statement. That is certainly true for some things, but I don't think California has quite the influence you seem to think it does. Most of the world, thankfully so, is quite different than California and is happy that way.
In US cities you can only park where there is a parking space explicitly drawn...
Wait, what? In Seattle you can park at the side of any street where there is not a prohibition against or restriction (by payment, time, permit, etc.) of parking.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
