Housewives hoping that the washing machines of the future will give them more free time may be in for a disappointment. Increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines, but a new study claims that they will have little impact. The study showed that nearly 36 percent of Americans housewives say they would be so apprehensive using a washing machine that they would only watch the load. Meanwhile, UK housewives were even more cautious at 44 per cent. "Currently, in the US, the average housewife spends about an hour a day washing -- time that could potentially be put to more productive use," said Mike Sikav, research professor at the University of Michigan Washing Research Institute. "Indeed, increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines."
I get motion sick if I try to read anything (book, map, phone, computer) in a moving car or train. I'll get zero productivity gain from a self driving car. Not sure what percentage of the population has the same issue, but I doubt it's insignificant.
I have no trouble using a computer on a car and do so regularly. Not sure what percentage of the population has no issue with motion sickness, but I doubt it's insignificant. (Yeah, we're both right.)
Unless you're clearly up to no good, you don't have to worry about spyware like this.
You mean up to no good like Angela Merkel, Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande the last three French presidents, and 35 world leaders?
But of course you don't need to be a celebrity or a politician to be up to no good. You could be trying to help people through a humanitarian organization like the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, , or you could just have said something bad about the government of a minor island, etc.
And even if you're not one of the above 'bad people', you could simply be one of the 90% of people who are collateral surveillance victims. So no, you don't need to be up to no good to be under surveillance and that's something to be concerned about.
I would hope that the rental company would reset the system in part of their cleanup/inspection after return, however.
Given that they don't seem to check tire pressure or verify wiper fluid level (both of which impact safety), I think expecting them to reset the infotainment system is pretty unrealistic.
Planes do detect other planes in proximity with the aptly-named proximity warning. Miles in advance. With beeps buzzes and autopilot disengagement. They are called ACAS.
Given that, to quote Wikipedia, while larger civil aircraft carry weather radar, sensitive anti-collision radar is rare in non-military aircraft, ACAS either does not detect planes that don't have a transponder, or need to rely on external systems to do so. Car autopilots can neither rely on other cars and pedestrians having transponders, nor on some central authority warning them when they're about to hit something. Thus they have to detect obstacles entirely on their own which requires a whole lot more sophistication than plane autopilots (which is also why planes have had autopilots for over 30 years and cars are just beginning to get them).
As for understandability or trustworthiness of the method, one could get a line up of 100 cryptographic who would testify as to the apparent correctness of the algorithm and the implementation.
Climate warming is easier to understand, there are over 2000 scientists who can and do testify that it is real and still 50% if not more of the population doubts it. And you think the testimony of a paltry 100 cryptographers will be sufficient?
Another interesting twist would be to send the vote through three independently designed electronic voting systems, and only if the results from all three agreed perfectly would the election be considered valid.
So either there are three computers and the voter must enter his vote three times without mistakes otherwise the results will differ causing everyone to doubt the system; or you have a four computer sending the vote data to the three others, after having tampered of leaked the votes, but all three implementations will show the same result, officially "proving" the election was not tampered with. In other words, no dice.
So just use bank ATMs that are located in already secured bank lobbies.
Thus directly giving control of the elections to private companies and reducing citizen oversight to exactly zero.
Yes, this de-anonymizes your vote.
De-anonymizing votes is the opposite of allowing everyone a say (because it enables community / employer / peer pressure). Not in theory, in practice, as shown by Chile's transition from open to secret ballots. Plus Internet (or ATM in your version) voting has nothing with ensuring anyone has a say. Finally, there's no point ensuring everyone has a say if you first made it trivial for anyone in the world to hack elections on a large scale.
Use a gift card and mail to a PO box service that is engaged under a pseudonym and paid for in cash.
Of course the whole "Internet voting equals Internet buying" analogy is fatally flawed. That's because the store does not care who you are as long as you pay so it's willing to accept a gift card you bought anonymously. In contrast the government wants to restrict voting rights to its constituency so it will never let you vote without first providing some form of identification.
Laymen cannot build a modern car or airplane or understand how it works, which means they cannot trust this system...
If cars or airplanes of a specific make keep crashing laymen are going to know pretty quick and will buy from its competitors. Same thing for the power grid, and the Internet, and pharmaceuticals.
But if done well, laymen would not know that the election was stolen. And it's not like you can go to the competition. Not only has the government a monopoly on elections, you cannot even escape whatever decisions it takes (no moving abroad is a not an option for most people).
There are other methods as well. I would explain it all, but I am not a cryptographer.
And that is the problem. To actually verify that these systems work as they claim you need PhD in cryptography which means 99.99% of the voters are left out in the cold. Plus having a working theory is one thing, letting voters make sure on election day that the implementation is not buggy and does not leak your votes to third-parties via a side-channel is another entirely.
For the first 100 or so years, voting in the US was open ballot. The only reason it changed was because there was a civil war. Corruption and vote fraud was much less with an open ballot, and so long as you aren't in a situation with armed insurrection, is clearly superior to the secret ballot.
Chile also had open ballots and was not in a state of civil war or armed insurrection. Yet, as soon as they switched to secret ballots the election results changed significantly.
You're forgetting whole cultures and communities where women don't have equal rights (no matter what the law says), and employers who have the will and the means to try and nudge the balance.
I think if you want an anonymous vote you should be able to vote on paper and if not then a verifiable digital vote. Leave the option to the voter.
Leaving the option to the voter is the same as leaving it to vote buyers and coercers.
One thing, no fucking chads.
Like Internet voting is the only solution to hanging chads. Guess what, in France we use paper and never had and never will get hanging chads!
I'm even in favor of getting rid of absentee voting for this reason. Lets have the polls open for 2-3 weeks, and offer rides a few of the days instead of mailing ballots back and forth. If you can't make it to an authorized polling place*, you don't get to vote.
You could start by having elections on a Sunday instead of having them on a day where almost no one has time to go and wait in line.
Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde