Agreed. No shade on Chekov; he did that role well, but it was a limited role which he couldn't really expand. Bester on B5 let him really show his talent.

Looking at history is indeed illuminating.

Every single time someone is asked a question of the form "if voting fraud is so prevalent, show me some examples", the most honest answer I hear is "it happened during the time of the Political Machines in certain large cities many decades ago". And when the best and most recent example you can find is 70+ years ago, before anyone having this discussion was even conceived, when politics and tech and discourse looked very different than today, well, that's a loud answer and it's not an answer which says "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING". It's an answer which says "I have exactly zero evidence so I'll pick an ancient example as proof that we must do obviously unethical things right now TO SAVE DEMOCRACY".

It's an answer which says nothing about the issues we are facing, but a lot about your determination to find evidence for your predetermined conclusion, rather than deducing a conclusion from the evidence.

Wow, you are really really desperate to de-legitimize elections. Why?

If you had read the post you were responding to: The "paper trail" my county uses is paper ballots which people fill in with pens (fill in the ovals, what fun!) and are then scanned. Those paper ballots are turned in to the county, as are the memory cards containing the scanned data. If there is any question, the county will hand-count the paper ballots, filled out by the voters NOT THE MACHINE.

You should probably ask yourself why you typed a comment that made a vague assertion contradicting a post with precise verifiable details. You may find out something about your opinions and decisions which will be unpleasant (but very important) to face.

I actually think you are wrong; you are assuming too much competence. The White House has few competent people, so hacking an election is well beyond them, but screaming out bullshit "facts" is right in their skillset. The goal (I suspect) is that when they lose, they'll use weaknesses in this one type of machine to claim that all elections are fraudulent. Are any "insecurities" they find useful for affecting election results? They won't care, and neither will their gullible followers. They don't need to convince anyone rational, they just need to reassure their already-convinced followers with something that sounds plausible.

Weird. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, our voting machines scan paper (marked by the voter) so we have a fully auditable paper trail. Have you considered voting for competent politicians? I won't say that the liberals in charge of Allegheny County are perfect; nobody is. But they run a solid verifiable election.

Every voting system is insecure, because every system is insecure, because nothing is perfect, it's all tradeoffs. If you think election fraud occurred, prove it; elections involve thousands of people so finding one whistleblower should be easy. If you cannot find one reliable whistleblower and no proof, then you are just another weak-ass gullible grandpa yelling at the clouds and everyone knows it.

Well, ipads start at $600 and this is under $300. On the other hand, if you buy apple hardware you probably don't care about the price.

Yes; most of these false arrests would have been avoided with a small amount of policework. Sadly, police face few consequences for poor actions (even fewer now that the administration has stopped federal oversight of questionable police forces; hope everyone is having the day they voted for!)

This doesn't limit the liability for flock and similar surveillance systems, but it should (but obviously will not) add liability for law enforcement which relies on these surveillance systems.

Mixed, of course, but overall I think it has made things better. An easy example is filming police. Police are overall a benefit for society, but they have massive power and very little oversight, and historically have been "above the law" and behaved accordingly (not all police, not always, but it doesn't take much). Now that cameras are always available, some percentage of misbehavior is captured and shown publicly, which is the main way that such misbehavior is truly investigated and (occasionally) punished.

We had the same panic when (almost) all cellphones started coming with cameras. "What if people take pictures in restrooms?" And somehow we all survived.

We tried year-round DST for a short time in the 70s. It was popular before it was passed, but... very very unpopular after it passed, because the mornings are very very dark and unpleasant. Good thing we learn from history rather than repeating it!

But there is. If telecom companies improve the service, then they will make less profit. Which is a good reason for the telecom executives, and a good reason for the current FCC. Crappy for the consumers, sure, but the FCC is staffed by the administration, so we had a vote and we made a choice.

Honestly, I suspect that it's more that telecom companies are supposed to improve their service, but that would cut into their profits, so they want to continue selling turds and calling it chocolate. We can all agree that wireless internet will not work the same as wired, but the only reason that so many people have terrible wired internet is because the companies would make less profit if they fixed it. So the FCC is saying "No worries! Customers are not important, your profits are!"

I hope everyone is having the day they voted for.

It's not causation, but correlation. The times that the grid open goes down are during extremely hot weather, which is the same time AC is needed (which overloads the grid) and during extremely cold weather (same time electric heat is needed). Extreme weather is the problem, along with underspecked grids and CEOs/politicians who permit loads on the grid which we all know the grid cannot support.

Both OSX and iOS are good. And if you're willing to lock yourself in the walled garden, the ability of laptop, tablet and phone to work together is very nice. I'm not so willing; in fact, I don't own any Apple hardware these days. But Apple should be lauded for their integrated system, and then excoriated for their paranoid money-grubbing which keeps them from allowing non-Apple systems into the garden, and for their inability to build their own secure-but-flexible cloud services.

Apple designs amazing hardware and great software. But when we get to online/networked/cloud... It's kinda shit, yeah. Which is notable because other companies have done extremely well in that space, to the point that Google's good-but-imperfect network services get more public complaints than Apple's dear-god-why network services. We just expect it now.