Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | echo-unity's commentslogin

well?

* sorry for being so obtuse I was just curious


Ah, you mean you'd like an explanation of those concepts? Well, I think I more or less understand the details by now, but it would take some effort to put it all into words. I'm afraid I don't quite have the time for that at the moment, so this was more meant as a suggestion for the author of the article to look into.


was Ruboto inspiration?


What recourse do the people have when voter fraud occurs? How much monitoring is done through those channels?

*I know it is not a react quickly because human lives could be at stake - but considering anything tied to a presidential election could lead to a person voted to office that could jeopordize a nation.


I would point out the fallacy in your statement - but I will let you figure it out in the next 5-10 years.


I believe he is hinting at inflation damaging the value of cash in the next 5 to 10.


I would be very interested in the fallacy you see, yet I see none.


Servers lose 90% of their value in 5 years. Cash will not.


Readers from Argentina and Zimbabwe might disagree.


2 things.

1. Police are taking at least 20% hit right off the top. so, sure $1000 turns into $750 at 5%, the police are going to be looking at $600 profit, at the very best. a $1000 computer would be more like $100 dollars after five years, in which the police keep $80 bucks.

2. You can pirate all the copyrighted material you want in Argentina and Zimbabwe. Furthermore, neither of those countries really care about property rights. if the government wants your stuff, they just take it anyway.


Yes, but the data on the server may still be valuable (e.g. to an identity thief).


|vulnerabilities exist in all systems

Couldn't disagree with you more.


Morbid way of proving a point, don't you think?


If there was a better way, I would take it.

But often people don't react until you can point to somebody and say "because of direct consequences of this policy, this person is no longer alive". It is even better if you can show his family crying.

Personally I would prefer getting them to fix it without getting anybody killed.

But that may be too much to ask.


Yes you save more people in the short term but the risk for disease transmission jumps up quite a lot. I'm sure that not even the doctors really like the fact of the matter but they have to accept it because they must save lives and not take them away for short term benefit.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: