> Even small amounts over time (re: decades) will have adverse effects.
If the adverse effects happen decades after you'll statistically be deceased I'm not sure it's fair to say there's no safe level of exposure.
It's not at the expense of consumers and the environment. It could make much of what consumers buy prohibitively expensive, for potentially no benefit.
The pair of animations on the page are beautifully done, not just technically but aesthetically as well. If the rest of the book is like that I'll be getting a copy.
Prior to expiry would suggest the encryption is broken from the start.
Although I do disagree on the reasonable/unreasonable angle, because I don't tend to analogize the contents of your phone to the contents of your safe, but rather to the contents of your mind.
Well I get that a significant part of our lives is wrapped up in our phones nowadays, but I still try to preserve a safe haven between my ears...mostly...
The arguments are mostly that they dislike what can be accomplished via math. “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia” isn't exactly an 'argument' so much as an insistence.
The article does address the flaws in some of their arguments (encryption inconveniences law enforcement, think of the children) by pointing out that the average person and children are kept save from criminal elements by encryption.
I'm actually very much in agreement with that point.
The world is what it is. A factual observation is just that! But I think it would be better said that while practicing mechanics one should not be trying to practice virtue.
A moral position will push out a factually accurate one if you aren't willing to ignore your views when assessing something.
Proportionate in war is not about going tit-for-tat.
> The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
The way it's worded is to prevent destroying civilian targets for no military gain.
True, the results are on paper and presumably will be accurately counted eventually. The concern is that this fiasco was meant to occur if the DNC felt that Sanders was going to win in a landslide. Some believe this was done on purpose to rob him of any momentum this morning, and to allow for other candidates (read: actual members of the Democratic Party) to claim some sort of success as the news cycle moves forward to tonight's State of the Union, tomorrow's Senate vote, and then the NH primary.
The people who supposedly made the app are very close to the DNC (https://shadowinc.io/about). I can't even say I'm 100% buying into this theory regarding sabotage; they probably just made an app that wasn't up to the task at hand.
Every indication I've heard so far (I live in Iowa, not that it matters since this is a national story) is that it was just gross incompetence on the part of the app maker.
They repeated all morning on the radio "No interference or hacking."
Really it's just a classic case of people under-preparing and shit hitting the fan because everything didn't go 100%.
The DNC has a significant amount of influence over the state level party organizations.
There's also plenty of tinfoil hat fodder (some of it very valid) related to how connected the company that developed the app is to certain parts of the national party.
All that page claims is that one or more members of their team worked at the DNC at some point. That's not exactly persuasive evidence that the company is some kind of purpose-built DNC kamikaze cruise missile. It could just as easily mean they've got some people who worked low-level jobs at the DNC, and are now trying to leverage that connection to sound like bigger deals then they actually are.
That's not what the tweet says, the DNC did not suggest they use the app. What the DNC said is that the previous method they were going to use (online voting) could be susceptible to hacking and so wasn't acceptable. The Iowa Democratic Party then decided on another option.
There is a compelling case to be made that manipulating the reporting of results (rather than the results themselves) would be more in line with your goals of public perception and deniability.
Anyone that's worked on a system with distributed state knows data consistency can be hard, particular in situations where the system comes under load and latencies begin to increase.
You're not specifically complaining about it, but I think it's interesting that they are being criticized for not being transparent, and then being criticized based on that transparency when they are.
People having been posting the paper caucus records left and right on Twitter and elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised at this point the internet mob could count the results if someone tried to organize it.
Edit: Apparently all those paper sheets also have PIN numbers to log into the app, so that probably is a contributing issue.
If the adverse effects happen decades after you'll statistically be deceased I'm not sure it's fair to say there's no safe level of exposure.
It's not at the expense of consumers and the environment. It could make much of what consumers buy prohibitively expensive, for potentially no benefit.