Mr. Gates was also critical of the United States government’s unwillingness to adopt a national identity card, or allow some businesses, like health care, to centralize data keeping on individuals.
“It has always come back to the idea that ‘The computer knows too much about you,’ ” he said.
The United States “got off to a bad start” when it comes to using computers to keep data about its citizens, he said. Doctors are not allowed to share records about an individual patient, and virtual doctors visits are banned, he said, which “wastes a lot of money.” The United States “had better come up with a better model” for health care, he said.
He was also critical of the Congress’ stance on immigration, and said he would like to see immigration exceptions for “smart people.” Canadian laws are more favorable, he said, because they allow immigrants to work if they are offered a high paying job. Microsoft has created “a lot of jobs in Canada for that reason,” he said.
Yeah, it's all about the greed. They're not fundamentally run or influenced by a power-hungry, megalomaniacal control-freak nerd. Just stop bitching & give them all your information. & the notion that our immigration situation is the same as Canada's is laughable.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
1) Virtual doctor visits are not banned; They are generally unreimbursed though.
2) I would like to see more immigration exceptions for smart people too.
As for a national identity card, etc. Why not? It's kind of insane to have 51 different id cards for Americans.
I'm ambivlant about the ID's: Good in that they would probably eventually solve a lot of problems, but bad in that it would require standing in a line for hours upon hours to get one (ala DMV).
Probably will happen in the next 10-20 years, though.
GORDON wrote:Until we are allowed to verify voters, it's all on a bad foundation, anyway.
Unless you'd like to turn it into "Election Week" instead of "Day" that's not a-happenin'.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones wrote:Elections and representation are so last century. It's time to start up a direct democracy. We've got the tech for it.
One login, one vote.
The technology isn't the problem; it's the sheer number of people.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Troy wrote:I'm ambivlant about the ID's: Good in that they would probably eventually solve a lot of problems, but bad in that it would require standing in a line for hours upon hours to get one (ala DMV).
Probably will happen in the next 10-20 years, though.
GORDON wrote:Until we are allowed to verify voters, it's all on a bad foundation, anyway.
Unless you'd like to turn it into "Election Week" instead of "Day" that's not a-happenin'.
I have no problem with that. Can't be hard to assign everyone in each district a day of the week in which to vote.
Scheduling isn't the problem. The verification can suck. How does the gov't at large know you're you? That you were at your polling place on that day at that time? That the "voter confirmation" printout you've got in your hand isn't a knock-off? That you aren't heading up to another polling place, swapping out IDs/papers/whatever w\ other folk? Making 100% (or whatever your comfortable margin of error is) sure that one person voted at most once isn't trivial.
Back in the day, "voting" meant standing outside your porch & yelling your choice to the dude that was walking by. We started valuing privacy over ease of use when we let thugs & mobs influence voters' opinions.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones wrote:Elections and representation are so last century. It's time to start up a direct democracy. We've got the tech for it.
One login, one vote.
We're a republic for a reason. Democracy would be worse than what we've got.
The only historical examples I've seen of working direct democracies involved relatively small numbers of people. There's too many fucking people.
But let's say that we can get some synchronous, psychic, telepathic, hive-mind thing going or that we come up w\ communication tech. sufficient to kill that issue.
There's still the matter of a fundamental rift in how you look at the rest of the world. I've noticed two camps :
1) There's certain folk in the world that are not to be trusted in certain matters. They are destructive creatures that contribute less than they leech when left to their own devices in that area.
2) If you're involved in some collective or society & you're going to be subject to their laws, you've got a say in what they are, goddamnit. Even if what you've got to say or do is insane, you're part of the system but not subservient to it, so you get to express your opinion.
There's nothing that prevents those two theories from coexisting peacefully until (3) society starts supporting the destructive folk so that they don't suffer the consequences of their actions. Then they (4) further prevent any concerned, sane citizens from taking useful action.
The point being there's people that I don't trust to be part of a direct gov't, no matter how small a percentage. Fuck, I can't remember the last time I thought the average IQ of the voting public broke 50. I shudder at the thought of replacing "voting" w\ "ruling."
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:
Unless you'd like to turn it into "Election Week" instead of "Day" that's not a-happenin'.
I have no problem with that. Can't be hard to assign everyone in each district a day of the week in which to vote.
Scheduling isn't the problem. The verification can suck. How does the gov't at large know you're you? That you were at your polling place on that day at that time? That the "voter confirmation" printout you've got in your hand isn't a knock-off? That you aren't heading up to another polling place, swapping out IDs/papers/whatever w\ other folk? Making 100% (or whatever your comfortable margin of error is) sure that one person voted at most once isn't trivial.
Back in the day, "voting" meant standing outside your porch & yelling your choice to the dude that was walking by. We started valuing privacy over ease of use when we let thugs & mobs influence voters' opinions.
Anything to keep groups like ACORN from moving 10,000 people into Ohio for 6 hours to try to affect an election. If there was any actual falsehood of any of the protections you listed, they wouldn't be able to hide innocently behind, "Oh, is that wrong?"
One ID, one vote. Anything is better than the nothing (followed by litigation) that we have now.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Malcolm wrote:1) There's certain folk in the world that are not to be trusted in certain matters. They are destructive creatures that contribute less than they leech when left to their own devices in that area.
This is exactly how blue staters describe red staters.
Edited By GORDON on 1248482045
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Malcolm wrote:
Unless you'd like to turn it into "Election Week" instead of "Day" that's not a-happenin'.
I have no problem with that. Can't be hard to assign everyone in each district a day of the week in which to vote.
Scheduling isn't the problem. The verification can suck. How does the gov't at large know you're you? That you were at your polling place on that day at that time? That the "voter confirmation" printout you've got in your hand isn't a knock-off? That you aren't heading up to another polling place, swapping out IDs/papers/whatever w\ other folk? Making 100% (or whatever your comfortable margin of error is) sure that one person voted at most once isn't trivial.
Back in the day, "voting" meant standing outside your porch & yelling your choice to the dude that was walking by. We started valuing privacy over ease of use when we let thugs & mobs influence voters' opinions.
Malcolm wrote:1) There's certain folk in the world that are not to be trusted in certain matters. They are destructive creatures that contribute less than they leech when left to their own devices in that area.
This is exactly how blue staters describe red staters.
I can easily flip that around w\ all the Republicans bitching about people on welfare.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:
Scheduling isn't the problem. The verification can suck. How does the gov't at large know you're you? That you were at your polling place on that day at that time? That the "voter confirmation" printout you've got in your hand isn't a knock-off? That you aren't heading up to another polling place, swapping out IDs/papers/whatever w\ other folk? Making 100% (or whatever your comfortable margin of error is) sure that one person voted at most once isn't trivial.
Back in the day, "voting" meant standing outside your porch & yelling your choice to the dude that was walking by. We started valuing privacy over ease of use when we let thugs & mobs influence voters' opinions.
So what would be the solution?
Verifying voter identity when they ask for as much anonymity as humanly possible is a bitch of a task if you'd like to include plugging into a secured nation-wide network to tie all that shyte together. Then there's multiple polling places & things like ID fraud.
You either have to take the time to do that difficult procedure correctly or start trading secrecy & proper rules for quicker response times.
This thread is quickly becoming derailed. Hmm, shall this get spun off into something in America II? Been dead there for a bit.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:Verifying voter identity when they ask for as much anonymity as humanly possible is a bitch of a task if you'd like to include plugging into a secured nation-wide network to tie all that shyte together. Then there's multiple polling places & things like ID fraud.
You either have to take the time to do that difficult procedure correctly or start trading secrecy & proper rules for quicker response times.
This thread is quickly becoming derailed. Hmm, shall this get spun off into something in America II? Been dead there for a bit.
I don't think there is a comparison. All an ID proves is that you voted; the secret ballot is still in effect.
Fun fact: we only got the secret ballot in the late 1800's (IIRC) to destroy the political machines (Boss... something) that were running the cities. Used to be able to buy/coerce votes, and verify the person voted the way they were supposed to. The secret ballot is not something ever implemented by the founding fathers.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
