This is exactly the problem. Prices are a fairly straightforward function of supply and demand. Even look beyond the homeless in the city to other towns, such as San Jose around Tully/101/280. Go driving around those neighborhoods in the evenings and you see cars parked absolutely everywhere: lawns, sideyards, crammed and jammed up into garages and driveways and sidewalks, and of course good luck ever finding a spot on the street. Because San Jose, like San Francisco and the rest of the SF Bay Area, doesn't want to allow enough new residential units to be built each year, the supply of housing ends going only towards the wealthy or those who have a home and can afford to re-fi and use the cash as a downpayment. The rest, including the "working class,", have got nowhere to go because developers all but stopped investment in building anything they can even afford to rent, unless with a large group of strangers.
The better solution is don't "take" the money, just let developers choose how many units they want to invest in and they will remedy the problem, profitably, without stealing anyone's money.
I am really hoping the measure fails because the SF Bay Area has a pathetic history of wasting money on similar efforts (VTA doesn't go to SJC or connect to BART, there is a train that goes from Novato to Petaluma WTF) and the officials need to not have such a convenient cop-out every time this issue gets brought up. What is happening right now is a caste is forming with the landowners becoming a smaller percentage, huge swaths of the population being crammed into miserable housing that eats up all of their income, and I'm not sure this has a happy ending.
By your reasoning, we should abolish all manufacturer-owned retail outlets, because there is no benefit to Sears selling Craftsman, Tesla-owned dealerships, or Dell making their own computers, etc. Somehow, when someone makes a movie and wants to display it in a dedicated venue onto a projected screen in a dark stadium, we just can't tolerate it.
BTW, how come if independent theaters were made strong, then why is Hastings complaining about an oligopoly?
The government proposes to add a backdoor to all encryption systems, and Schneier, an encryption expert, immediately goes to bat, contributing to and promoting large amounts of nuanced study on the matter to explain why such a proposal will fail. Then, on this networking issue, Schneier provides a completely unbacked claim that the Government is somehow going to magically fix something. I guess because Schneier is a "good guy" I should just assume that his completely unsubstantiated, critical-thinking-free solution is the one that we should support.
There is nothing the U.S. Government can do about hacked IoT devices in other countries. How about that one, Schneier? Are you even going to admit to the fundamental core of the World Wide Web is a substantial part of the problem, and cannot be addressed by U.S. government legislation?
Schneier's claim is barely three weeks from the date of the event, and Schneier is boldly proclaiming the market has failed. Puh-lease. There are very few, if any, events of this magnitude that any "solution", private or public, can take care of, or even propose to take care of, in such a short time.
Brian Krebs has clearly been the victim of some malicious actor, and as such must have methods for being made whole. These options do not even seem to merit any evaluation by Schneier.
The issue of public counting is the same as "publicly available" information, which is that the information is only available to those who go to witness the counting, which means that the real world effectiveness of the audit method approaches zero. Auditing should be as conveniently available as possible to everyone who casts a vote, and an anonymous verification of each vote cast, plus being able to count all votes cast, would provide an incremental improvement in protecting against election fraud.
(It is also worth nothing that public viewing of the vote count is not possible by all voters, because the audit venue cannot support all voters being present, so in the case that there is concern over vote integrity, perps may intentionally fill the venue and prevent others from viewing the audit.)
Your conclusion is wrong, due several factors:
There is no perfect system (nirvana fallacy) and your discussion does not compare the advantages and disadvantages of each system, and instead arrives at a conclusion based on listing disadvantages.
Voters can already be intimidated and provide proof of their vote with MMS, or any of the myriad photo-sharing apps, many of which are now providing end-to-end encryption.
The elimination of the voter being able to prove how they voted through official documentation removes the voter's ability to perform an audit of their own vote's tabulation. Voters uncovering elections fraud outweighs the very small (non-existent? - provide a link to cases of these claims, ever? Appeal to probability much?) vote-buying instances.
egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space. -- unix manuals