And how would that help? How do you know that the code they published is the same as the code installed on those machines? You need voting machines that leave a paper trail (which the voter can verify while voting), that way the machines can provide quick results while the final results can be counted by hand.
We had them, for decades. They involved the use of punched cards and a butterfly ballot. The voter could physically inspect the ballot to determine which holes were punched. Sadly, the "hanging chad" of Bush v. Gore (2000) pushed many states into using electronic machines, with predictable results.
You might want to re-read your dictionary. Violence has included non-physical force for very many years, very much longer than the Internet has been in existence.
> Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group or community that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
You don't seem to understand that threats of violence are what we're talking about. Do you really not understand that saying you're going to rape someone is a threat of violence?
The article says:
> Other Jewish writers have faced more serious attacks: death threats, anti-Semitic cartoons, images of concentration camp ovens and executed Jews, threatening emails, even home phone calls.
> Michael received [...] Trolls threatened him: "'When the time comes, the Jews are going to be in trouble, lined up,'" Michael recalls. "That kind of tone. Random shit by people thinking it's funny Jews were being targeted."
you've certainly mentioned some strong examples. However, it's not the same as real violence.
think of these two statements, jokes whatever you want to call it.
"what do you call a hundred thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start" A joke we've all heard.
Now, same joke 'What do you call a hundred thousand Jews at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
Now which one is hate speech? Both? None? Should history be the only basis for whether jokes are permitted or not? What about who delivers it and why?
I'm not asking you to really answer me here, but it's worth thinking about. And I think platforms banning language simply will get it wrong. Human mods will get it wrong, computer mods will get it wrong.
Again, I'm going to go to the platforms where speech is allowed because of the nuance of humor, of conversation. And especially where personal experience is valid even when it appears biased or hateful.
Neither of those are the dictionary though, the definition on Merriam Webster says it's
>behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Oxford and dictionary.com have similar definitions
Both of your definitions seem to me like cherry picked overly broad legal definitions especially since they are both from legal sites and not dictionaries and one is on a page titled "Youth Violence"
At the end of the article, they discuss how the report stresses a need for more secure transmission systems on the CAN bus, as well as potentially including things like permissions-based security
It's just another biometric matching system. So it might be used as a form of sign-in to your car's network or data, better than taking your hands off the wheel to key a password. Or a LoJack complement that identifies your car's thief.
The Seth MacFarlane Collection of the Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive... This has to be different Seth MacFarlane than the one I am thinking of right?
Nope! He actually had a major role in producing Cosmos <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395695/> with Neil deGrasse Tyson, and also has a major interest in space.
