Re: Let this one go; focus on more strategic battles
The problem here is that it is difficult for most people these days to get pure internet service that is not also from a "television" provider.
It's not just if you get internet from a cable company. What were once telecommunication companies (eg AT&T) now offer and push packages with TV subscriptions.
All of the internet providers that are in bed with content will try to screw the internet subscribers in order to create an advantage for hollywood. Zero Rating. Throttling. Bandwidth Caps. Injecting their own ads into your web page results. And any other dirty tricks they can conceive of.
So please don't think you are not affected by 'cable' or 'pay tv' companies. You are. And you need to be in this fight.
I'm willing to believe that not all cops are thugs.
However thugs ARE attracted to law enforcement work.
You can see it as a future career possibility for the bullies in high school. They realize they have grown up with no useful talent or skills. That means there are only two career possibilities: 1. Marketing 2. Law Enforcement Item 2 is selected because item 1 is not for a real "man's man". (Ironically not realizing one possible meaning of "man's man".)
You need to change your tactics. When video evidence contradicts the testimony of known liars or police officers, your PR stance should be: "the video camera equipment was malfunctioning and cannot be trusted".
I sincerely hope you will thoughtfully consider this advice. For the pure hilarity of it. For the children!
Here is a grand and glorious idea. Set up police checkpoints such that you cannot go more than a few miles without needing to go through a police checkpoint.
That way, police have multiple opportunities to check 'your papers please'. And have drug dogs do some sniffing. And look in your car trunk, etc.
Police wouldn't need to know any laws.
Pedestrians could be stopped as easily as motorists. And vice versa.
Police would never abuse such authority and lack of accountability. It's for your safety.
To make you even safer, the next step should be that police make random but frequent 'safety visits' to everyone's private home. That way we can be sure everyone's ID is checked. Nobody has a police record. Police could see if there is anything within the home that is obviously in plain sight which they do not happen to like.
My secret e-Voting company would like to invite your election board for a two week all expenses paid informational seminar at one of the convention centers at Disney World. We will include free Disney Visa gift cards for your convenience on or off the resort property. We can show you two point four million reasons why you should choose our voting systems.
(yes, Disney World in Orlando has very nice facilities for large business events like a company Christmas party. Such facilities would work equally well to be rented for the kind of event described above.)
But we, at least in the US, already have secret laws, secret interpretations of laws, secret courts, secret court orders, secret warrants, secret arrests, secret evidence not available to the defense, secret convictions, secret prisons, and secret torture.
So why should we be worried about secret democratic election software?
With so much secret surveillance, can you be sure your vote is a secret?
* Open Source * Only 'key' parameters (eg, pure data nonexecutable) are secret * Electronically records your vote, to a local and off site archive * Each ballot recorded in the electronic archive is digitally signed by the machine with a sequence number, and includes the hash of the previous ballot. (and the previous ballot included the hash of its previous ballot, etc. thus ensuring a verifiable chain of ballots.) * Prints a paper record into a local archive. (eg, a machine that has a bin gradually accumulating a stack of small ballot cards which would be similar to a paper ballot) * The voter can see an on-screen image of the 'paper' ballot after they have confirmed and submitted their vote -- that way the voter knows that their vote was correctly 'recorded'.
Both electronic and human recounts are possible because of both the electronic and paper archive of ballots.
The paper and electronic archives can be audited to ensure the two archives exactly match. The local electronic and remote electronic archive can also be audited to ensure they match.
The paper ballots that are archived in a card stack would be designed to be human readable, but also easily machine readable such that the machine can read the same thing that a human reads (eg, not a barcode along with a printed indication of what the vote is which is two separate things.)
Now, even if the e-Voting software were closed source, it would be possible to ensure that its behavior is correct. None of this business where the only record is an electronic record -- and it is a correct and true record of what voters voted! I swear! No, really. I promise! Trust me.
Voting results could be instantly available online so that people in Western longitudes know that it is pointless for them to go out and vote.
How how many thousands of dollars an hour does it cost to operate a helicopter? And how many million is the acquisition cost of a helicopter? How difficult are they to learn to fly safely? What is the maintenance cost? How densely can helicopters be flown in an urban area for people to get to work? How much ground parking space does one require?
Supposing you could produce hydrogen at scale. Assuming it could be compressed into high pressure vessels, and be safe for widespread every day use for refueling vehicles with an extremely low statistical amount of leakage resulting in fueling station explosions . . .
What would be the mechanism of flight? Would you be burning the hydrogen as in a rocket or jet engine such that expanding gas from the engine provides thrust for lift? Sort of like the space shuttle main engines, except using oxygen out of the air? The space shuttle main engines use pure oxygen, so they probably burn hotter than the 21 % oxygen in the air; but I'll point out this. The reaction burns at about 6000 °. That the temperature where iron turns to gas. Not liquid -- but the temperature at which iron evaporates. Even if using the air with hydrogen for a jet engine type combustion, we're talking high temperatures. How would you keep the engine from either melting or evaporating. (The shuttle pumps the cryogenic fuels through small plumbing that lines the exhaust nozzles and other engine parts, which cools them, and pre-heats thus further pressurizing the propellants.)
Or would you attempt to somehow rapidly turn hydrogen / oxygen into enough electricity to use electric propellers? That would have to be a pretty massive and likely hot reaction either from some kind of jet or internal combustion engine / generator, or some kind of massive output fuel cell that wouldn't melt.