If you're not in the U.S., what's up in your part of the world? Showing 1,001-1,050 of 3,266

[Ian]

And I am sure that if you allow cellphones to vote, master hackers will simulate millions of cellphones.

[Nik]

Could be, of course. Yet, with brick & mortar ballots you have similar suspicions. Meanwhile, cellphones are entrusted to replace credit cards as payment instruments. Just as in a regular process, whenever suspicions arise, it would go through a regular verification process. I’d rather make my own mistakes than let a representative misrepresent me :)

[J.]

Out of curiosity, how many of you have attended a local government meeting?

[Ian]

J. wrote: "Out of curiosity, how many of you have attended a local government meeting?"

Not me, but I have lobbied government politicians and been involved in having my view presented to government select committees.

[Ian]

Nik wrote: "Could be, of course. Yet, with brick & mortar ballots you have similar suspicions. Meanwhile, cellphones are entrusted to replace credit cards as payment instruments. Just as in a regular process, ..."

So far I have refused to make cell-phone payments, but I have used internet payments from a desktop. Younhave to here; banks have stopped handling cheques.

[Nik]

J. wrote: "Out of curiosity, how many of you have attended a local government meeting?"

I did, but if you imply that maybe only a small percent would participate in a direct democracy - that's probably true. But then again - depending on the issue. If it's something universally concerning with a big PR tailwind, many would take part. In more narrow issues - a few, and it's Ok.
If anyone thinks that reputed representatives in legislation bodies read the majority of the bills they vote for, it's probably far from reality

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "So far I have refused to make cell-phone payments..."

Me too, luddites, as we are :)

[Papaphilly]

J. wrote: "Out of curiosity, how many of you have attended a local government meeting?"

I have

[Scout]

Several ideas presented here. Ian, what you propose sounds good, but it would require a reorganization of our government, have to be voted on by politicians who covet the control they have. I don't see it happening, even though it's a good idea.

[Scout]

Nik proposed the use of the Internet for citizens to vote on issues. It may work in Switzerland (I have no idea how their government works), but I can tell you that our government, run by politicians who love controlling what goes on, do not want direct input from citizens, and that there's nothing in our Constitution that would allow for such a thing. I'd love it if we had direct input, but I can't see it happening. All the power lies with elected officials who are bought by big money campaign contributions. When you say, Nik, "Maybe not many, but you would always find politicians ready to champion almost any agenda, even self-destructive," I think that's a pipe dream.

[Scout]

Regarding the security of cell phones, I don't use mine to do any financial business or to access any financial accounts. I feel I'm taking a chance doing those things on my laptop, with a VPN and secure transactions.

[Philip]

Referenda on major issues is Swiss approach.

Doesn't the US have recall rules on politicians. UK has some limited rights to recall an MP but the last referendum was Brexit.... The one before that in Scotland was Scottish independence. Neither was uncontroversial and neither settled the matter

Even in referenda someone has to propose action and for a complex legal bill try to understand consequences.

[Ian]

A referendum has to be on either to do X or not do X. The problem then is many of the people may want to do Y, or something else, but not X. A further problem lies with people wanting a conditional answer, but you cannot get one - the question has to be discrete so you end up- with arguments about the question.

We had a referendum about a change of flag. It was lost, even though the majority probably wanted a change, because first there were some options, then in a vote-off for change or not, those who supported any of the discarded changes voted against change.

[Papaphilly]

Philip wrote: "Referenda on major issues is Swiss approach.

Doesn't the US have recall rules on politicians. UK has some limited rights to recall an MP but the last referendum was Brexit.... The one before that..."

There are different methods for what you ask. some states can recall a Governor and some states cannot. Some have direct ballot initiatives and some do not. We cannot recall the President, but we can vote him out of office. The states are a mish mash.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "We had a referendum about a change of flag. It was lost, even though the majority probably wanted a change, because first there were some options, then in a vote-off for change or not, those who supported any of the discarded changes voted against change...."

To sidetrack for a little bit, aren't those people saying "if my design doesn't get chosen, I'd rather keep the old flag then use one of the other designs?"

[Ian]

I don't think so. You can say "I like A, B and C but can't stand P, Q, R, and if the latter are chosen I will vote against them." Staying with the stars quo does not mean change is impossible, but rather a change has to be what I see as an improvement, If everyone votes for the selected one, that takes away the point not the second vote, surely.

[Philip]

UK News

The Queen spent a night in hospital
COP26 preparations
Shortage of care workers
Delays to criminal court cases
COVID case numbers - comparisons to Europe and explanation urge for boosters

[Scout]

As I said, we don't have direct input regarding government decisions. We can't go online and have our voices influence the government. Everything depends on the vote and the rules set by the Constitution here. That's it.

[Scout]

Is anyone concerned about China's hypersonic test launch?

[Nik]

Scout wrote: "Is anyone concerned about China's hypersonic test launch?"

Concern is what is left. The imp is already out of the bottle :)
The industrialists, who as we remember also control the government, decided to bankroll China rather than come to terms with their own unionized working compatriots and we should thank them. Why pay more or cover longer vacation or pay for employees' medical insurance, if there are semi-people overseas, who don't need all that and whom one doesn't even need to see? Makes it possible to sell a lighter/cell-phone/anything dearly with much bigger margins. Applaud

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "Is anyone concerned about China's hypersonic test launch?"

Nope

It is all hogwash

[Scout]

Papaphilly wrote: "Scout wrote: "Is anyone concerned about China's hypersonic test launch?"

Nope

It is all hogwash"

Easy to say. Can you back that up with facts or something besides opinion?

[Philip]

Scout wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Scout wrote: "Is anyone concerned about China's hypersonic test launch?"

Nope

It is all hogwash"

Easy to say. Can you back that up with facts or something besides opinion?"

American General states they carried out two tests - China claims these were of new spacecraft not missile. General states this was "very concerning" In same article in UK US admitted 3 missile tests done by NASA for US military. Perhaps US tests were concerning for China?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...

[J.]

The technology is both.

[Ian]

Everybody knows the US is spending far more than just about everyone else combined on developing and testing new weapons, so even if China were, sureluy it is a little hypocritical to be "concerned".

[Papaphilly]

Scout wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Scout wrote: "Is anyone concerned about China's hypersonic test launch?"

Nope

It is all hogwash"

Easy to say. Can you back that up with facts or something besides opinion?"

It is hogwash until they can prove they have the capability. This is for home consumption because the Chinese are having a rough time at home with the economics.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Everybody knows the US is spending far more than just about everyone else combined on developing and testing new weapons, so even if China were, sureluy it is a little hypocritical to be "concerned"."

No it is perfectly reasonable to be concerned.

[Ian]

PP
Are you saying that Mark Milley lied about the spy information that should have been obtained by satellite?

[J.J.]

Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Everybody knows the US is spending far more than just about everyone else combined on developing and testing new weapons, so even if China were, sureluy it is a little hypocritical to b..."

We can spend all we want, but all it takes if for one adversary to spend on one nuclear warhead and one ICBM, and they can do some serious harm.

[J.]

J.J. wrote: "We can spend all we want, but all it takes if for one adversary to spend on one nuclear warhead and one ICBM, and they can do some serious harm."

MAD applies. If they go nuclear, we'll go nuclear.

[Ian]

Yes, but MAD has another feature - it discourages wild military adventurism in case the other side loses control and starts it.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "PP
Are you saying that Mark Milley lied about the spy information that should have been obtained by satellite?"

Why would he not be concerned. maybe the question that needs to be answered is how do you know it is not staged for consumption? Forty years ago, Star Wars was a con job on the world to drive the Soviet Union up the wall and it worked.

Let me try it this way, Not long ago people were worried about the Chinese navy and their build up. They have one aircraft carrier. it means nothing when you really think about what it means. It does not mean one should not worry about it, only that is means nothing now.

Of course General Milley should be concerned, it is his job. It is also his job to make sure he gets money for the military.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "Yes, but MAD has another feature - it discourages wild military adventurism in case the other side loses control and starts it."

Unless it is an accidental firing, it will not happen.

[Ian]

PP, just to clarify, my post 1029 was in response to "It is all hogwash". Of course General Milley should be concerned. My comment was aimed at the impression that you thought there was no such test.

[Ian]

Papaphilly wrote: "Ian wrote: "Yes, but MAD has another feature - it discourages wild military adventurism in case the other side loses control and starts it."

Unless it is an accidental firing, it will not happen."

Which is why Russia depends on nukes. It does stop the creation of chances. During the Cuban crisis a Soviet sub with nuclear tipped torpedoes nearly fired them. That would have taken out a carrier, and I can't see the US not responding, and that would have meant it was all on.

Since those times, the seriousness of nukes has meant that major powers do not confront each other. It even holds a sort of peace between India and Pakistan

[Scout]

When someone tells me what "China claims," I'm very skeptical and certainly don't take them at their word. As for being "hypocritical" in my concern, I don't think China has our best interests at heart and do think that it opposes our way of life. I may be wrong, but I think China is looking at being a world power greater than the U.S., so I am worried about a hypersonic test launch.

[Ian]

I differ from Scout. I think that China mainly does not wish to be a military power other than what it needs to make sure nobody tries to bring war to it. China's strategy is more economic. It intends to be an economic superpower, having all sorts of countries indebted to it, and therefore forced to acquiesce to China. I think its military interests are purely home oriented. The one exception might be Taiwan, because China sees that as part of China anyway.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "PP, just to clarify, my post 1029 was in response to "It is all hogwash". Of course General Milley should be concerned. My comment was aimed at the impression that you thought there was no such test."

It is not about the test for me, but the worry that are going to develop a rocket untouchable. That I find hogwash and that is why I am not worried. they steal all of their technology and you cannot steal your way to the top. XI is in a bit of trouble, so you raise nationalism and this is one way to do so.

[Ian]

Fair enough. We were at crosspurposes.

[Papaphilly]

Ian wrote: "I differ from Scout. I think that China mainly does not wish to be a military power other than what it needs to make sure nobody tries to bring war to it. China's strategy is more economic. It inte..."

They need to be strong enough to threaten without actually pulling the trigger. I do believe they want to be an economic power, but that fails in the end too. I do agree their military is basically an internal police force and they have no navy to speak of.

[[deleted user]]

The big news here is COP26 in Glasgow. China, Russia and Brazil appear to have copped out.

I agree that the environment is of paramount importance but can’t help thinking that the desire to cut manmade CO2 is becoming an obsession at the expense of everything else to do with the environment. While most (but not all) scientists agree that at least part of current global warming is caused by manmade CO2 emissions, have our leaders really had a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment or do they just smell an opportunity to increase their power and bank balances?

If manmade CO2 emissions are as dangerous as they claim, why have China, Russia and Brazil opted out of these talks? And why are our own leaders unwilling to practise what they preach?

IMO, if you ask people to dramatically change the way they live and make significant sacrifices, you best be willing to change and make those very same sacrifices yourself. I see no evidence of that from our leaders. Perhaps an example should be set by holding COP27 via Zoom?

[Ian]

Climate change is real, but the politicians haven't got a clue what to do about it, and more to the point, are not prepared to do what it takes to fix it. China and Brazil have pulled out because China intends to build more coal-fired power stations and Brazil intends to burn more of the Amazon rain forest. I don't know why Russia won't go. Maybe because Putin realizes it is a waste of time.

Beau is right to [point out all the politicians can come up with is that sacrifices are required by OTHERS, but preferably not to the extent they will lose votes. Who cares (apart from the locals) if Pacific Islands drown? Who will take all the Bangla Desh refugees?

There are technological changes that could lead to little overall changes to the ways we live, but they need development and coordination, which in turn needs a guided or controlled economy and that is not going to happen.

[Nik]

Do you imply sea view locations may become less attractive and lose in their value over time?

[[deleted user]]

Nik wrote: "Do you imply sea view locations may become less attractive and lose in their value over time?"

Nik, you've cracked it. Politicians and mega rich, carbon obsessed celebrities all seem to own attractive second homes with sea views. Let's see if they're buying more or selling them as a general trend and then we'll know if there's really a climate emergency or not.

[Graeme]

Ian wrote: "which in turn needs a guided or controlled economy and that is not going to happen...."

The controlled economy of china is the worlds biggest (and growing) emitter of CO2.

Being 'controlled' is not the answer.

[Ian]

Nik wrote: "Do you imply sea view locations may become less attractive and lose in their value over time?"

There are some low lying spots near the beach that now cannot get insurance in NZ. You want to know whether sea level rise is real? The insurance companies think so, and my guess is they [put their money where their mouth is.

[J.]

Since when is authoritarianism about solving problems?

Identify a crisis. Drum up fear and anger over said crisis. Use that fear and anger as "political capital" to gather power unto yourself. Rinse and repeat.

[Ian]

Graeme wrote: "Ian wrote: "which in turn needs a guided or controlled economy and that is not going to happen...."

The controlled economy of china is the worlds biggest (and growing) emitter of CO2.

Being 'cont..."

Come come, Graeme, you know as well as anybody that the effects of control also depend on what the objective is. China is trying to build more industrial capacity to bring a further few hundred million out of poverty. Further, China has started designing power stations to be able to take away the coal part and replace it with molten salt thorium reactors when they can get the design of the latter right. Just because China is a problem does not make the concept wrong.

You might also note that India, which has a private capitalist economy is actually building new coal-fired power stations faster than China and intends to use them until 2070.

If you think the private sector will solve the climate change problem, explain how, given it is driven by profit, and fossil fuel is always the cheapest.

[J.J.]

Ian wrote: "If you think the private sector will solve the climate change problem, explain how, given it is driven by profit, and fossil fuel is always the cheapest. ..."

Companies like Wal Mart install solar panels on the roofs of their stores and facilities in states that offer incentives to do so, reducing their carbon footprint. But then the left complains about those tax breaks for the mega corporations.

[Scout]

Fine. China isn't interested in using weapons to assert their power over other countries. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I hope you guys are right. As far as China's interest in lowering carbon emissions, "China has said its carbon emissions should peak by 2030 and then decline, with a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060. The country, the world's largest carbon emitter, has argued that it is still a developing economy and should not be held to the same standards as developed countries in reducing carbon emissions."
https://apnews.com/article/europe-bus....
They don't give a crap. Meanwhile, other countries who comply will suffer economic disadvantages.