Slashdot Mirror

Dude you seem not to grasp the greed and corruption involved. Theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device. http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/s.... I had to dodge the panther at the bottom of the stairs to get it. (more accurately all searches failed payout, hold rate, maximum, minimum, until I forced the search with '75'). So for each dollar in you lose a quarter but of course the casinos market that some machines payout 98% just remember to dodge the panther at the bottom of the stairs.

"Betting on the performance of individual players", is essentially betting on whether a particular player will do well/score this many points/run for this many yards/etc. They call those "props" in Vegas terms. Daily fantasy is essentially making a combination of props, which is called a "parlay". Look up the memo that Nevada's gaming board published on its similar assertion, and you'll see that calling it "fantasy sports" is literally a smokescreen for the fact that it is essentially betting. Oh, and DraftKings' CEO all but referred to it as being "almost identical to a casino" in a Reddit IamA.

Whenever the topic of allowing government or public access to review source code comes up (like with, oh, say, voting machines) I always think of these guys:
http://gaming.nv.gov/index.asp...
and I realize that not of this is as important as gambling (and the collection of taxes thereon).

At least if you judge by how seriously we take access to the code. Just try to deploy a slot machine in Reno without letting someone at the Nevada State Gaming Control Board review your code. Won't happen.

I think it was written in 2004

Right, back when Uber came out in 2004.

He was referring specifically to the long route incident form, that's the focus of his article - how to know when you're getting ripped off.

Blake Ross suggests [medium.com] that you pack a few items with you while you're taking a taxi:

The article says it was written on December 2, 2014, but I think it was written in 2004 and published in 2014.

A quick search brings up the Nevada Taxicab Authority complaints page. The form isn't a PDF. Maybe it was in 2004. Best guess is that Blake Ross uses Bing search after his kerfuffle with Google.

Blake Ross suggests [medium.com] that you pack a few items with you while you're taking a taxi:

The article says it was written on December 2, 2014, but I think it was written in 2004 and published in 2014.

A quick search brings up the Nevada Taxicab Authority complaints page. The form isn't a PDF. Maybe it was in 2004. Best guess is that Blake Ross uses Bing search after his kerfuffle with Google.

Whenever the topic of whether or not the source code to voting machines should be inspected, I always point here: http://gaming.nv.gov/index.asp... and ask: 1) What do you think would happen to your slot machine if you told those guys you weren't going to show them your source code? and 2) Why not let these guys look at the voting machines, too. Seems like a transferable skill.

Nevada has rules like that for slot machines. Only tougher. Stuff like:

Provide a mechanism for keeping a record, in a form approved by the chairman, anytime a control program component is added, removed, or altered on any alterable media. The record must contain a minimum of the last 10 modifications to the media and each record must contain the date and time of the action, identification of the component affected, the reason for the modification and any pertinent authentication information.

Provide, as a minimum, a two-stage mechanism for verifying all program components on demand via a communication port and protocol approved by the chairman. The mechanism must employ a hashing algorithm which produces a messages digest output of a least 128 bits and must be designed to accept a user selected authentication key or seed to be used as part of the mechanism (i.e. HMAC SHA-1). The first stage of this mechanism must allow for verification of all control components. The second stage must allow for the verification of all program components, including graphics and data components in a maximum of 20 minutes. The mechanism for extracting the verification information must be stored on a Conventional ROM Device. [Effective 11/1/2012] All gaming devices must also provide the same two-stage mechanism for verifying all program components on demand via a gaming device user interface where the results are displayed on the gaming device.

That's just one item. There are lots of other logging and audit trail requirements. The Nevada Gaming Commission checks these regularly.

There is a good reason that casinos have to be able to cover every bet they make. Looking over the rules (beware, this thing is dense to the point of being dangerous) http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/06feb23_bankroll_instr.pdf it seems that in Nevada casinos do, in fact, need to have enough cash on hand or available the very next business day to cover all bets and chance events that are conceivable to within a rather generous statistical margin.

The comparisons to fractional reserve banking, though provoking, are also in contradiction with laws that are in place for good reason.

Now comparing the financial system to a casino... Well, I'll not press my luck. The casinos get jealous seeing someone else do it better. Even my far right wing family 'plays' the stock market and they think gambling is a sin.

No they aren't:

http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14.pdf

Section 14.040

http://gaming.nv.gov/tech_main.htm

Just goes to show the government *can* develop competence with technology if they consider the issue important enough.

I'm replying a bit late on this, but it took a few days to obtain the information I was looking for.

Prompted by your comments, I began looking online for a list of regulations pertaining to how Blackjack (or "21") may be dealt in Nevada. This proved more difficult than I expected. I located extensive documentation on Nevada's gaming statutes and regulations, but nothing specific about when dealers are permitted to shuffle.

I did, however, locate an e-mail address for general inquiries to the State Gaming Control Board, and e-mailed them the following question:

I’ve been searching online (to no avail) for a list of regulations on how casinos in Nevada are permitted conduct the game of “21” or “Blackjack”. Specifically, I’m trying to determine what (if any) regulations exist regarding when a dealer is permitted to shuffle the cards. Are dealers legally obligated to deal until they reach the “cut card” inserted in the stack of cards, or may dealers choose to re-shuffle the cards before reaching the cut card?
Thanks in advance for your help.

Today I received the following reply:

The Nevada Gaming Commission requires that all licensees who put up a licensed gambling game for play to the general public must have a set of house rules for each game. We do not spell out how they need to deal the game, but the rules must. If you have a problem at a licensee you can request to see their rules or ask a pit boss on what their rules are on dealing and shuffling. As most games are dealt according to industry standards they do not normally vary a lot. If you are playing on a single or double deck hand dealt game which usually is a higher minimum bet you might see they shuffle more if the casino thinks patrons on the table are counting cards. It is not illegal to count cards, but a licensee can detect it very easily and by shuffling more they remove any advantage a card counter might be getting.

(Name removed before posting online)
Special Agent, Enforcement Division
Nevada Gaming Control Board

So, the official word is that it is not "cheating" for dealers to reshuffle early.

The Nevada Gaming Commission has been there and done that. Here are their standards for immunity to static electricity for slot machines. Every slot machine in Nevada meets these standards. (Yes, they test.)

1.020 Electrical interference immunity.

1. A conventional gaming device or client must exhibit total immunity to human body electrostatic discharges on all player-exposed areas. For purposes of this standard, a human body discharge is considered to be an electrical potential of not greater than 20,000 volts DC discharged through a network with a series resistance of 150 to 1500 ohms shunted by a capacitance of 100 to 150 picofarads. The device must withstand this discharge repeated at one second intervals. The power source for this human body equivalent is a high-impedance source such that, in effect, the energy available for a given discharge is limited to that contained in the shunt capacitor.
2. A gaming device may exhibit temporary disruption when subjected to electrostatic discharges of 20,000 to 27,000 volts DC through a network with a series resistance of 150 to 1500 ohms shunted by a capacitance of 100 to 150 picofarads, but must exhibit a capacity to recover and complete an interrupted play without loss or corruption of any stored or displayed information and without component failure.
3. Gaming device power supply filtering must be sufficient to prevent disruption of the device by repeated switching on and off of the AC power. The device must not exhibit disruption when a 1 microfarad capacitor, charged to plus or minus 680 volts DC is discharged between the hot and neutral AC supply lines, at any phase from zero to 360 degrees, with a repetition rate of 30 times per second.

In other words, short of firing a Taser at the thing, you can't interfere with a slot machine with static electricity. (And if you did fire a Taser at the thing, alarms would go off.)

I always post this on voting machine articles but here goes. . . Take a look at 1.020 in the attached nevada gaming regulations: http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/techstds_05nov17_adopted.pdf Slot machines are required to withstand 20,000V static shocks at 1 second intervals with no problems whatsoever. They are also required to withstand 27,000 volt static zaps which can cause them to freeze momentarily but must cause no loss of any stored data.

In contrast, when I worked on DDR SDRAM clock buffer chips for PC's, I believe the ESD test was something like 1500 volts.

In short, if voting machines cannot meet the Nevada gaming commission regulations then politicians are at best gambling with our votes.

That's probably a really good idea, although you know who I'd ask for help in this area?

The Technology Division of the Nevada Gaming Commission. Can you think of any organization with more experience working with precisely this sort of thing?

The guys that develop our voting machines should be held to the same standards that the Nevada Gaming Commission requires for cashless wagering systems:

http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/07jan11_techstds_kiosks_proposed.pdf

These guys have some ridiculously high standards to ensure the integrity of gaming equipment. Why can't we get similar standards for voting machines?

-ted

I hear they are pretty good a doing hardware/software system audits and design reviews.

It's really not that hard to do this right.

• Voting machines should have to meet the Nevada Gaming Commission Standards for Gaming Devices. Nevada has tough tamper-resistance standards (Immune to static shocks, 27KV sparks, 600V on the power input, and rapid turn on/off; must resist forced illegal entry, locked covers over circuit boards and program media), logging standards (counters that cannot be reset, non-erasable logs of program changes), and auditing standards ("Provide, as a minimum, a two-stage mechanism for validating all program components on demand via a communication port and protocol approved by the chairman.") There's no question those standards can be met; hundreds of thousands of slot machines are running right now in compliance with them. Those standards have been developed during decades of struggles against organized crime, employee theft, tax fraud, and attacks on slot machines, so they have serious real-world credibility.
• Use a minimal, published operating system, like Minix. Linux is too big to audit and changes too much.
• Use a paper trail within the machine, one that generates a printed copy of the voter's selections behind a window, along with a bar code representing the voter's choices. For recounts, run the paper log through a bar code scanner for a quick check, and if necessary, manually check votes against bar codes.
• Install two printers, and switch between them randomly, so that the paper trail doesn't provide enough information to tell who voted for whom. Use a printer that doesn't need ink or ribbon and makes a permanent record, like the old "silver printers" used in adding machines. Don't use a thermal printer; the print isn't permanent.

This really isn't that hard.

OK, the advantages of computers are:

1. old people can read the ballots without help
2. old people can vote without help
3. ballot order can easily be randomized so that the order of candidates doesn't influence the outcome
4. there is no way to produce an invalid or ambiguous ballot (no question of voter's intent)
5. it is hard to "stuff" the ballot box
6. there are no physical limits on ballot sizes that could lead to things like the infamous "butterfly ballot"

The only advantage of optical scan ballots is that they're simple. That makes them easy to understand and there's very little that can go wrong with the machines. It's just that there are all kinds of ways to produce ambiguous ballots (e.g. hanging chad or half-erased marks).

Given a properly-designed touch-screen voting system, it would not be hard to make it better than any other system. The problem is that they aren't well-designed. They should have been designed by the guys who make slot machines with oversight by the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Unfortunately they have all been made by people with no business making such important systems.

dom

The article reads like a lit review. Most of the information is hearsay, and the cited articles are sensationalist at best. The business is pretty simple. You set up a machine and it takes 99 of every 100 bucks put into it. Then you leave it on all year and put it into a confortable setting. Add about 20,000 more around it and then surround that with anything you could possibly need while on a gambling binge (food, drink, bathroom, etc.) People come to hopefully luck out and be the "right" person who happens to get the money, just like in a lottery. Unfortunately, some people start to believe in the machine, when really it's pure chance. And they lose their money. They keep putting money in because they don't understand the chances, the fact that they are at a disadvantage. And the fact that if you have a bad streak, just like a good streak, you will lose a lot in a short amount of time.

However, the bottom line is that the casino can't win TOO much or people will get too discouraged and won't keep playing. The business is very tightly regulated however. There are huge reports of statistics and stuff they have to submit to a gaming commission. In fact, casinos of a certain size have gaming commission people on hand at all times. And nowadays they don't even use hard money any more (they use a barcoded ticket to pay out). It's not really a mob thing anymore. These are legitimate businesses with a legitimate clientele (over 50 MILLION visitors came to Las Vegas in 2006). The average monthly win for casinos statewide in Nevada is over a billion dollars, and those earnings are taxed. In fact, Nevada does not need to have a state income tax because of all the gaming revenue.

There are always going to be people who take things too far. And it's very easy to do. Often problem gamblers are lonely people who have suffered some sort of loss in their lives and gambling is an escape. But the vast majority of gamblers, just like the vast majority of people who drink alcohol, know their limits and act accordingly while still managing to stay entertained. Be smart people, learn to enjoy losing.

By the way, I used to work for a large Las Vegas casino and now I work for a addiction rehab center ;)

The article reads like a lit review. Most of the information is hearsay, and the cited articles are sensationalist at best. The business is pretty simple. You set up a machine and it takes 99 of every 100 bucks put into it. Then you leave it on all year and put it into a confortable setting. Add about 20,000 more around it and then surround that with anything you could possibly need while on a gambling binge (food, drink, bathroom, etc.) People come to hopefully luck out and be the "right" person who happens to get the money, just like in a lottery. Unfortunately, some people start to believe in the machine, when really it's pure chance. And they lose their money. They keep putting money in because they don't understand the chances, the fact that they are at a disadvantage. And the fact that if you have a bad streak, just like a good streak, you will lose a lot in a short amount of time.

However, the bottom line is that the casino can't win TOO much or people will get too discouraged and won't keep playing. The business is very tightly regulated however. There are huge reports of statistics and stuff they have to submit to a gaming commission. In fact, casinos of a certain size have gaming commission people on hand at all times. And nowadays they don't even use hard money any more (they use a barcoded ticket to pay out). It's not really a mob thing anymore. These are legitimate businesses with a legitimate clientele (over 50 MILLION visitors came to Las Vegas in 2006). The average monthly win for casinos statewide in Nevada is over a billion dollars, and those earnings are taxed. In fact, Nevada does not need to have a state income tax because of all the gaming revenue.

There are always going to be people who take things too far. And it's very easy to do. Often problem gamblers are lonely people who have suffered some sort of loss in their lives and gambling is an escape. But the vast majority of gamblers, just like the vast majority of people who drink alcohol, know their limits and act accordingly while still managing to stay entertained. Be smart people, learn to enjoy losing.

By the way, I used to work for a large Las Vegas casino and now I work for a addiction rehab center ;)

The Nevada Gaming Commission [PDF] (As an example, I know the article isn't about Las Vegas) heavily regulates slot machines, their software, and their payout schedule. Machines that deviate from the payout schedule are inspected and machines whose software processes are not open to inspection and audit are not allowed on the floor. In this case it would be, prima facia, a crime to install software that was not audited by the authorities onto a machine. IANAL, so I can't tell you if proving criminal intent would be required, but I suspect that the threshold would be minimal, assuming that it could be proven that the users inserted the bug.

In this case, it doesn't appear as though the bug was inserted by the users, just (sigh) exploited in order to win. These cases are well litigated in Nevada (though probably not in Indiana/Kentucky), and elsewhere. The trend seems to be (Scroll Down to "Overpayment to Patron") that if it can be proven that the gaming patron didn't involve him or herself in the actual flaw of the machine, then not only are they not liable, but the Casino must still pay out the winnings.

There is a Nevada regulatory requirement (PDF, see section 1.080.2a) that a gaming device must refuse to execute non-blessed code. While this would conflict with anti-tivoization language, it isn't necessarily the author's choice, and it need not conflict with the spirit of Free software: if you want to put your modified code in a gaming device in front of real customers, just get your friendly local regulatory agency to sign off on your modifications. The regulators' mission is to keep everyone honest, not stifle development.

If only voting machines were designed to as strict a standard: http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/techstds_05nov1 7_adopted.pdf

I've said it before but we really ought to be looking at the Nevada Gaming comission Rules. These rules describe the level of security that we should demand from the process. They are almost as stringent as the standards for nuclear power plant safety and mining equipment. I'm not blowing smoke: I've got IEC 61508, NUREG CR-6463, and DO-178B on my shelf and I still say, "See Nevada Gaming Commission's Technical Standards For Gaming Devices and On-Line Slot Systems." http://www.gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/techstds_04 dec16_adopted.pdf

Gaming is oddly very similar to voting and unlike Cyber, these folks have done their homework.

In that voting is basically a statistical game of chance between two candidates, we ought to be studying gambling machine standards to see the level of security to which voting machines need to be raised. They may call Los Vegas Sin City, but those Nevadans may have written the document that saves our country. Since there is more money made in Vegas yearly (daily?) than is spent in a U.S. national political campaign, voting machines ought to be held to the same standards as the Nevada Gaming Commission's Technical Standards For Gaming Devices and On-Line Slot Systems http://www.gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/techstds_04 dec16_adopted.pdf

I sincerely doubt any of the voting systems I have heard about come even close! If there is a way to change the program in the machine in the field, a voting machine has already failed this test. They also require the system to detect and record the last 10 changes to its configuration, absorb an ungodly amount of static electricity without malfunctioning and require all unused ROM to be zeroed. . .

A run of the mill slot machine is likely infinitely more secure than a Diebold voting machine and probably a lot more secure than most voting machines.

Specifically the technical standards.

Additionally, the casinos use statistics to find problems. They know how much people are "supposed" to win over time. In elections, it's called polling. Of course, in 2004, the exit polls showed Kerry winning. In 2000, the exit polls showed Gore winning. But the supreme court threw it out in 00 and Kerry gave up in 04 to keep his Senate seat.

The casinos also use surveilance cameras to watch people playing. I've always said a time coded live webcam of every machine would work wonders for security. Don't show the votes, of course. Same thing with the ballot boxes.

Another thing is trust. In a casino, they do a lot to promote the people who are winning. But at the end of the day, it's pretty obvious you can expect to LOSE at a casino. How else would they stay in business? They make no secret about their evilness. It's up to you if you want to go to a casino and lose your money (or maybe make some). In politics, they do a lot to promote the people who are winning. But we the People should not expect to lose. The problem is that it's not realistic to expect to be pleased by a lawmaker. They really do have to have EVERYONE into account and the easiest way to decide who matters most is with MONEY. The problem is that as the cycle continues, more and more favor goes to the big business (from both sides) and less to the individual. And over time, our individual lives matter less and less. But they still matter. Obama said it best that everyone matters, even the poor person on the street corner, the guy with no legs, the girl with no sight. We all matter. And if we all start believing that instead of thinking that we're somehow better than everyone else, politics will mirror those beliefs. I think that a lot of people already believe in that, maybe a lot more than actually say it.

Let me take this one, Hugh:

will E-voting ever reach standards rigorous enough to satisfy the American populace? If not, why?

Because current "rigorous standards" are neither. I mean, we have poll workers taking Diebold machines home for WEEKS before the vote. The weaknesses of these machines are well documented. This practice is so freakin' insecure it's just insane.

If you applied the same standards that are applied to, say, Nevada slot machines, with a few extras like verifiable paper (or other durable material) ballots and national auditing standards and procedures, I'd be just fine with e-voting.

It's not about the technology. It's about transparency and separation of powers. You know, the things some people still value in this country.

I say we put these guys in charge. They know how to do a code review.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board has technical standards for slot machines. They've had enough fraud over the years that they know what has to be done. Some highlights:

• ... must resist forced illegal entry and must retain evidence of any entry until properly cleared or until a new play is initiated. A gaming device must have a protective cover over the circuit boards that contain programs and circuitry used in the random selection process and control of the gaming device, including any electrically alterable program storage media. The cover must be designed to permit installation of a security locking mechanism by the manufacturer or end user of the gaming device.
• ... must exhibit total immunity to human body electrostatic discharges on all player-exposed areas. ... A gaming device may exhibit temporary disruption when subjected to electrostatic discharges of 20,000 to 27,000 volts DC ... but must exhibit a capacity to recover and complete an interrupted play without loss or corruption of any stored or displayed information and without component failure. ... Gaming device power supply filtering must be sufficient to prevent disruption of the device by repeated switching on and off of the AC power. ... must be impervious to influences from outside the device, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic interference, electro-static interference, and radio frequency interference.
• All gaming devices which have control programs residing in one or more Conventional ROM Devices must employ a mechanism approved by the chairman to verify control programs and data. The mechanism used must detect at least 99.99 percent of all possible media failures. If these programs and data are to operate out of volatile RAM, the program that loads the RAM must reside on and operate from a Conventional ROM Device.
• All gaming devices having control programs or data stored on memory devices other than Conventional ROM Devices must:
  (a) Employ a mechanism approved by the chairman which verifies that all control program components, including data and graphic information, are authentic copies of the approved components. The chairman may require tests to verify that components used by Nevada licensees are approved components. The verification mechanism must have an error rate of less than 1 in 10 to the 38th power and must prevent the execution of any control program component if any component is determined to be invalid. Any program component of the verification or initialization mechanism must be stored on a Conventional ROM Device that must be capable of being authenticated using a method approved by the chairman.

  (b) Employ a mechanism approved by the chairman which tests unused or unallocated areas of any alterable media for unintended programs or data and tests the structure of the storage media for integrity. The mechanism must prevent further play of the gaming device if unexpected data or structural inconsistencies are found.
  (c) Provide a mechanism for keeping a record, in a form approved by the chairman, anytime a control program component is added, removed, or altered on any alterable media. The record must contain a minimum of the last 10 modifications to the media and each record must contain the date and time of the action, identification of the component affected, the reason for the modification and any pertinent validation information.
  (d) Provide, as a minimum, a two-stage mechanism for validating all program components on demand via a communication port and protocol approved by the chairman. The first stage of this mechanism must verify all control components. The second stage must be capable of completely authenticating all program components, including graphics and data components in a maximum of 20 minutes. The mechanism for extracting the authentication information must be stored on a Con

Yeah, but salt levels aren't associated with leukemia clusters . Tunsten is (warning, PDF).

A few excerpts:

• A gaming device must exhibit total immunity to human body electrostatic discharges on all player-exposed areas. ... A gaming device may exhibit temporary disruption when subjected to electrostatic discharges of 20,000 to 27,000 volts DC through a network with a series resistance of 150 to 1500 ohms shunted by a capacitance of 100 to 150 picofarads, but must exhibit a capacity to recover and complete an interrupted play without loss or corruption of any stored or displayed information and without component failure.
• Physical security. A gaming device must resist forced illegal entry and must retain evidence of any entry until properly cleared or until a new play is initiated. A gaming device must have a protective cover over the circuit boards that contain programs and circuitry used in the random selection process and control of the gaming device, including any electrically alterable program storage media. The cover must be designed to permit installation of a security locking mechanism by the manufacturer or end user of the gaming device.
• Printer mechanisms on gaming devices must be designed to detect low paper, paper out, and paper jam conditions. The device control program must monitor the printer mechanism for these error conditions in all active game states that do not indicate error conditions.
• All gaming devices which have control programs residing in one or more Conventional ROM Devices must employ a mechanism approved by the chairman to verify control programs and data. The mechanism used must detect at least 99.99 percent of all possible media failures.
• All gaming devices having control programs or data stored on memory devices other than Conventional ROM Devices must: (a) Employ a mechanism approved by the chairman which verifies that all control program components, including data and graphic information, are authentic copies of the approved components. The chairman may require tests to verify that components used by Nevada licensees are approved components. The verification mechanism must have an error rate of less than 1 in 10 to the 38th power and must prevent the execution of any control program component if any component is determined to be invalid. Any program component of the verification or initialization mechanism must be stored on a Conventional ROM Device that must be capable of being authenticated using a method approved by the chairman. (b) Employ a mechanism approved by the chairman which tests unused or unallocated areas of any alterable media for unintended programs or data and tests the structure of the storage media for integrity. The mechanism must prevent further play of the gaming device if unexpected data or structural inconsistencies are found. (c) Provide a mechanism for keeping a record, in a form approved by the chairman, anytime a control program component is added, removed, or altered on any alterable media. The record must contain a minimum of the last 10 modifications to the media and each record must contain the date and time of the action, identification of the component affected, the reason for the modification and any pertinent validation information. (d) Provide, as a minimum, a two-stage mechanism for validating all program components on demand via a communication port and protocol approved by the chairman. The first stage of this mechanism must verify all control components. The second stage must be capable of completely authenticating all program components, including graphics and data components in a maximum of 20 minutes. The mechanism for extracting the authentication information must be stored on a Conventional ROM Device that must be capable of being authenticated by a method approved by the chairman.

Nevada asked the Gaming Control Board to take a look at voting machines. After that review, Nevada went to a paper trail in 2004.

If we were all to stop eating meat, we would save so much land we wouldn't have to turn to the cows to exploit other plant resources that we cannot digest on our own.

Wasnt there a report and a website already out there that proved the casinos already have cheating software?

http://gaming.nv.gov/

I think that's the site you're looking for.

Or course there is software written to cheat on gaming.. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Sep-23 -Tue-1997/news/6110757.html
People have died for admitting to programming the cheating directly into the slot machines.

but in general, there are regulatory bodies who are in charge of making sure the casinos are obying state law as per payouts. Having a 'centralized' server allows payout odds to more eaily be controlled, so as to allow the casinos to legally 'adjust payouts to keep payouts always at the legal minimum...' that is in BOTH directions.

Remember its not cheating to make sure that the machines are running 'in compliance with the law' if nevada law says your machines must pay out 92% of the money they take in, then this simply makes it easier to program the slots to make sure you're always averaging 92% payouts.

Also, it looks like Kerry is set to take Nevada

Probably not. There's two counties that would go to Kerry for specific reasons: Vegas because it's a large population center, and those tend left, and Washoe county (where I live) because of the university. The rest of the state, while not all that much, may be enough to counter the slim margin Kerry has in Washoe County. And even then, it's barely a landslide victory.

Clark county (Vegas) always goes left, while the rest of the state tends right. Nevada is one of those states where you find a whole lot of nothing outside of Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks. It would honestly surprise me to see NV go Kerry, but it would only be because of Vegas and UNR. The university is strong Kerry and very anti-Bush. As I write this, Bush is winning every county except Clark county.

Real results:

http://nvresults.nv.gov/

So, if (as seems likely) there will always be some voter stupid enough to screw up any voting system ("Make It Idiot Proof and Someone Will Make a Better Idiot"), does that mean we should give up on voting entirely and jump straight to dictatorship?

Seriously, the questions are: does this system represent an improvement over the previous system? and, is it potentially improvable more than the previous system is potentially improvable? While I don't think the new system is an improvement in terms of security over the old, it is at least equal or better in usability. Furthermore, there is potential for improving the new systems to be better than the old systems.

Usability is a question of human factors engineering, and represents an approachable problem. There is substantial room for improvement in electronic methods, despite being presently comparable to the old punch-card methods. As for security, there are obvious methods, most of which Slashdot has discussed. Open source implementation. Dedicated hardware platform. Non-flashable ROM based operating system. Hardware platform inspected, using standards comparable to the Nevada Gaming Control Board's standards for slot machines. (Hey, they're used to people trying to cheat.) Criminal penalties for tampering. Hardware backup systems comparable to a network data center.

Security is difficult, but understandable. Perfect security (including denial of service attacks) is impossible. But a team of 4th year CS undergrads with one grad student supervising could probably come up in a month with a set of design requirements that would require a Mission Impossible team to compromise, and a "blow up the polling building" scenario to DoS. And if anyone gets that desperate to tamper with a US election, this country will be in far bigger trouble than Bush claims we're in now.

I'm doubting that it would be the folks who've been caught cheating, but I've been wrong before. It sounds like the Nevada Gaming Commission regulates gaming employees. http://gaming.nv.gov/

Lotsa official maps here, but i didn't see # and intensities of tests.