Slashdot Mirror

Here's the Maryland page on voter registration. It talks about your "official voter registration signature" which makes me think you are signing a poll book when you vote. If you need an ID to register then why should you need anything other than your Voter Notification Card to actually vote?

I also found this here.

Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:

A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver's license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or

A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.

So some first time voters are required to provide identification but are able to use things other than picture ID. I couldn't find anything about signing a poll book but maybe that's part of the county's elections procedures, not the state's. You could contact your county elections board and ask them what steps they take to prevent voter fraud.

But again I have to say that until someone provides actual evidence of anything other than occasional voter fraud by individuals I just think the ID requirement for election day is not needed.

Here's the Maryland page on voter registration. It talks about your "official voter registration signature" which makes me think you are signing a poll book when you vote. If you need an ID to register then why should you need anything other than your Voter Notification Card to actually vote?

I also found this here.

Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:

A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver's license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or

A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.

So some first time voters are required to provide identification but are able to use things other than picture ID. I couldn't find anything about signing a poll book but maybe that's part of the county's elections procedures, not the state's. You could contact your county elections board and ask them what steps they take to prevent voter fraud.

But again I have to say that until someone provides actual evidence of anything other than occasional voter fraud by individuals I just think the ID requirement for election day is not needed.

For a textbook world. But in the world we live in, things are never so clear cut. Ask a small business owner whose store was broken into whether they received justice when the perpetrator was allowed to walk after the evidence used to convict him was illegally obtained (pg. 3). Ask a woman if she receives justice when the man who rapes her is allowed to walk because illegally obtained evidence is suppressed from trial. As the previously quoted article from "The Atlantic" says, "It is highly important that we protect the constitutional rights of criminals. But it appears that we sometimes forget that the Constitution was meant to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens as well."

Actually it's not a crime. Maryland law covers the intentional interception of a communication.

First, there has to be intent. The incidental recording of a conversation is not covered by the law. So if two people are recording their conversation in a coffee shop and picked up a private conversation in the background that would not be illegal.

Second, we have to define interception. According to numerous court rulings a communication can only be intercepted if it's private. A conversation in a public place is not a private communication because there's a reasonable expectation that it would be overheard. This is why it is legal to record audio during a traffic stop. The police officer while performing his public duties has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Here's an opinion from the MD Attorney General dated 2010 that goes into some detail: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opi...

I live in Maryland, do you?

http://www.mdp.state.md.us/red...

The first district is pretty bad. It includes the eastern shore, which is pretty much all republican farmers, with a section to the north of Baltimore which is mostly farms. It is a good example of packing. They packed as many Republican voters into one district as possible, and that district votes the way you would expect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The first district is the only district to go for Romney in 2012, which should tell you something, since only PG and Baltimore counties are Democrat, all the other counties are strongly Republican. I live in Anne Arundel County, and it is a large majority Republican, but because of the crap they did in distributing the Baltimore and PG votes into AAC, all three districts that make up the one county go Democrat. It is quite sad actually how bad it is.

MD laws and statutes didnt come out, link here
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/web...
http://www.lawlib.state.md.us/

2) Have you any evidence that other species of fish from the area have been ruled off limits due to heavy metals contamination?

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Marylander/CitizensInfoCenterHome/Documents/Fish%20Consumption%20Docs/Maryland_Fish_Advisories_2014_Web_bluecatedit.pdf

Recommended Meals/Month varies from
"Avoid" and "1 every other month" to
"8" and "No Restrictions"

Baltimore is following the lead of Maryland which, earlier this year, became the third open law state,

WTF? Maryland law (both statutes and COMAR) has been on-line for years.

And Baltimore City code has also been on-line for a while.

Maybe this is a nicer interface or something, but pretending that putting laws on-line is some kind of breakthrough is counterfactual.

I'm pretty sure you can add in the costs accrued due to lost work and legal fees to your small claims suit, so point one is moot.

So, I can't speak for your state, but in maryland it states in black and white that you CANNOT be paid for your time, and that legal fees are only a maybe. And the official website on the subject goes to some effort to basically point out that for small amounts, it may not be worth the time to pursue the court option. Small claims is not really an option to resolve this except as a matter of principle.

You are not allowed to take photos in Maryland.

"2. You cannot use your cell phone, pager, camera, and computer equipment in an early voting center or at a polling place."

They don't want your employers demanding to see your marked ballot. They don't want people to stand around photographing who is voting. Etc.

The exception is journalists who may photograph the voting process as long as no ballots are visible and no individuals are identifiable.

The reason why I haven't reported the crime is because it happened well over a decade ago. I don't know who raped me and I can't remember what exactly he looks like. Sure I remember the whole incident but I forgot minor details like what he looked like, I only remember basic details of what he looked like (age,sex,color, size). So far to my knowledge there have been no other sexual assaults in the area were it accorded that match those descriptions. The guy who did it was a older person, so most likely he could be dead. If I were to go to the police it would instantly become a cold case. There were really only two times in my life were it made sense to report it. Right after it happened but I didn't know what had just happened to me and I was kind of in a state of shock. And after I became suicidal at the age of 10, when discovered what really happened to me.

Also sex offenders can in fact live wherever they want. That is a common misperception of people that sex offenders are limited to where they can live. Studies have shown that sex offenders are more likely to recommit a offense with those laws put into place. Since they are more likely to fall off of the radar. http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/onlineservs/sor/frequently_asked_questions.shtml#_Q15.__Are

$128 in Maryland:

http://www.elections.state.md.us/voter_registration/purchase_lists.html

(and you can get 'em on CD, rather than printed out ... I seem to recall it being a spreadsheet when I saw one ... don't know if it was a flat file that someone had imported, or if they gave it to you in Excell)

You only got a refund because the store decided not to fight the chargeback.

That's probably true.

Visa, MC, Discover, and Amex rules say a store can have a "no returns" policy as long as a sign is clearly posted. You were supposed to return the item to the manufacturer.

They can have the policy, they just can't enforce it in this case, in my state. The item was not what they advertised it to be. So I believe it failed the implied warranty of merchantability, at which point the store must take it back. MD Code Comm. Law 2-314

It seems like its broad enough. Here's the actual bill itself.

Well allow me to educate you on why your Maryland insurance card says that. Apparently many insurance companies in Maryland require you to notify the Police and the insurance company within 24-48 hours of an accident. The linked PDF Is from Maryland's state insurance regulatory agency.

Citation Needed

Let me Google this for you. This is from the very first returned result:

Maximum stay is two weeks per Maryland Park Service camping policy.

There are about 3 million more results, and it appears that this requirement is not unique.

Just got mine from Christin McMeley of Charter Communications. Conspiciously, it didn't really answer any of my questions nor did they provide any contact information other than a generic www.charter.com/security website totally silent on the subject. When I tried to call Charter they had zero clue about it and thought I had been phished and suggested ignoring the e-mail. Reluctantly and with at least 20 minutes of phone tech and manager consternation they transferred me to their privacy department and ended in a voicemail I have zero faith I'll get a call back on. Rather annoyed I decided to find Ms. McMeley directly and totally surprised to find her actual personal phone number via Google and an incident where they had....wait for it.....reported 12 stolen laptops with personnel data in 2008. http://www.oag.state.md.us/idtheft/Breach%20Notices/ITU-157541.pdf And when I called the number...I got Ms. McMeley's cheery voicemail...in her own voice! That alone was great satisfaction to just leave a message...and asked her nicely to give me a call back on this most important issue. I'm still waiting, but cautiously optimistic she or a staffer will call. And if not...I'll persevere until they explain why my data was stolen when I asked them expressly to not share my personal data with anybody. And if that doesn't work wonder if those fine folks at anonymous are busy?

In most places, including the States, if a person gives consent and then withdraws it, there is no longer consent. As far as I know there is no "blue balls" clause letting you finish even if she says no halfway through.

Lots of states in fact. Like North Carolina and Maryland. I'm not saying that such laws are morally right, but I do personally think that the level of protest required during coitus needs to be significantly higher than, "no means no" because the participants can't be expected to be fully in control of their faculties. Everything I've read about the two incidents indicates that neither women claim to have made any physical attempt to stop the act. Plus Assange is completely deaf in one ear and ~50% deaf in the other.

I'm far more interested in the charges leveled by John Young of Cryptome, that he is a mercenary selling access to unredacted source documents to the highest bidder on the black market.

Interesting but it sounds like an exaggeration, apparently this is what Young said:
"Well, it only came up in the topic of raising $5 million the first year.
That was the first red flag that I heard about. I thought that they were
actually a public interest group up until then, but as soon as I heard that,
I know that they were a criminal organisation."

To me, that sounds like wikileaks people were brainstorming at its inception and Young has extrapolated the worst possible result from it. Remember at the start wikileaks wasn't redacting anything - they even published their own list of donors. So the implication that they would publicly release redacted documents but privately sell them doesn't fit the circumstances.

Maryland is a retail choice state for electricity. BGE does not have a monopoly. In the BGE service area, there are 64 electric service providers to choose from: http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/intranet/supplierinfo/searchsupplier_new.cfm

There's still a case because the judge hasn't ruled yet. The defense has submitted 2 motions to dismiss and the prosecution has answered the motions but so far no joy.
His court date is October 12 and will probably be a jury trial. For those interested, you can follow the court proceedings by visiting the Maryland Judiciary Case Search web site at:
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

False. Do your homework before making a claim like that.

In FY2009, MD spent approx 1.6 Bn on highway administration. 2010 appropriation is about 1.3 Bn. 2011 proposed appropriation is 1.4 Bn.

For FY2009, fuel tax receipts totaled only 758 million, of which only $549 million went to the Dept of transportation.

Once again, 5 minutes of googling proves you to be an ignorant liar.

Sources:

http://www.comp.state.md.us/finances/revenue/motorfuel/FuelAnnualReportFY2009.pdf
http://dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/operbudget/Documents/2011/Proposed/trans.pdf

In Massachusetts (if I remember correctly) benefits are 50% of your weekly income in your previous job, up to $300/week. And this only lasts for a few months. I'm not sure what states have better unemployment insurance than MA, but my guess is very few. So I call shenanigans on the grandparent.

From Maryland Weekly Benefit Amount:

The weekly benefit amount (WBA) is the amount of money you may receive and is based on the amount that you were paid by all employers for whom you worked during the base period. The higher your earnings, the higher your weekly benefit amount up to the maximum allowed by law. The current weekly benefit amount provided by the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law ranges from a minimum of $25 to a maximum of $410.

Given differing policies between states, it might be possible to see higher amounts. If I read the Pennsylvania information correctly, they appear to have $564 for a maximum amount.

Hi,

You left a critical piece of the puzzle out -- what state are you in? Some states (like new york) have soem form of state sponsored insurance. Here is an example:

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/website2/hny/english/hny.htm
and something similar from Maryland
http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/

While not every state is so forward thinking with luck you live in a state that has decided to enter some form of collective bargaining on behalf of it's uninsured citizens. Without this form of collective bargaining you will have few options that are not financially damming - especially if you get sick.

Note: Make your choice BEFORE you give notice as you will only have 60 days before your HIPAA waiver for preexisting conditions makes you uninsured for pre existing conditions .

Good Luck!!

Let's pull out just one state you cite - Maryland.
21-1205.1 (b) "Roadway with bike lane or shoulder paved to a smooth surface. â" (1) Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface {COMAR October 29, 1979 defines smooth surface as a surface that has a texture equal to or better than the adjacent roadway and if the surface contains undulations which are no longer than the adjacent roadway.}, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane."

In other words, "If there is a bike lane, you must use it." It does NOT prohibit bikes on roads lacking a bike lane.

And I REALLY like the link you posted, outlining the serious problems with the design of most bike lanes. i.e. they are quite often more dangerous than no bike lane.

And we really, really don't care about your location, except to look up your local laws and see if what you say is true.

But the court's IT director defended the practices, saying that documents are being posted on the Web site in accordance with California laws and that finding data such as Social Security numbers is akin to "finding a needle in a haystack."

You know, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it is necessarily to be done. This guy may want to take a look at Maryland's case search engine to see an example how someone with some sense would do it. Jeebus.

The law says unauthorized access. Presumably, coffee shops with wifi access are giving their customers authorization to access their WAP ( Panera has a splash screen that comes up when you open your browser after a connection).
Here is the link to the bill under discussion:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/bills/hb/hb1377f.pdf

The law says unauthorized access. Presumably, coffee shops with wifi access are giving their customers authorization to access their WAP ( Panera has a splash screen that comes up when you open your browser after a connection).
Here is the link to the bill under discussion:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/bills/hb/hb1377f.pdf

Don't waste time reading the article, which is completely misleading. Instead, read the actual bill.

You don't at all get the idea behind the law. This bill is SPECIFICALLY designed to address what happened to you - when someone connects to a network without authorization, and without knowing that they were unauthorized. Ignore the /. groupthink, and read my other comment that explains the bill in detail. Ignore the summary, and the title. THEY ARE ALL WRONG. Unauthorized access to a network is ALREADY ILLEGAL, and this bill simply tries to add an exception for when that happens without you realizing that it is unauthorized.

Sounds like you need to take 2 minutes and READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it.

The problem is not with this law, the problem is with the current law. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.

BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.

No. Just no. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail. The "three years" you state is ALREADY IN THE CURRENT LAW - this bill doesn't add it.

BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.

Of course you can't say either way, because it's complete bullshit. What you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.

People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.

BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it

While that sort of nonsense will get you modded up, it's complete bullshit. First, cite your source. I bet you don't have one, because you just pulled that out of your ass. Second, what you fail to realize is that "squatting" (using a wireless network without authorization) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT MARYLAND LAW.

Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.

BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.

Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This means that everyone with iPhones that automatically associate to open access points are ALREADY CRIMINALS UNDER CURRENT LAW. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.

BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.

Despite the hundreds of ill-informed comments to the contrary (yours included), this bill does no such thing. People, please, READ THE BILL. There, I gave you a link right to it. The parts in capitals are the proposed additions to THE CURRENT LAW. When you read it you will understand that UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A WIRELESS NETWORK (secure or not) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. This bill attempts to add a provision saying that if you weren't aware the access was unauthorized, then you're not a criminal. See my other comment that explains this in detail.

BTW, the reporter who wrote the article deserves blame for being so misleading. I've already send him and the editor letters about it.

IANAL, but I have been looking at this bill I have just come to the same realization that you have. Practically every post in this discussion has COMPLETELY misunderstood the bill.

First, people need to read the actual proposed bill, which they can do here (NB: PDF). Note that the CAPITAL parts are being ADDED to the existing law.

Next, people need to understand that under existing Maryland law unauthorized access to a computer network is already illegal. This clearly includes wireless networks. This means that your iPhone / XP / Vista / whatever that automatically connects to an insecure network is technically breaking EXISTING law. The current law reads:

This delegate wants to amend that section to exclude wireless internet access. It would instead read:

This would mean that your device that automatically connects to an insecure network would no longer be breaking the law. But in order to keep purposeful, intentional access to a wireless network (or "wireless internet service") illegal, they have added this section to the bill:

THIS PROPOSED BILL MAKES FEWER THINGS ILLEGAL. Now I know a lot of people think that unauthorized access to an insecure network, even when purposeful and intentional, shouldn't be illegal, but it already is. This bill would simply decriminalize unintentional unauthorized access.

PLEASE, SOMEONE BEAT THE /. GROUPTHINK AND MOD THE PARENT POST UP, OR THIS ONE.

I'm pretty sure public accommodation applies only to the disabled.

You need to review your civil rights history. The passage of laws guaranteeing equal access to public accommodation was a huge victory for the movement.

There are numerous and diverse state laws, which apply different definitions of "public accommodation". In Maryland, according to the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, "[r]etail establishments offering goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation are...considered public accommodations," and "[i]t is unlawful for an owner or operator of a place of public accommodation to deny a person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges because of his/her race, creed, sex, age, color, national origin, marital status, or physical or mental disability." (Pardon me for not digging up the actual statute, but I trust this citation from a state agency suffices.)

Here's the federal one about discrimination in places of public accommodation, though they use a more limited scope of what makes a public accommodation:

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Maryland is way ahead of you:
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

Public transportation is a joke (at least in the US).

Photo IDs aren't obtainable for free everywhere. In Maryland, for example, there's $15 fee to get a state-issued photo ID (http://mva.state.md.us/AboutMVA/FEE/default.htm).

http://dllr.state.md.us/labor/empm.html

http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/publications/erd/pdf/ erd_9212_p.pdf

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/ChildLaborPamphlet2000. html#8

http://198.234.41.198/w3/webwh.nsf/Files/MLLPoster .pdf/$FILE/MLLPoster.pdf

I'm not going to go through all 50 states, but as far as I know there are not ANY states in the US that do not severely limit the number of hours a minor can work. Tell me this... What do you think a 15 year old girl is going to do when it is a crime for a legitimate employer to hire her, going to the police to report that her parents are fulfilling their legal requirements to support her will lead to her arrest, and she hasn't eaten for 3 days?

This doesn't even take into account that they need a special permit that often cannot be obtained.

Some states have begun to address this but the solution is not complete. In Maryland your bill comes in three parts. There is the charge for electricity in cents/kWh, there is a smaller distribution charge also in cents/kWh, and there is a connection charge, a monthly flat fee.

For my electric Coop, SMECO http://www.smeco.com/ Eugene Bradford of the rates group gives a rough breakdown: The electricity charge is largely what SMECO pays its suppiers though some saleries for the coop's buyers come out of this. The distribution charge and the connection charge cover the infrastructure build out and up keep: Service trucks, billing, linesmen's pay, materials all of that.

The break down in the charge was to allow choice in the supply, so that if you want to work with a green energy supplier you can substitute their rate in the electricity charge.

The issue with net metering is that you avoid the distribution charge but you might be be using the infrastructure to a greater dergree than the connection charge covers.

In Maryland, the very low cap on total net metering (34.7 MW) means that there is no practical issue just now. But, some rate restructuring may be needed according to Phillip VanderHeyden at the Maryland Public Services Commission http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/index.htm if Maryland gets with the program like New Jersey and a number of other states with no caps on net metering enrollment.

For now though, people in Maryland who sign up for net metering at http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar can save money right away, albeit with a tight limit (8500) on how many can participate, because they will avoid the distribution charge. And, BGE customers can even avoid their huge rate increase if they are quick and get 8.8 cents/kWh. Soon, the BGE rate increase will be reflected in the rates we offer since BGE's regualtory filing is now available. In other states compare the offered rate with you're electric bill to see if you get immediate savings. You can use the calculator in the last link to see projected savings that result from the 25 year rate lock in.

Not that I don't get the intended sarcasm, but what I'm saying is that you're being a little insulting and I am implying that your maybe it's due to excessive caffeine intake.

When it came to fire, these people didn't just say "You know, we don't understand it, nevermind[sic]", they tested combusion[sic], and discovered some of the most important elements of modern chemistry by doing so.

I never said "never mind" either. In fact, my brother is an ornithologist, and I regularly volunteer time with his organization helping with capture-recapture population studies in Mexico, Costa Rica, Oregon and Washington. But way to get up on your soapbox.

To live in this world and say "due to factors that we don't always understand" so nonchalantly is ridiculous. If we don't know, it is our duty as the descendants of the people who made our way of life possible to find out. Ignoring it because you don't know is a disgrace to your forefathers.

When I stated that "animal populations often rise and fall due to factors that we don't always understand," I was stating a simple fact. We *do not* always understand why populations rise and fall in every case (example: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/bewick.asp ). But somehow, from that simple statement, you infer that I'm being "ridiculous" and disgracing my "forefathers." Given that I am not a biologist or zoologist, I don't feel that it's my *responsibility* to do research on animals. Given that I am not a microbiologist or physician, I don't feel that it's my *responsibility* to do research on disease. I do my part by paying taxes and donating money to fund the research.

So, unless you have authored some animal population studies and have cured some diseases, please come down from your high horse and give us all a break from your morally-superior tone.

I'm with you 100% on all the points you make, however one small point I'd like to make is that you are (distressingly) not alone in failing to recognize gambling in all its forms, based on my personal experience.

Many years ago when I worked at a liquor store, I had the unfortunate task of operating a Maryland Lottery terminal as well as maintaining a Scratchoff vending machine. Before I started that job, I was more or less "on the fence" about the morality of state-sponsored gambling, though after I left I was decidedly against it. Seeing the same sad people throwing away money they could barely (and often times couldn't) afford to day after day really changed my opinion.

The current state of affairs is as pure a double standard as I can imagine. Tragically, as you mention, the overwhelming majority of gambling operations (including state-sponsored gambling) are targeted at those who are least able to afford the "habit." And it is an addictive habit like tobacco and alcohol usage, though the harm it does is less apparent to the uneducated eye.

Also, we aren't talking about corruption in any other party because the Republican party is the one in power here

How convenient. So in New Jersey, Chicago, South Florida, California, etc. you're all over the corrupt Democrats? Unlikely. Incidentally, the Maryland House of Delegates and the Maryland Senate are controlled by Democrats. The Maryland judiciary (court of appeals) is no bastion of conservative thought either, led by chief judge Robert Bell. So what if you've got a conservative governor - the rest of the government (especially those who control purchasing) are all liberal.

and they're the ones pulling this shit

Interesting. I haven't seen a single Democrat oppose election fraud and demand identification. They come up with the most bizarre excuses - claiming they're poll taxes (when the legislation pays for the cost of the ID if someone has a financial hardship), claim racial profiling (as if minorities don't have IDs to buy beer, smokes, etc.) and other bizarre arguments. Yes, Diebold is incompetent and should be thrown over a cliff. Yes, ES&S doesn't give a damn about security (they claim that's the responsibility of the vendor of the operating system they use) and should be banned. But as long as we continue wearing partisan blinders, we'll be stuck with this mess.

It's all "Hey, look over there... while we steal the vote here" misdirection.

bring up what the Democrats did 30 years ago every time we talk about what the Republicans are doing now.

Where've you been for 30 years? South Florida's hanging/swinging chad and poorly designed "a vote for Gore is a vote for Buchanan" ballets was all incompetent Democrat election commissioner stuff. New Jersey and Chicago are constant nightmares. What about the convictions in Wisconsin for Democratic party employees interfering with elections? What about the Democrat party sponsored voter registration programs at illegal alien rallies? I'm glad you do recognize the corruption of 30 years ago - you should read about how Halliburton has repeatedly bought elections in Texas and how they made a Senator who later became President. Any guesses who that could be? Hint: His wife is one of the largest Halliburton stock owners.

The reality is that both parties are at war to out-do each other, while fat cats like Halliburton buy and control both sides. As long as we have fools who excuse the criminality of their party and oppose necessary reform (like showing a photo ID to vote) based on absurd, irrational excuses, we'll have fraud.

The reality is that we geeks miss the big crime while getting agitated about the insignificant ones. We're looking for grand conspiracies involving voting machines that are complicated and require incredible collusion, while the obvious crime stares us in the face. Let me ask: why go to all the trouble to hack into machines when a political party can load up bus loads of illegals, drive to Wisconsin, show no ID and swing an election with thousands of bogus votes? You don't need sophisticated tools to hack the cash register when the drawer is already open.

If you really want to stick it to the fat cats, quit blaming the other party and force both to clean up their acts.

Also, we aren't talking about corruption in any other party because the Republican party is the one in power here

How convenient. So in New Jersey, Chicago, South Florida, California, etc. you're all over the corrupt Democrats? Unlikely. Incidentally, the Maryland House of Delegates and the Maryland Senate are controlled by Democrats. The Maryland judiciary (court of appeals) is no bastion of conservative thought either, led by chief judge Robert Bell. So what if you've got a conservative governor - the rest of the government (especially those who control purchasing) are all liberal.

and they're the ones pulling this shit

Interesting. I haven't seen a single Democrat oppose election fraud and demand identification. They come up with the most bizarre excuses - claiming they're poll taxes (when the legislation pays for the cost of the ID if someone has a financial hardship), claim racial profiling (as if minorities don't have IDs to buy beer, smokes, etc.) and other bizarre arguments. Yes, Diebold is incompetent and should be thrown over a cliff. Yes, ES&S doesn't give a damn about security (they claim that's the responsibility of the vendor of the operating system they use) and should be banned. But as long as we continue wearing partisan blinders, we'll be stuck with this mess.

It's all "Hey, look over there... while we steal the vote here" misdirection.

bring up what the Democrats did 30 years ago every time we talk about what the Republicans are doing now.

Where've you been for 30 years? South Florida's hanging/swinging chad and poorly designed "a vote for Gore is a vote for Buchanan" ballets was all incompetent Democrat election commissioner stuff. New Jersey and Chicago are constant nightmares. What about the convictions in Wisconsin for Democratic party employees interfering with elections? What about the Democrat party sponsored voter registration programs at illegal alien rallies? I'm glad you do recognize the corruption of 30 years ago - you should read about how Halliburton has repeatedly bought elections in Texas and how they made a Senator who later became President. Any guesses who that could be? Hint: His wife is one of the largest Halliburton stock owners.

The reality is that both parties are at war to out-do each other, while fat cats like Halliburton buy and control both sides. As long as we have fools who excuse the criminality of their party and oppose necessary reform (like showing a photo ID to vote) based on absurd, irrational excuses, we'll have fraud.

The reality is that we geeks miss the big crime while getting agitated about the insignificant ones. We're looking for grand conspiracies involving voting machines that are complicated and require incredible collusion, while the obvious crime stares us in the face. Let me ask: why go to all the trouble to hack into machines when a political party can load up bus loads of illegals, drive to Wisconsin, show no ID and swing an election with thousands of bogus votes? You don't need sophisticated tools to hack the cash register when the drawer is already open.

If you really want to stick it to the fat cats, quit blaming the other party and force both to clean up their acts.

I was wondering about the money. Not the potential kickbacks, but the federal funding.

The Help America Vote Act has millions of dollars of funding allocated for both (1) transitions from punchcard or lever systems and (2) overall improvements.

So, there may be a question of money but not of the kickback type - that they spent a lot of money on a system that may not be compliant or, at least, insecure. That would be a, "Yeah, we didn't do our homework.".

Alternatively, this may not be about the money at all. Even if this system is deemed 'compliant', the situation may just be about the unwillingness of establishing a different system very late, and not wanting to go through with yet another round of training. Also, they may be of the mindset that any replacement for the existing system may not have time to comply with HAVA for this election, either. That would be a, "We can't do anything about it anyway.".

I agree that they're probably doing something wrong, but for a different reason.

Oh wait, this is the politics section ... <sarcasm>yeah, it can only be kickbacks and voter-rigging.</sarcasm>

I also don't see the relevance in saying, "Current trends indicate Democrats across the country are set to turn out in large numbers, which would hurt the governor's chances for reelection. So he has called into question the election process." Is it a bad thing to demand a fair, accurate count? If this same Republican was pushing insecure Diebold machines, wouldn't you be questioning whether his cronies has arranged to exploit them for the purpose of compromising the vote count?

If you're like me and want to see a return to paper ballots, or at least a move to a system that leaves a paper trail, then contact Governor Ehrlich and tell him "Thank you!" for trying to get rid of these machines!

Either send his office an email or give him a call. Non-MD residents can call his office at 800-811-8336, local residents can call 410-974-3591.

I'm not from Maryland, nor do I live there, but I just called and wrote Mr. Ehrlich's office to show my support for eliminating these machines from use. An insecure system that leaves no paper trail borders on insanity; it's nice to see someone stand up against them.

Since when did the law in your state say paper ballots were no longer allowed. You'd think that change would have made it on slashdot when it happened because it's pretty outrageous.

After the 2000 Presidential Election, Governor Parris N. Glendening established a Special Committee on Voting Systems and Election Procedures to review Maryland's election policies and procedures. In its report, the Special Committee recommended, among other things, that the State implement a statewide, uniform voting system for polling place voting and a statewide, uniform voting system for absentee voting. In response to this recommendation, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring the State Board of Elections, in consultation with the local boards of election, to select a statewide, uniform voting system for polling place voting and for absentee voting. See House Bill 1457 of the 2001 Legislative Session.

Once the bill became effective, the State Board selected a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system for polling place voting and an optical scan voting system for absentee voting. A DRE voting system was selected because of the many advantages that it offers over other voting systems.

Only truly deviant birds would choose to ignore such a great gift. Many suburban and urban geese (in vast numbers), as well as some species of cranes and other birds have thrown off the shackles of cryptochromes and chosen to stop migrating. Why buy the cow when you Get the milk for for free?[google cache of The Wall Street Journal]