Slashdot Mirror

"To get that oh-so-useful uninstaller you had to go to a website, answer a survey, and only then could you download it. If they genuinely wanted to make it easy, they would have put it in Add/Remove Programs, and stuck their survey in there."

So it takes 5 minutes instead of 2. They didn't want to make it easy to uninstall (of course they didn't) but they didn't make it very difficult.

If I was uninfecting a machine with that awful crap, I wouldn't have touched that uninstaller with a 10-foot pole. To get it, you had to go to "mypctuneup.com", supply your e-mail address, and answer a survey. After getting crappy software on your machine, would YOU go to a sketchy-sounding website, supply your e-mail and install anything it gave you? That's a real easy way to get more crapware on your box, and piles of spam to boot. I'd rebuild the OS before doing something that stupid.

Providing the uninstaller that way is about as useful as the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of a spam: sure, there is the off-chance it works, but it is far more likely to be the prelude to more evil.

"And their distributors were complete scum that Direct Revenue did very little to police. Yeah, they suspended any that were complained about (if the hapless users even had any clue how they got the software), but those rogue distributors would just sign up under a new name."

[Citation Needed]

Gladly: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2006/apr/Direct%20Revenue%20Affirmation%20of%20Justin%20Brookman.pdf PDF Page 40, paragraph 99. I will modify my statement somewhat: It turns out they did NOT suspend distributors caught doing shenanigans; they allowed them to continue operating with nothing more than a mild warning, even after being caught more than once.

"I can't believe he thought this job was a "net positive" simply because he wiped out the other guys' malware more than he installed."

I think that's a rational, logically correct, statement for him to make. Overall, because of him there was net adware around. He didn't say that it cleared him of blame or made it morally excusable. He leaves the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about that.

Just because this clown uninstalled the competition on somebody's PC didn't actually help the user; it just provided more room for his software to waste the user's time. The only "positive" for the user would be an actual clean PC, which they didn't get. His actions were about as useful as giving a drowning scuba diver a tank of air attached to a 500-lb lead weight; yeah, they can now breathe... too bad they're still screwed.

SirWired

assume it's true that the NY/NJ PA has a no-photos policy on property they own and operate; assume Amtrak (or whoever else you like outside of the relevant legislatures) has similar policies. and assume they're unambiguous that you're violating them. taking photos is still not illegal because - and this is important - none of these organizations make law. the photographer in this incident was charged with Trespass, as per NY State Penal Code Part 3, Title I, Article 140.05. go read it - the entire 140's a relatively easily-comprehensible piece of law. the photographer had a legal license to be on the where he was, and while a violation of the PA's, Amtrak, or whoever's rules might give them good grounds to ask him to leave, there is simply no trespass until he refuses such a lawfully given request.

remember, always: laws, in democracies, are made by those with legislative authority, not policing authority or private individuals or organizations. neither airlines, nor amtrak, nor the police, may make or redefine laws.

1. It's nice to see someone use some facts around here. Good work!

2. Medicaid is 1/3 of the budget.

Okay, let's get rid of it. http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/HealthCare.html

So, which would you like to eliminate first?

*Indigent elderly care AND nursing homes. Kick em out. The streets will make them tough or dead.

*Health care for children. You know, they can just grow up with a chronic illness, that way we can spend 10x more on them as adults. Or not at all and they can live or die by whatever smarts they have.

*Home care. If they can't get to the Doctor's office on their own then they need to deal with that. Or call an ambulance and take them to critical care. You know that's FAR more expensive than offering rides right? Or they can just die at home.

I'm glad you used some facts, now it's time to make some decisions based on those facts.

Great idea - cut everything except education, medical, and other essentials. And stop raising those high NY taxes. But when you look at the budget breakdown - where does the money come from? where do 2/3 of the budget go?

http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/AllFunds.html

Medicaid (medical) - 31%
School aid (education) - 19%
SUNY (education)- 7.6%
Transportation - 6%
Fringe Benefits (state employee benefits) - 4.5%

Basically just looking at our top 5 items, and 64% are going to essentials!

Its time to face the grim reality that our state leaders - particularly the "fiscally responsible" Republicans lead by Governor Pataki - have been adding on services and bloating the payroll for years, balanced on the back of the bubble economy. Now thats gone, and we're all going to pay.

You can't say cutting the budget is cutting safe water or police.

Look at the budget breakdown on the NY State web site: http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/AllFunds.html

Medicaid is 1/3 of the budget.
Law Enforcement, Courts, Jails, Utilities, Roads... all total 10%.

I believe that 90% of all adults are infected with the virus that causes Herpes.

Yep, Herpes comes in at least 8 varieties in humans and over 80 in the animal kingdom. So if you've ever had chicken pox...

"Chickenpox is a highly communicable disease caused by the varicella virus, a member of the herpes virus family"

New York State Department of Health

NY's CIO, hands down. http://www.oft.state.ny.us/Welcome.htm

She's excellent, with a long distinguished background in business and government.

And she doesn't take crap from anyone. She'd eat Ballmer for dinner. The first thing she did when she took office was tell the corporate reps who'd always had a free pass to that office dictating to the previous CIOs to get lost and wait their turn.

And one more plus - she is pro-open standards. She just published the first ODF document in the history of New York government. It promotes open standards and open source, with more to come. See http://www.oft.state.ny.us/policy/esra/erecords-study.htm

NY's CIO, hands down. http://www.oft.state.ny.us/Welcome.htm

She's excellent, with a long distinguished background in business and government.

And she doesn't take crap from anyone. She'd eat Ballmer for dinner. The first thing she did when she took office was tell the corporate reps who'd always had a free pass to that office dictating to the previous CIOs to get lost and wait their turn.

And one more plus - she is pro-open standards. She just published the first ODF document in the history of New York government. It promotes open standards and open source, with more to come. See http://www.oft.state.ny.us/policy/esra/erecords-study.htm

Customers turned away by employees who were on their lunch break?

In the U.S., depending on the state, that could be a legal obligation of the company. For instance, in New York, most day-shift employees are entitled to a half-hour lunch break sometime between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. during which time their employer may not permit them to work. The employee cannot waive this. It's part of the state Labor Law. It even applies to salaried workers and managers.

If the company needs to serve customers during the lunch hour, it's on the employer to make sure they're staffed adequately so that they have people who aren't on lunch break to provide that service.

and I can tell you for a FACT that not only does no-one here use chains in the winter, but chains and "studded tires" (tires with small metal bumps embedded in the rubber) are Illegal in New York State.

For the studs, not according to your states DMV web site:
http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter10-manual.htm

Tires with metal studs may be used in New York State only from October 16 through April 30.

I could not find anything that said chains were illegal, only a few references stating to pull of the road to a safe area if you need to install chains.

I can tell you for a FACT that not only does no-one here use chains in the winter, but chains and "studded tires" (tires with small metal bumps embedded in the rubber) are Illegal in New York State.

Did you only live there for the summer or are you just making this up as you go along? Not only are snow tires, including studded tires and chains allowed between Oct 16 to April 30 - they're actually required to drive on a emergency snow route during declared snow emergencies.

Read para 35a of this section of the state code.

Press Release: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/press/EDL%20PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf

Official EDL (Enhanced Driver License) web page: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/edl-main.htm

Neither of which mention anything about being able to choose the non-RFID license. But on the other side of the coin, they don't say that the RFID license is mandatory.

Press Release: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/press/EDL%20PRESS%20RELEASE.pdf

Official EDL (Enhanced Driver License) web page: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/edl-main.htm

Neither of which mention anything about being able to choose the non-RFID license. But on the other side of the coin, they don't say that the RFID license is mandatory.

Nope, it was pretty clear on the morning news today that the RFID isn't mandatory and you can still easily get a non-chipped license. Also the FAQ states:

Is a person required to get an EDL or ENDID?

No. The EDL or ENDID is offered as an option to NYS residents who are U.S. citizens. The current type of NYS photo driver licenses and non-driver ID cards will remain available and valid.

Who will go for it? People who live near the Canadian border and cross frequently (Buffalo, Watertown, Plattsburgh, Ogdensburg, Massena, etc.). If it cuts their time waiting at the border by 5 minutes each trip, it adds up.

you have to pay the sales tax difference

Pay the difference makes more sense than how I read your original post. I read it as you'd have to repay the sales tax for the half of the matches you didn't already use. Sorry about that oversight on my part.

I found the following language in the instructions for IT-201:

Additional local tax - You may owe an additional local tax if you are a resident of a locality (county or city) at the time of purchase and you:
* bring property into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate;
* bring property into that locality on which you had a taxable service performed in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate; or
* bring a service (such as an information service) into that locality which you purchased in another locality in New York State that has a lower tax rate.

I honestly never knew about this.... but it seems like a pretty stupid and unenforceable mandate. Not surprised that it would come out of Albany. Who the hell keeps track of their purchases in different counties? What about receipts that don't bother to list the % of sales tax and just list the amount? Do I have to save my receipts for the year and then go over them all with a calculator and a tax table that includes all 62 counties?

As early as 1821, there were restrictions on how much gunpowder you could have around in a city house. 5 lbs was a common limit, and still is. In New York State, above 5 pounds of black powder, the licensing, reporting, and safety rules apply; for example, storage within 75 feet of an inhabited building is not permitted.

Modern smokeless powder isn't a major explosion hazard, but black powder is.

Wrong. In New York it is illegal to take pictures of people in places where they can expect a reasonable degree of privacy (one's home surely falls under that definition). http://www.criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch69_2003_stephanie_vidvoy.htm So by your argument it must be perfectly okay to "zoom" in on other peoples private lives. Google's argument could and will aid parasites that "zoom" in on little children. Can you comprehend the gravity of the situation? Video voyeurism is one of the most insidious crimes. It is indecent and is an affront to the sanctity of an individual. Society has to set standards on decency. Google has no right taking pictures of people in their homes.Err on the side of caution. Period.

IANAL, but how does the law impose a requirement on all devices sold? It clearly states "EVERY NEW VIDEO GAME CONSOLE SOLD AT RETAIL IN THIS STATE SHALL INCLUDE A MECHANISM, DEVICE OR CONTROL SYSTEM...". Bill text is here.

Besides, aren't there lots of standards that vary from state to state on products that are sold nationally or internationally? California flammability standards come to mind...

14th Amendment arguments aside (I think others have adequately covered them):

Article 1, section 8 of the New York State Constitution also guarantees free speech.
Read it:
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/lbdcinfo/senconstitution.html

You did know that each state has its own constitution, didn't you?

Still, Cuomo's an asshole.

Why yes indeed, he is. Unless, of course, you actually welcome caffeinated alcoholic beverage prohibiting overlords.

Even if you're registered on the national list, I highly recommend that you check into state laws (and lists, if they have them), as there are variations in what is and isn't protected.

For fellow New Yorkers, here is the official NYS law regarding "Do Not Call".

A 30 second search of Google shows "right of way" as the title of NY code Article 26. I suspect you'll find similar laws in other jurisdictions. Seems like more than a myth to me.

The exception is where boats are concerned, and in maritime law the smaller craft always has to get out of the way of the larger craft.

This is also wrong. Sailing vessels almost universally have right of way over motorized vessels that are underway. See 33 USC 2018.

http://www.oft.state.ny.us/policy/esra/erecords-study.htm

State your source. I have never before heard of a state that levies tariffs on imported goods.

In my original post I was citing only the NY tax handbook, but I checked two other states and both of them have a similar policy. You might need to look for 'use tax' instead of 'sales tax', as sales tax is charged when you purchase and use tax is charged when you begin use, unless you paid sales tax.

• New York State Resident Income Tax Return IT-150 & IT-201 Instructions (Page 66)
• California Income Tax Return Instructions 540/540A (page 17) (page 10 according to acrobat reader)
• New Jersey Income Tax Instructions NJ-1040 (page 36, line 44) (page 34 according to acrobat reader)

In most cases, if you paid the same or greater than the local sales tax rate, you're required to pay the difference on your state taxes. In the case of an amazon purchase, for purchasers in most states, you paid 0% tax at the time of the sale because sellers are only required to collect tax for customers in a state in which they have a physical presence.

You don't have to keep track of what you bought and claim that at the end of the year, unless you're a non-profit or buying things for business use.

Yes, you do have to keep track of all purchases you made that you didn't pay sales tax on, in particular because the transaction occurred outside the state.

From New York State Resident Income Tax Return IT-150 & IT-201 Instructions (Page 66)

When do you owe New York State and local sales or use tax?

When you make a purchase of taxable property or services from a seller (vendor) located in New York State and take delivery in New York State, the vendor should collect state and local sales or use tax due and forward it to the Tax Department. However, you are responsible for paying the tax directly to the Tax Department under the following three circumstances: Deliveries into New York State -- You owe state and local sales or use tax if you:

• purchase property or a service that is delivered to you in New York State without payment of New York State and local tax to the seller, such as through the Internet, by catalog, from television shopping channels, or on an Indian reservation.

Purchases outside New York State with subsequent use in New York State -- You may also owe state and local sales or use tax if you are a resident of New York State at the time you purchase any of the following outside New York State:

• property you bring into New York State for use in New York State;
• a service performed on property outside New York State, and you bring that property into New York State for use here; or
• a service (such as an information service) you bring into New York State for use here.

However, you are not required to pay state or local sales or use tax on any property or service that you bring into New York State which you purchased outside of the state before you became a resident of New York State.

We shall!

I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"

I see. So in this case you are agitating to break the law because you disagree with it. In this story, the government of Sweden is acting to uphold the law, and we were discussing the legal rights of copyright holders. The "morality" of the law is obviously open to interpretation as you'll find people on both sides of the issue. But the actual existence - and concrete language - of the law should not be in doubt.

You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.

See, if you actually could follow your OWN LINKS to their parents, and look up the original lawsuit you would find that the RIAA is not named as a defendant. It's not the RIAA. Your original statement is provably false. Maybe being able to read and follow the links Google provides would do better than just throwing three words into Google? Maybe you don't understand the legal system of the US, but if the RIAA was found guilty, then they had to be named. Not named, not guilty.

If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright.

Many artists are copyright holders. Many artists sell their copyrights for cash, to other companies who manage the copyrights. Others turn their copyrights over to the public domain. Talking of the copyright holder is the correct statement as it encompasses all these people - whoever holds the copyright has the legal right to pursue violations of the copyright. Artist, label, museum, collector.

Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.

Oh, I fully understand the law! I hold several registered copyrights trademarks, as well as patents. And I also understand that currently the government has decided that - in exchange for releasing your works to the public - you get the right to exclude others from copying it for a given duration. And that duration changes depending upon the status of the work, when it was first created/claimed/published, and/or the death of the original author. Apparently you do not like the duration; that's fine. But I guess you're OK with the fundamental principle of copyrights? If so, then you simply disagree on a fine point of duration, not the right.

Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers?

So your problem - as you believe - is that the term is too long, and that the copyright holder can legally sue you for violating th

I'm going to assume you are running for office. You used many words to
say exactly nothing.

I'd like to run for office, but my wife won't let me. Whether people consider many words to
have some or no meaning is up to them to decide, although I'm trying to be realistic because
there have been real-world developments on this.

The anti-cyber-squatting act of 1996 allows domains to be stolen. If I
wanted your domain, I'd register a trademark on the bit before the dot-com,
then steal the domain from you. THAT FORM OF THEFT IS WRONG.

A kitchen knife is generally used to cut food, although it can be "abused" as a murder weapon.

While there are various decisions mostly in favor of trademark holders, having a trademark is
still no guarantee you'll get the domain name. But I do heartily agree it's "wrong" to use it
to overreach in certain cases.

If things are black and white, we'll probably have less problems to worry about.

When a person pays for a domain name, they pay for it. A registrar
disabling it is a breech of contract, and should be a capital crime. I've
had my domains disabled for ticking off powerful career criminals (e.g.,
Orin Hatch)

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/13230.htm

The two parties eventually settled, though. And the registrar has rewritten their agreement
since then.

Your rights are limited by your registrar's agreement. Breaking any of its terms (or breach
of contract, as you mentioned earlier) can be grounds for the registrar to "take the domain
name away from you" and terminate your account.

I worked with a registrar in a previous life and am now an average domain registrant, so I do
know what it's like on both sides.

How much more will it take before governments start to view Microsoft as a non-responsible contractor and stop entering into contracts with them?

This convicted monopolist Microsoft was found by the judge in this most recent order to PURPOSELY have been foot dragging in terms of compliance with the judge's orders:

"It is clear, at least to the court, that Microsoft is culpable for this inexcusable delay... practically speaking, Microsoft has never complied with III.E..."

See: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=13&articleId=9060099&intsrc=hm_topic

Governments have rules that say that they are statutorily prohibited from entering into contracts with companies that lack business ethics. See for example http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/purchase/snt/overviews/SPF2005S08OscVendorResponsibility.rtf

How the hell can governments continue to justify contracting with a company like this that repeatedly has been found to have been flouting the law? I just don't get it.

Better article here:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/11/Dont-upgrade-to-Vista_1.html

Also, follow the article's links. New York extended their deadline to submit public comments to Friday January 18th.

http://www.oft.state.ny.us/oftnews/erecords-study.htm#Part_II_-_Detailed_Questions

At the risk if being off-topic, can anyone explain how Intel is culpable for any of the numerous missteps AMD has made dating back to the acquisition of ATI in 2006?

Also, answer the question. More important than politeness is what you respond to. Maybe our discussion here on Slashdot could even center around the actual issues they are considering. (And by the way, Point 1 probably means "we don't care about out of state, ill-informed public opinion, only about those who either have qualifications, or vested interests because they interact with this state government.")

(And the correct url is http://www.oft.state.ny.us/News/erecords-study.htm)

From the site:

With those caveats in mind, please respond to the following general questions:

      1. Contact Information: Please provide name, organizational affiliation if any, and means for contacting you (e.g. e-mail address, street address, phone number). Contact information collected in Question 1 will not be displayed on a public website.

      2. What mechanisms and processes should the State of New York establish for accessing and reading its electronic records in order to encourage public access to those records?

      3. What mechanisms and processes should the State of New York establish for accessing and reading its electronic records to encourage interoperability and data sharing with citizens, business partners and other jurisdictions?

      4. What mechanisms and processes should the State of New York implement to encourage appropriate government control of its electronic records?

      5. What mechanisms and processes should the State of New York consider for encouraging choice and vendor neutrality when creating, maintaining, exchanging and preserving its electronic records?

      6. Are there mechanisms and processes the State of New York should establish that are specific to the management of its electronic records in its various life cycle stages (creation, maintenance, exchange, preservation and disposal)?

      7. How should the State address the long term preservation of its electronic records? What should the State consider regarding public access to such archived content?

      8. What changes, if any, should be made to the government records management provisions in New York Statutes? (Please reference those laws which are cited here: http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/records/mr_laws.shtml).

      9. What constraints and benefits should the State of New York consider regarding the costs of implementing a comprehensive plan for managing its electronic records?

    10. What should the State of New York consider regarding the management of highly specialized data formats such as CAD, digital imaging, Geographic Information Systems and multimedia?

    11. What constraints and benefits should the State of New York consider regarding potential savings or additional costs associated with the management of defined electronic record formats?

    12. What existing policies and procedures in the private or public sector for the management of electronic records would be appropriate for the State of New York to examine? Please cite specific examples.

    13. Are New York State's existing standards, regulations and guidelines regarding records management adequate to meet the challenges of electronic records retention? How should these standards, regulations and guidelines be changed?

    14. What else should the State of New York consider about this subject?

http://www.oft.state.ny.us/News/erecords-study.htm

Take a look at this web site:

http://www.oft.state.ny.us/oftnews/erecords-study.htm

This looks like a study about ODF versus OOXML. Responses are due by December 28th (!)

Mike, your posting raises a very important issue. The RIAA claims to be protecting artists by recouping money from file sharers. I would be very interested to see schedules of payment by the labels to the "damaged" artists.

I think the group would also be interested to understand the science of royalty payments as discussed here http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/may/may4a_04.html

Looking forward to your continued participation on Slashdot until your vacation work placement is over.

Think about electricity deregulation: the transmission is seperate from the generation, and while everyone has to pay for the transmission (since we don't want overly redundant infrastructure), individuals can choose their generation source.

And we all know how well electricity deregulation worked out for consumers, right?

Hmm, proof read it four times and still messed up the link for Donna Lupardo ;)

you still only stole 24 candybars. Your penalty should be based on what you actually did, not the defence strategy.

To make this a little more parallel, its worth mentioning that the store that sold the candy bars also was found liable in a class action lawsuit for price fixing of said candy bars for years.

Here is a PDF for the filing where 29 states and territories took the likes of record companies and retail outlets to court for "under the laws of the United States and of the States to recover damages suffered by the States'
consumers resulting from illegal price-fixing agreements between each of the defendant labels and distributors of prerecorded music (including compact discs ("CDs"), cassettes and albums) and certain traditional retailers."

The companies did not win in the case.

Kinda reminds me of the Cops episode where someone called the cops because they got ripped off in a crack deal and the buyer only got plaster instead of crack.

take a look at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2007/oct/oct23a_07.html

I see nothing in there that answers my questions. First, it's not a link to a page on a verizon site. And there's no occurrence of strings like "server", "ssh", "vpn", or anything dealing with such topics. And there's no mention of how long such agreements might be valid for, so by the time you get your service installed, they could have disavowed anything in any agreement you've read.

The settlement follows a nine-month investigation into the marketing of NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans for wireless access to the internet for laptop computer users. ... Verizon Wireless fully and voluntarily cooperated with the Office of the Attorney General throughout this inquiry. Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses.
if your a verison wireless customer take a look at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2007/oct/oct23a_07.html .

Verizon Wireless fully and voluntarily cooperated with the Office of the Attorney General throughout this inquiry. Since April of 2007, Verizon Wireless has voluntarily ceased cutting off customers based on their data usage and no longer prohibits common internet uses.VERIZON WIRELESS AGREES TO SETTLE DECEPTIVE MARKETING INVESTIGATION

Umm... you can get MOST magazines in braille.

http://207.165.235.33/Library/magazines/MagazineListBraille.htm

Movie theaters DO have headphones in them.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/dec/dec05a_05.html

So, both of those issues ARE things that in the past blind people have either sued or used market pressure to get.

NEXT!

You mean this one?

One big advantage here is that they make it easy to file complaints right off the do-not-call-list webpage.

I think we need to rebrand the discussion. What we need is computer assisted voting. Basically, the touch screen just provides an interface where the computer prints out your ballot which you review for accuracy and deposit in the ballot box. Later, ballots can be counted by hand or some type of scan-tron. Tabulations can be kept in both machines and in the event of mismatches, the paper ballot is recounted providing the official count (or if the numbers are far enough off, a re-vote). The scanning process could be observed and run at such a speed that humans can watch the count in real time and with enough people watching the possibility of count errors going undetected would approach 0. This would take care of most of your concerns about magic happening behind the screen. Nevertheless, the source code should still be freely available.

It's not a perfect system but it provides the basis for a system that's pretty much on par with paper. That is, the problems with election fraud we would see would be the same types of problems paper ballots suffer from (ie people voting twice, someone stealing a ballot box, some poll running out of paper).

This is what is in the draft proposal for New York State voting machines (among many other requirements regarding privacy and the disabled etc). But I only found this out recently by clicking on a signature from a slashdot poster. I encourage everyone to take a few minutes and visit http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ and check what sort of voting machines your state has, is testing, or is thinking about getting.

Also, for those new yorkers out there, you may want to visit this page about the testing underway for NYS eletronic voting machines for 2008.

"What you're missing is that it is those content creators who agreed to be paid the amounts they are."

Nice try, but wrong.

The RIAA members routinely cheat their artists who signed with them. It's one thing to pay pennies on millions they make from the sweat of other's brow, but even those few pennies are routinely cheated from artists.

Look here, naive one:
  http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/may/may4a_04 .html

Goodness, the RIAA is really sure about who is downloading music (which is impossible), but they can't be sure about who they owe royalties too. Goodness, their head must be in a tizzy!

Maybe not such a tizzy. When you are used to not paying anyone, just getting money, I guess even paying a few cents to artists really burns!

    http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8218.cfm

Of course, maybe it's all a desire to make the world safe for full accountant employment:

    http://www.prosoundweb.com/studio/articles/royalti es/royalties.php

What wonderful people you defend! And clearly, they have no desire to do anything but stuck to stick to the contract. What just people they are. Just wonderful.

From Bo Lipari's blog:

"Take Action Now - It's urgent that you call your State Senator and Assembly representatives on Monday, June 18, at their Albany offices, and tell them they must not weaken New York State's escrow and review requirements. Remind them that the Legislature passed a strong law 2 years ago - they must not give in to pressure by voting machine vendors to undermine those protections.

Find your Assembly member's contact information here:
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/
(Not sure who your Assembly member is? Click here to search by Zip Code)

Find your State Senator's contact information here:
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/s enators?OpenForm
(Not sure who your State Senator is? Click here to search by Zip Code)"

From Bo Lipari's blog:

"Take Action Now - It's urgent that you call your State Senator and Assembly representatives on Monday, June 18, at their Albany offices, and tell them they must not weaken New York State's escrow and review requirements. Remind them that the Legislature passed a strong law 2 years ago - they must not give in to pressure by voting machine vendors to undermine those protections.

Find your Assembly member's contact information here:
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/mem/
(Not sure who your Assembly member is? Click here to search by Zip Code)

Find your State Senator's contact information here:
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/s enators?OpenForm
(Not sure who your State Senator is? Click here to search by Zip Code)"

And the means to go and get one?

New York uses a 6-point verification scheme to get an ID or a drivers license.

Plus, you have to actually get to the DMV office.

Let's say you're a Republican county clerk. Let's say as part of your job, you close the sole remaining DMV office in a heavily Democratic-leaning city. The remaining DMV offices are roughly an hour ride away by public transportation.

See where we're going with this?

Sure, if you're homeless, fine. You've got time to ride the bus. Full time worker? Hmm... maybe not so much.

The bill basically initiates a study into vendor neutrality and interoperability. It states that the study will be completed by January 15, 2008. It says nothing about actually doing anything with the study, so nothing may actually change.

Still, it's better than nothing. So all you registered voters in New York, consider writing your state assemblymen and senators.
NYS Assembly Members
NYS Senate Members

The bill basically initiates a study into vendor neutrality and interoperability. It states that the study will be completed by January 15, 2008. It says nothing about actually doing anything with the study, so nothing may actually change.

Still, it's better than nothing. So all you registered voters in New York, consider writing your state assemblymen and senators.
NYS Assembly Members
NYS Senate Members

The RIAA is in fact a not-for-profit corporation based in Yonkers, New York.