Slashdot Mirror
E-Voting Company Reveals Their Source Code
Kodi writes "VoteHere has decided to release their source code so that other people will have confidence in it (MSNBC, press release.) It's definitely NOT open source (unlike OVC) but it's still a step in the right direction."
1) Pain in the ass. Asks me to submit my Full Name, Organization, and email. Along with an Opt-Out in check mark for a newsletters and licence agrement.
2) You may not download this Software if you are located in any country (or are a national of a country) subject to a general U.S. or U.N. embargo or are deemed to be a terrorist country (i.e., Cuba,Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Ouch! Why the patriotic license clause?
3) A quick glance at the source code seems to indicate that it's cygwin dependent C++. Not really the best platform to open your source code on since the windows world encourages closed development.
Also, who's to say that this is the source code that will be compiled on the voting terminals? What prevents any e-voting company to build binaries that have "secret conspiracy back doors" in them? Are voting polls expected to compile their own code? And if so, why chose windows when there is no built in compiler available by default on that platform?
Something is really wrong with this move by Votehere. Nowhere on their site is a place to access the revision history of the code, or upload changes, or even contact them about bugs in the code for credit or what-have-you.
Obscured security relies on obscurity; therefore we have a previously obscured source code that is now revealed (as is) and the creator expects the public to be pleased? The key element of Open Source is the insight from a million minds into security, feasibility and programming efficiency; not the wide-open access to the creation of a few minds, who may have conflicts with the management of the company, conflict of design methodology, or flagrant criminal intent (hey you've heard of a silent strike, well programmers do this more than anyone because they are mistreated by management with little recourse at times; read: Microsoft). I think if they are going to release the code, they should at least have a framework for accepting revisions, and base credit upon these revisions from the Open Source community -- bare minimum. This current method is only a public form of espionage without any hopes of maintaining security through accessible revision tree access to the public. Somone might be fired for this? I mean if it were *my* firm, I'd be looking for someone to execute over such a breech, without the necessary systemic functions available for interpretation of risk and absolute recovery system diagnostics, et cetera.
Makes me wonder why the hell I should care.
You can't drive 2 miles to vote?
or is this just for PR?
The Digital Couture Collection
Time to stop this hypocrisy of criticizing closed e-voting, while implementing it here.
In a move to inspire confidence, Diebold agrees to have Microsoft review their code.
The company was quoted as saying, "Microsoft's highly qualified software testers will objectively review all source to determine any bugs. We are confident their analysis will put speculation about the reliability of our software to rest."
VoteHere has revealed _some_ source code, which may or may not be what is used in their machines. Unless the machines are produced in a truly open fashion, the fact that they have made some code available for viewing means very little.
Exposing the source code for e-voting (and electronic voting systems) is good. But just as important are the methods and procedures that a company uses around the software. Without knowing how they handle data, what protections and precautions they take, what operational or administrative technical policies are in place, I don't think we can judge much about a system from the source code. But we can, of course, find flaws in the code itself.
Soon we'll have an open source alternative called "OpenVote".
I'm not sure I'll trust it.
i thought so too
It's called compliance with export law. Plenty of software companies have this restriction listed (for a long time you had to check the box to download Acrobat Reader until the export restriction were loosened slightly).
this is getting old and so are you
blog
If (Vote == Bush)
BushVotes++;
Else If (Vote == Gore)
If (Rand % 10 == 1)
BuchannenVotes++;
Else
GoreVotes++;
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Osama wants to fight, ie: he wants bush to win. He probably never had so many new recruits joining his cause before.
Remember these dudes are crazy and acutally think they can win.
It's come to my attention that people are always complaining about not being able to find their files on most OSes. But Unix seems to confound people to no end, which makes absolutely no sense since it is VERY WELL logically structured. Unlike Windows which is just a fucking mess. The Unix philosophy behind filing your data is all about standard locations for the different types of programs, configs and data you might have on your systems. If adhered to, you can go to any Unix system and easily locate files. However, I will argue that it needs some reorganizing for today's applications. And NO "My Documents" is a stupid fucking idea for morons with the intelligence of a slime mold!!! That will NEVER happen on any systems I administer. So now, I give you how I lay out my systems these days:
First level designations in a path:
00 in the first level of the path is the root user's personal directory
01 in the first level of the path is the designation for the "applications" directory
02 in the first level of the path is the "documents" directory
03 in the first level of the path is the "users" directory (equivalent to the stupid "home" designation used by troglodytes)
Note: in directories of type 03 in the first level of the path, the second directory is just the user's id number
Second level designations in a path:
01 in the second level of the path is always the "OpenOffice.org" application directory
02 in the second level of the path is always the "Mozilla" application director
01a in the second level of the path is always "Textual" documents
/01/01 - Open Office.org resides here.
/01/02 - Mozilla resides here
/02-00/01a/ - root's textual docs live here
/02/01a/01 - the first user's textual docs live here
/02/01a/02 - the second user's textual docs live here
/00/mbox - root's mail is here
/03/500/mbox - the first user's mail is here
/03/501/mbox - the second user's mail is here
This is a much easier setup once you get used to it as it makes it VERY easy to find stuff. It also makes scripting possible for searching for files and working with files in a character based setting. I don't allow my users to use anything other than three character numeric file names. I haven't heard a word out of them since I implemented this system. In general, they seem to be pleased since they no longer have to think hard about where their docs are. The docs are always within easy reach, and as an operator, my life has become considerably easier. More time to play Nethack... So get it though your heads you fucking idiots!!! Long file names based on alpha characters are nothing but a big pain in the ass. Get used to the coming paradigm of numeric filenames. It's WAY easier. Fucking idiot amateurs.
A Bastard Operator from Clevo
How to explain that every Congressional race in Maryland, for example, won by the same margin, of 818,181 votes? Funny how those numerals translated to HA HA HA in alpha characters..... www.countthevotecolorado.org
i hope this software will help prevent such things...(if it not cause it...)
When its hot outside, and your hemmoroids are even
hotter, just look to the cool relief of Preparation-H to
get you on your way.
I am a vegan and I run about 50-60 miles per week. I am not exactly a fat ass.
And I hate tofu.
Very own shiiter, FreeBSD core team Over a quality practical purposes
Where's my voter-verifiable paper printout?
"Righteous speed demon and trust fund party darling of justice"
If people are so convinced that this code must be insecure, find a bug... Break the thing and tell the company, if they don't fix it, tell the press.
I think this is an enormous step in the right direction, it allow a much greater degree of public oversite for e-voting. I am actaully satisfied with this, I would love a more open process, but I think this is good enough...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
consequently, Microsoft will not open its Windows or Office sources, so that people will not lose the petty rest of confidence in the products.
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
This is just like what Phil Zimmerman, then NAI, and then PGP Corporation did with Pretty Good Privacy. They'd publish their source code for peer audit, but you definitely weren't allowed to do anything with besides audit the source and compare the resultant binaries. It was NOT open source.
I don't have any problems with that, or with the election software not being open source.
If you ate a fucking proper vegan diet, you would realize health benefits WAY beyond your fucking stupid meat diet. People like you sicken me. You're a worthless pile of steamy fresh watery shit. Steak is not meant to be consumed by humans. It's bad for you in every way. High in fat, free-radicals because YOU TOO fry that shit because, face it... BEEF TASTES LIKE ASS. The best diet is one that is low in carbs, middling in fat and protein. And the carbs need to come from good sources of carbs. Not white bread, not candy, especially not soda! Eat lots of brown and wild rice and whole wheat or spelt flour based breads. You'll be healthier than any fucking meat eater out there. Dude... you keep on eating that meat and we'll see how young you are when you keel over from congestive heart failure. Fucking piece of shit moron. You really need a good beating across the head. I'd be the first in line to provide it to as I am a pretty buff guy. I workout regularly and have a body women just love. So wake the fuck up out of your neanderthal sleep and realize that YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED. Meat eaters are a thing of the past. And won't it be grand when they are all gon. Vegans fucking rule you bitchass!!!!
How is this at all a proper framework for bug submission?????? It reminds me of submitting to Microsoft... where they put you on ignore and go about their business.
RTFA or not, this is not correct framework at all.
I like this particular line from the license agreement:
3(j) Licensee shall not use the Software or Documentation for purposes for which it is not designed or intended.
So, if you find some way to hack it, and let them know, were you using the software or documentation for purposes for which it was intended? I wouldn't think so.
It's obvious I'm no legal buff, maybe this is the right (only?) way to word what they want, but that seems like a nice way to slap a lawsuit on someone who proves the software is flawed. "We didn't mean for people to be able to do that!"
Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah!
Radio, radio, rah rah rah!
The problem is that this code might not be the code that is in the machines. I think we should give people to compile the released source themselves and somehow load that into the machine before voting. There would be a standard build procedure, so everyone would use the same (open) compiler. The code would be checked to make sure it is bit for bit identical to a version compiled by a trusted third party. That way, having produced the executable yourself, you can be fairly sure that the software can be trusted. Unless, of course:
a) you don't trust gcc. In this case, you probably have at least 3 layers of tin foil in your hat, and there is _nothing_ I can do to make you happy.
b) The company/spooky gov't agents/other private interests set up the hardware to handle the backdoor/vote rigging itself. In this case, the voting machine company would have to at the least partner with a hardware manufacturer. There would have to be somekind of audit process for the firmware.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Because then those countries might reverse engineer the code and figure out what a cool idea democracy is. And then the US would no longer have conventient scapegoats to wage war against.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Revealing source code is good, but that doesn't gaurantee that the code you review is the same code actually running in the deployed machines.
Some people would like to see paper trails and code review as a backup security measure, but I have another option I could feel comfortable with. How about a neutral third party, mutually selected by the state/city/etc and machine supplier? This third party can act as the review agent for the code, even bringing in outside experts. Public review of the code could even be done if all parties agree that this is the best thing to do.
Finally (and here is where I think things get better), the escrow company actually builds the reviewed code, performs quality and acceptance tests. This code built by the third party is then released to the state for installation in their machines. The machine supplier never releases code directly to state/county/city/etc.
Many large corporations use similar schemes to manage mission critical code. The IP still belongs to the machine supplier, of course, but there is now a very public and verifiable step in the process to ensure trust in the system.
How to provide feedback
We welcome constructive feedback as part of this review process. You can submit
any feedback you have to vhtifeedback@votehere.com. We will address any valid is
sues and/or suggestions.
Conveniently located in the top-level directory in a file cryptically named README.Feedback.
Opening the source completely is the best thing they can do---but by restricting usage they discourage others from using the code---and we all should know, many bugs don't surface until runtime or when you are making changes to the code. If more vendors used the same code base that would help.
Even then, its still STUPID: even with a fully public revision history---quick hacks can be made privately and all traces of tampering can be removed. The whole thing is also way too expensive!
The down side to open source is that somebody with physical access can download, hack and reinstall the software! Or create better methods to hack the system---sure make it secure, but with physical access and billions of $$$ at stake...
With a reasonable margin, there are few recounts. Just cheat enough so nobody will bother to check that paper audit trail....if caught, say its a bug or don't get caught and swap out the paper trail with what you just printed on another hacked machine. And paper reciepts are just to sucker stupid people.
There is no computerized voting solution that can be trusted. period.
If it were *my* firm I'd turn it into an anti-computer voting non-profit.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
VoteHere a company that makes software to implement a particular voting crytographic scheme is the second outfit to release their source (the first was OVC).
t m
http://www.votehere.com/news/archive04/040604.h
Until I know more details I wont pass judgement other than to say this underscores the point that making source code open does not diminish the rights of the company to its ownership and copyright of the code. It does allow bugs to be found and fixed. And expert independent testimony to its safety may result and thereby build public confidence. Thus this is all good.
I dont know what exactly was released. My understanding in the past was that VoteHere was not actually a voting machine maker but a seller of a patented system for validating encrypted votes. Sequoia Systems had in the past discussed the possibility of letting buyers purchase this for use on their machines, though I have not heard of any machines actually deployed with this.
More specifically, the VOTE HERE system still requires the machines to be error free. Recounts are not possible in the event of an error. The votehere system only eliminates certain kinds of fraud but not all and does nothing about errors, the discovery of errors, and recounting after errors. Additionally since machines using this system will for practical purposes look the same as machines with tampered software: how do know what is going on inside as a voter?
I have read the VoteHere White papers on the mathematics of their algorithm. Two things are apparent 1) It's so complex--and I am trained in advanced mathematics--it's not perfectly clear that all the loop holes are plugged 2) Even if it works as claimed to the voter its still a magic black box that offers no visual evidence of the vote. Thus on both counts voting confidence is not available.
Look at their logo--its a bunch of math symbols. To most folks that is more of a put-off than a confidence builder. Clearly they think they have a technical solution but dont appreciate the sociology issues.
It appears to mainly move where fraud and erros can occur from the polling place to the programming place and to the people who hold the encryption keys. Its not clear what happens if the keys are accidentally leaked.
Still clearly votehere sees it in their interest to get the issue of open source on the table and that is a great sign. kudos for them even if it is partly a bussiness decision.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Much more interesting than the source is the following document:
u f. pdf ...describing a neat method of establishing a voter-verifiable ballot data that makes it quite difficult for single terminals to "cheat".
http://www.votehere.com/vhti/documentation/egsh
The source is not enough by itself. It only takes two extra lines of C code to rig an election:
if (some_condition)
votes[0]++;
They should allow people to double-check the veracity of the final product (the binary) by building it themselves.
It would be nice if they would reveal:
* The size of the binary
* The hardware/software configuration of the machine on which the compiling was done.
* The MD5 sum.
Wonderful, everyone knows about holes and no one can fix them.
-DB-
E-mail is like a prison: a prison with no walls... and no toilet. -Strong Bad
The first sign of intelligent life on slashdot
If you can see the code it is open source. Open source has a clear definition, nobody can change that.
We've been having e-voting in Brazil for ten years now, the machine's source code is not open, it's a small machine that saves the result on a disk and prints a confirmation with each vote.
In ten years we had three presidential elections, as well as elections for governors, mayors and senators, all of them with e-voting, citizens between 18 and 60 years MUST vote (between 16 and 18 and above 60 voting is optional).
In this ten years, with plenty of elections and huge ammounts of votes not ONCE the result of an election have been contested by any political parties (winning or losing, left or right), individuals or the media. Usually the official results are released in one or two days after the election.
So my question is: Why the big fuss about e-voting in the USA?
Look, these guys are trying to do the right thing to inspire trust and confidence in the integrity of their software. What they are doing is entirely reasonable and proper. Just because they want to make real money from their code doesn't mean they are evil. Just because you think that everyone should release everything under the GPL, doesn't mean that they should be forced to accept your values. The release license is the choice of the author; never forget that.
The purpose behind this excercise is to promote trust in the integrity of the electronic voting process; not to release Open Source voting software.
You should commend these guys, not snarl at them.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
One of the possible problems here, and I'd like to hear comments on this, is that the best people will not be reading this source code. Since the code is not open source in the free-use sense it means anyone reading it who is working to develop their own code may become contaminated. Or am I wrong on this. If I'm right then the most skilled readers wont be reading it. And that partly defeats the purpose.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio -- Radio Talk Show host Rush Limbaugh was found dead in his posh New York home last night. The coroner has not yet ruled it a suicide.
I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will mourn his passing -- even if you didn't agree with him, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
And everyone's problem with voting machines is that the voter doesn't get a receipt. This doesn't fix things.
I won't be satisfied until voting machines are subjected to the same safety criteria as automotive or aerospace software (e.g. FAA's DO178B). This means clear requirements, traceability from requirements to implementation, formal verification by third parties, and an audit trail. Infrastructure already exists for this purpose - the FAA could take this on with little difficulty.
I thought our government was a bureaucracy - why didn't they think of this first?
This is not a free software project! They didn't release the code to get the benifits of the open source development methodology, or to give back to the community. They released it so that the source could be audited by anyone who cared to do so, and the framework they provided is sufficent for this. Transparency has long been deemed important in the security world and has it's own benifits that still exist even without a distributed development method.
I don't understand what your concern is, because I don't see how setting up a public CVS would improve the quality of the software. People who are interested in audititing this code do not need direct access to CVS and the lack of it will not deter them from doing so. The only way that CVS could help is if developers joined the project for fun or to scratch an itch, and happen to find bugs in the process, but I don't see any reason that this would be the case. Auditing is meticulous work. It is not the type of thing that joe-schmoe open source programmer does for fun. It is the kind of thing that security experts do, and if they are the only ones that are attracted to this code then there is nothing wrong with that.
I guess some people will bitch no matter what.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
They needs to be a standard way to refer to different licenses.
Most lay people would assume that open source means you could look at it. But in tech circles that is not the case. It has to be more than that.
And does the tech definition of open source include BSD, GPL, public domain, etc licenses?
Or is it just refering to GPL?
Or does it depend on who you ask.
"we can declare the result instantly!"
"The robot polls are opening... and the robot vote is in."
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I bet 80% of the people that do actually vote would be wondering just what button to push on their WebTV or AOL account to compile the source.
Why does building a program from source have to be so hard? In the ideal world, setup.exe for compilers would associate makefiles to a compiler. Then when the user tries to install a program, the Makefile Wizard would pop up. She clicks Next a few times, and make install runs its course.
The software could be peachy clean, but any part in the election process could be corrupted to modify the results.
Even if the machines are perfect, the voting locations could be biased. At some point, humans are going to read the data from the machines, and humans can't be trusted for crap. You aren't going to see the tabulated machine results, but some processed and compiled data.
"Lookie folks, you can download our source code, unlike those other evil opaque ne'erdowells."
What's to keep them from closing the source once everyone hops on the bandwagon? If there's no promise to keep it open in perpetuity, its worthless.
No it's not a "step in the right direction" and you're not helping to fix things by claiming that it is.
Having a copy of some source code is not a "step in the right direction" if you can't understand it. Most people can't read source code.
Having a copy of some source code is not a "step in the right direction" if you can't have complete confidence it's implemented correctly. If it's at all complex, there's a good chance the are bugs in it. If the manufacturer ever admits they've fixed a bug in it, then they are admitting even their engineers who designed it didn't understand it enough to spot all the bugs. Will Joe Voter spend as much time reviewing the code? (If they never admit to a bug in it, then they are in denial.)
Having a copy of some source code is not a "step in the right direction" if you can't be sure the source you have is the same one used to compile the binary runninng on the machine you're casting your vote on.
Having a copy of some source code is not a "step in the right direction" if you can't be sure the compiler wasn't trojaned. Or the hardware itself.
Unless you have evidence of a ballot cast, the best you can claim is heresay testimony of a ballot cast. Are you willing to accept that as a basis of your next government?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
And how is any random voter going to be reassured that their pencil-and-paper ballot ever gets counted, rather than, say, floating in San Francisco Bay?
Personally, I'm more worried about the very real troubles with a physical ballot being lost/stolen/miscounted than I am with a theoretical hardware/software exploit. For example, given that the names/positions on a ballot are different from election to election, and even from district to district, it seems that the ballot machine would be technically a very difficult place to change votes from. And why do that, when normal political dirty-tricks work so much better?
And the "instant-win" problem isn't a result of media coverage, but instead is a result of the fact that the west coast states aren't really in contention. So while their polls may be open, it is already a pretty easy to tell who they will vote for. The presidential candidates, for the most part, don't even bother to campaign here in California, as it's pretty much given that our 54 electoral votes will go Democratic. So I don't think your idea of casting away the 1st Amendment will really solve anything.
Beacuse in the end what I want has nothing to do with software but the end result, what I put on my ballot.
It should be some sort of paper, to ensure some sort of paper trail. It should be human readable.
That simple.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
> They released it so that the source could be audited by anyone who cared to do so, and the framework they provided is sufficent for this.
It's obvious; audits won't happen, so the holes will remain in the final release because the Open Source community won't help because there's no incentive for them to be involved. This company is trying to get the benefits from the Open Source community without paying the price... which is opening the structure of the code to audit follow-up, open research and open development.
Is it really a good idea to have all that weird C malloc/realloc stuff in the third-party directory. O.K. maybe they match every malloc with a free and maybe they never exceed 8192 for huge strings or 256 for ordinary string, but honestly, Setjmp? Yiii, isn't this the 21st century?
Somehow, the Republic managed to survive for a couple hundred years with paper ballots, waiting longer than "a couple weeks" for the results in the days before electronic communciations. What was the problem, again?
Sean
Isn't this just going to have the problem with open source (people who want to rig the system have more of an idea how it works) without the advantages (anyone can contribute and fix/find an exploit quickly)?
While most folks here are happily bashing Vote Here, I think we need to have some sense of perspective. Vote Here is trying to reach out to the open source community. Even if this is only one tentative "baby step", it's an improvement over Diebold.
What you (yeah, you) should be doing right now is to:
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
would be the slashdot pools as a way of running the country... You have a choice, but it all comes down to the choice between non-suiting options.
1) George Bush
2) John Kerry
3) CowboyNeil
Wait a minut. That IS how the elections are.
Well, by definition, software can only do what it was designed to do, right? If those functions are different from the stated intent of the developer, then tough beans.
Computers are wonderfully deterministic beasts. We shouldn't pretend that they aren't and blame our glitches on computers. If Ralph Nader is "accidentally" elected, it's not a machine/software problem. Somebody, a person or a group of people, screwed up.
I'm not saying that a law court would agree, but if a voting machine can be made to sing "Turkey in the Straw" every time you hit the Libertarian button, then that's exactly what the it was "designed" to do.
(Wow, a two bit thought in three paragraphs, time for more bran.)
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
Why does computer voting have to be so complex with encryption and miles of source code? How about using computers to just tally and sort the votes instead of paper ballots? The security? The person checking your name as you come in. Make your choices, and a paper "receipt" comes out. You verify that's who you voted for and then that receipt goes into a secure bin as backup while a computer adds up the votes and keeps track of things. In the evening it spits out the totals. Any problems or questions go to the paper receipt bin. Use the computer to count, that is what they are good at. How do you verify what you chose actually gets counted compared to what you see on your receipt? Simple source code for those that want to see, it is a counting machine, nothing complicated. Or instead a simple machine that is hard wired on chips, no need for complex operating systems. Also implement, random, non-counting votes. Compare the paper to what is being sent. Electronic voting screens can be typed up and created by the board of elections and put on each machine. Flip a switch and you have the Democratic or Republican ballots. Send a couple copies of the electronic ballot in paper form to each location, Then if the electricity fails, write in who you want to vote for on your ballot based on the paper ballots. KISS.
"The web site on which this Software is posted is operated by a U.S. entity and is governed by the state and federal laws of the United States"
which state? I don't know of any state called the United States. Looks like they screwed up their license contract. BIG LOOPHOLE!
I'm good with numbers -
From http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/office.aspx :
The Secretary of State is the state's chief elections officer, chief corporations officer, and supervisor of the State Archives. The duties of the office are specified in Article III, Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution and Chapter 43.07 RCW. The annual salary is $78,177.
It goes on to explain that Washington State's Secretary of State is elected every 4 years and goes into more details about the position. Portions of the site include info on Maintaining the Integrity of Washington Elections (PDF) and Examining Internet Voting in Washington (PDF). I imagine there is variation from state to state, but a quick google of "secretary of state" seemed to pull up all sites for all of them.
Those of you with opinions might consider writing to your elected official.
Democrats: 516,833 votes
79, 87, 78, 51, 68, 33 ... geddit?
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
you still have the potential of something like this happening..
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
void ProcessVote(string person) {
int votes = 0;
if (person == "Bush) votes += 2;
else { votes++; }
CountVote(vote,votes);
}
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I'll give them credit for as far as they've gone.
If there are truly serious, egregious security flaws in the code, this is one way to find them. And, if enough media outlets find out and carry the 'news', they will fix the problem(s).
Has anyone else tried to download with several different browsers and always gotten "unauthorized" errors only after submitting your email address?????
Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
Fact is nothing beats tick-the-box hand counted ballots, as in 'tick the box next to the candidate of your choice' (or 'number the boxes in order of preferance', in regards preferential elections).
Then one just orginises for the election to occure on Saturday so thousands of public servents & teachers are available all weekend to get some good penalty rate dosh counting votes. Ontop of which it means thousand of party voluenteers are also available to hand scrutineer the count (IOW, in regards the US, each hand counter has a democrat & GOP scrutineer looking over his/her shoulders)
This is the way it's done in most countries, without any problems, including Australia, & there's no reason it shouldn't scale up to the US. Afterall scale wise a US election would be no different than Oz, New Zealand, Canada, the UK & half a dozen other European countries all having their general elections together on the same day.
Here in Oz it's rare for us not to know who's won by Saturday night, or the end of the weekend at the latest. Usraelly the number of seats that are undecided by monday can be counted on one hand.
Fact is the only reason the US uses their boody stupid machines is because they vote on Tuesday for some stupid reason & it's cheaper, but they just arn't as good.
Especially when every 2nd county or state uses different types of bloody machines, meaning a almost infinit variety of weird ballot styles & machine interfaces.
It's almost as if the US govt wants having about the lowest voter turnout in the western world. Get rid of the machines & replace them with simple hand counted 'tick the box' paper ballots & I bet the turnout increases at least 10%, then change the vote to saturday & I bet turnout increases at least another 10%.
"You can look for 60 days, but if you touch, we own anything you modify. Oh, and we can can your license at any time and for any reason, and you also agree that we can and should gag you if you say anything that might be detrimental to our business."
We'll, that certainly inclines me to view their source in a charitable light.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Can you explain your statement about the Civil War?
Incidentally, most people who hate Bush do tend to romanticize Clinton and his administration, even if they didn't like him at the time (or so I've found here in NYC, hotbed of the struggle of unchecked liberalism against psychotic conservatism).
+++ATH0
If (Rand % 10 == 1)
Never, ever, test the LSBs of a congruential RNG! This should be
If (Rand/MAX_RAND < 0.1)
so that the MSBs are used. Sheesh. You work for Diebold, right?
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
Okay, I made the call and did the search. Here is what I found:
From a Google search using the terms "balkan oil pipeline cheney" ....
... This from someone identifying themselves as "Gligor Tashkovich, Executive Vice President, AMBO Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline Project". I leave it to the reader to call this guy and get him to confirm or deny. That's beyond my scope.
The URL for the posting is http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/200110/msg00390.html (this one was #5 on the first page of google hits).
And with those tidbits I think I will rest my case to the effect that
I encourage you to form an opinion based on the articles and to argue your position with the authors of those articles; they are certainly better equipped to defend or "prove" their various stances than I.
I personally feel that the more I look into this, the more compelling the evidence becomes, however, I again encourage you to do your own research and make up your own mind.
Lastly, I commend to you the following sources...
... and leave you with a quote from my source concerning this whole matter:
"The Internet is made of cats."