To my knowledge, Youtube has never said that they are a public entity. They have not ever said that their servers are public property. They may do what they please, and limit content as they please.
As for your privately owned park. The owner of that park has the right to change the terms of that park at any time. They can turn it into a parking lot if they like. They can also change the terms of who may and who may not use that park. It is theirs, and even if they say it is free and open for the public to use, they can place whatever limits on that use that they desire. Heck, this even happens on PUBLIC lands owned by the government. Many of these lands you are forbidden from using metal detectors. Most of them will ban you from going there if you displease the people that operate the park.
The key in doing this is how you set up your policies. And you can change those policies as you wish.
You need to bone up on your rights. This has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with freedom of speech. Youtube is not run by the government. They have the right to ban anything they want from their servers for any reason they want. If they want to ban all videos with bananas in them, then they can. Freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned blogs, message boards, or video sites like YouTube.
In short, you may not like them doing this, but it is perfectly within their rights to do so. You can protest by not watching YouTube, or complaining that they have chosen to take down terrorist training videos, or even start your own site that is full of terrorist videos. However, if you do the latter, your site will likely be taken down. Why? Because the government is trying to limit your freedom of speech?
No. Freedom of speech has its limits. You are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You are not allowed to post videos that may be harmful to people. While the country is in a state of war against terrorists, you could be picked up be the US government and thrown in a deep hole for supporting terrorism. Perhaps you could even be brought up on charges of treason for doing something like that.
In short, YouTube is not only well within their rights for withdrawing this material, they also are probably protecting themselves from charges being brought against them.
Side note here. Since the US government has seen fit to take away some of our rights that our soldiers have died to protect, it makes it more likely for charges to be brought up against people who post these kinds of videos. It also would severely (and in my mind, unconstitutionally) limit your ability to get out of that hole. You could find yourself labeled in such a manner that you have no right to representation, and no right to release even if you are held for lengthy periods of time with no charges being brought against you.
But I digress. The main issue is that Freedom of Speech does not apply here in any way. They may do what they want with their site (within legal limits). They can remove whatever material they deem unfit for viewing.
No, the news is that this is happening at all in our country. Routine? Since when? Why is it routine to suppress free speech? In both cases, war protesters were targeted. Granted it happens a LOT more at Republican functions. The Dem rally was full of protesters, many of whom were untouched. I saw representatives of the free pot brigade, even appearances by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. And yet the war protesters are routinely gathered up and arrested, even when there is no evidence of breaking laws.
Now they are even admitting that they are infiltrating these groups? What are they doing that is so threatening or illegal?
Routine my a..
This is good news. First, a great research job by a hacker, and I mean that term in the old and good sense of the term. This does not appear to be someone breaking the law, but doing an excellent job working with computers and the internet uncovering the truth. This is the spirit and love for computing that drove so many of us old timers. We hated to be told "it can not be done" and strived to do the impossible. Now this guy strikes a goal against censorship, and apparently uncovers a national conspiracy to cheat the US and the world!
Now the IOC is "looking into it." That does not fill me with confidence. Gymnasts have been stripped of medals because of age before, but they also have sometimes been allowed to keep them.
The US team worked hard, and in many instances I thought it was a shame they did not win. Then with the age thing I was plenty pissed off. Those girls did not deserve to have their dreams crushed because a country decided that the rules were not for them. Especially since China has plenty of qualified world class gymnasts they could have entered.
This could strip the Chinese of something like 4 medals, and give the US the team gold, and one gold to Lukin (a medal she truly deserved anyways). Possibly more.
More to come I am sure. I hope the US team gets justice in this.
In most businesses your work is not considered your own. It belongs to the business. Therefore you really have no say over the work you produce. The company owns the copyright on your work. If they decide they want to patent it, they can. Quite frankly, they don't even need you to do it. That is, unless it states somewhere in your company's policies that you share some ownership of the works and ideas you produce. In some businesses, like in higher education, the worker actually is assumed to own their work, though this is even changing in higher ed.
I suggest you read your company's policies very thoroughly. Unless it says you get part or all ownership of works done while on the clock for your company. Most likely you are screwed here. You have two choices. First, you can leave and find work for a company that shares your views (good luck on that). Or 2. You can suck it up and do as you are told. In today's work environment, there are probably a number of people waiting for your job already.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news on this one (unless you can afford a very good lawyer). While I agree the current patent system is whacked, and wasn't ready for the modern age, I also don't think it is going to be completely dissolved. Problem is, I haven't seen any decent recommendations for replacing it.
Good luck in this decision. It is always tough when you have a problem with your company and work you have put time and effort into. I WOULD ask myself one thing though. Is this patent a genuine one? Is this something that will protect the company from getting cheated of the time and money they have invested in you and the product? Or is it just a cheap patent throw, hoping that they will be able to sue someone in the future? If it is the former I would relax. Your business is just doing what it has to to protect itself from getting screwed over by another company that wants to make profit without putting the work and effort you have into the process. If it is the latter, I would be asking myself if my personal ethics can allow me to keep working at the same company.
Regardless of what you think about software patents, your company must follow the rules of business as they exist. Otherwise someone else will file the patent, and essentially steal your work. Don't blame your company for the patent problem. They are just trying to make sure they don't end up getting the short end of the stick on this one.
In one of the schools I attended recently, one professor insisted on teaching Cobol. They have since forced her out. However, students who did well in her classes were immediately snatched up and given good paying jobs, even though they only had AS degrees. Why?
Because they know COBOL. There are a lot of systems still running on COBOL. It is a good language for what it does, and there is only one reason to replace it: No one knows it anymore.
However, it is worth it, if you want a job, to learn COBOL. You will get a job. That is, IF you can find a school that teaches it.
Got to be careful. There are a number of laws that you can get busted on in this one.
If you really can't resist snooping into email, then get into Information Security or systems administration. Then you can do it legally, if your policies are set up properly.
I agree that open source is a shining example of how things CAN work. However I also think that people should have the right to NOT share openly, and choose to charge for their work.
I am a BIG proponent of open source and open source technologies. I also think that there is room for both open source and closed source in this world.
In fact, when it comes to some things, I think that forcing all work to be open source would dry up a lot of productive ideas and works. Many authors would refuse to share their works. Many people would not share their ideas if they could not profit from them directly.
Open Source is great, but there MUST be room for both if we want the most progress. Granted, this is my opinion, but I think it is realistic.
Abolish copyright laws? Then what is the motivation to create works? If money can no longer be made from the production of works, why do it? It costs money to bring this stuff to you, but no money would be coming in because there is no way to protect that work?
The author of a book should have the right to sell that work and make profit from it every bit as much as a local smith should have the right to sell his goods at a profit. Abandoning copyright laws is not the answer. In fact, that would lead to stagnation. The sharing of ideas and information would dry up, because there is no protection for that work.
You are the on who said you knew who the domestic terrorists were, not me. Sorry if I hit a sore spot. I said I was trying to help a system. All you can do to combat it is come up with series of unlikely events, some of which would be impossible in this system. Insiders are a threat, but even more so in your system. In fact, that is the most likely method to throw an election of that type. Then there are a number of other ways, including voter impersonation, denying voting rights, change or addition of ballots by insiders. Using public oversight groups to overrun the chain and make it forensically unsound.
Is my way fool proof? Nope. If I ever get it up and running don't worry, I will be offering a prize for the first person to change the outcome of a test election. I wouldn't want a bad machine to hit the public.
At any rate, I am bored with this discussion. You seem to know a little bit about some of the things you talk about. Like I said, I don't have time to waste with hackers, we will just have to agree to disagree. We both want th current system gone, but you won't even recognize that point we both have.
You are so determined to paint me as "fascist" and the enemy. You obviously have no CLUE who I am, or more importantly, who I WAS.
Have a good life. WHen you go off on someone dude, make sure you go off on someone who deserves it.
As I said, I am done here. I have given you the basics of my idea, ok?
Even if you could count all the ballots, and perhaps you can, you are missing my point. PUBLIC PERCEPTION. You must convince the public that it is necessary to take such a drastic step away from technology. You won't be able to do that. I am trying to make a system that will be ACCEPTED by the public.
And you keep missing the major points I talk about, ok? I don't care WHAT hardware hacks you claim to have. The machine is available for a brief time on an encrypted channel. If the program doesn't match the hash, it locks. There are very few resources running on these machines, and almost no access. You would either need to gain access during the downstream transmission, and figure out the encryption, or you would have to have physical access to the machine. Since the voters aren't even in contact with the machine (except for the touchscreen) there isn't much you can do. Even if you DID get in at that point, you won't have permission to do much of anything.
Even if someone did violate the machines, it would become evident, because the VOTERS THEMSELVES validate their votes. If something funny is going on, a CSERT team would be dispatched, and a maual count conducted to validate teh score.
Also there will be audit teams sent to various (potential) trouble areas. THey will test the machines, the hash's, to make sure everything is in order.
So even if you COULD get in, the worst you could do is shut down a machine. I am also toying with the idea of this being a live boot program. I think this may add even more functionality. The machine will be completely blank, and the program and safeguards and OS are all on disc, while data is saved on a smart card (which is wiped when it it inserted for use ). That way, if you, or anyone else did get in and try to manipulate the vote, we would know more or less immediately because of the tripwires and multiple checks, and we could save the system with a quick reboot.
Hmm, that would also reduce the need for downloads. We could just send a new cd to the election centers, and they could check the cd against a hash to make sure no one intercepted and changed it. That would eliminate the nees to network it to anything except its own system, thereby reducing greatly any "backdoor" threats. To use the back door, you first need some sort of access.
You give me some good ideas for a hacker that knows terrorists.
Hmm, MY fascist propaganda? If you stop and look for a minute you will realize that I agree with you on a lot of points. The current system is set up for only one purpose, and that is to manipulate the vote. How could it be otherwise, especially when they refuse to fix it? The CEO of Diebold himself said he was committed to delivering the vote for the Republicans.
Sorry you didn't know what I meant by CIA. It was late and I was tired, but I immediately stated it wasn't the CIA you were thinking of.
Yes, I received my MSIA from a private military institution. Yes, it is an 18 month course. 36 credits, accredited. Six ten week seminars. It also has been declared a center for academic excellence by the NSA and the DoD. I don't see why that makes me a fascist. You are a bit too paranoid that they are out to get you.
I have been fighting and spreading the word. I teach. I don't work for the government, though I wouldn't mind a govt. job. Heck, I would probably be looking for one right now if I didn't want to teach so badly. How is it that I can not be a liberal and progressive AND go to a military institution, or even working for the government? A lot of my class was as liberal minded as myself.
I would love to talk about the good points you bring up, and you do have them, but that is hard when you spend so much time insulting me.
Your point that the current system is not, and can not possibly be secure is dead on. I would take it one step further and say that the current system has not only the potential for abuse, it was designed for abuse, and has been used to alter the outcomes in elections for years now. This is part of the reason that the UN won't even certify our last election as accurate. There is simply no way to do it!
However the answer you advise is no good. We can not go off the deep end and start calling for a return to hand ballots and hand counting. First off, it sounds crazy, and therefore the public will not go for it. Second off the population is too high to count that many votes. We are a much more populous nation than we were.
That is why I offer up the system I have. Some of the system has been proffered before, and I am working on ideas to ensure the program stays intact during transmission to the voting booths, and shuts down if mucked with. Where I am stuck is, I am wondering who I take my ideas to to get them done.
You can call me whatever you want. The fact is I am against the current system, and I want to help make it work.
You don't like the fact that I have my degree, and that is ok. I deal with security, and I get the feeling you deal with the other side of things. Just because I believe that data should be secured does not mean I am a fascist. You should realize that in this world there are no absolutes. The media would like you to think that. You are either one of them or one of the bad people. The truth is most people are somewhere in the middle.
I am done now. This discussion is getting nowhere, and is not productive at all. You seem to think I am one of the bad guys, when I am not. You are very paranoid. Perhaps you have need to be, You have nothing to fear from me, at least not on this subject, because we agree on the main issue, just not its solution. From what I gather of your messages, there are probably other issues where we would have bigger problems with each other, so let's not go there.
So, to sum up:
We both agree, the current system is horrible, and is ripe with problems. I believe it is probably being used to steal elections.
You seem to want to return to a paper ballot system, completely hand counted, which you say would be 100% secure. I say that no system, including that one, is 100% secure. Hand counted ballot votes are corrupted ALL THE TIME. Due to the population, it is also unrealistic.
I suggest a system that is computerized, produces a paper ballot that is verified by the voter, is scanned to check the computerized tabulation, and can be hand counted if needed for further validation.
THAT is where we differ. That
Wow, you really are simple, aren't you? I have been in the fight against the current electronic voting machine for years. You have apparently been working with conspiracy theories and smoking pot by the bushel full for years, because you can not understand simple logic.
I never said I worked for the CIA. I even said I was not referring to the Central INtelligence Agency. I was referring to the CIA principle in INformation Assurance. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. You really could not understand that, can you? You really thought that I worked for the government? LMAO that is funny!
I am compromised? JUst who do you think I am? ANd who do you think you are? WHat, am I supposed to be scared of you like you are some master hacker? YOu say you "know who I am." That is nice, though I doubt very much that you know who I am. Even if you did, it will not change the fact that my arguments are quite correct. You are apparently a technophobe, so scared of technology you can not see that it can be used legitimately for our good.
Our country is in trouble. If the elections haven't been being stolen for years then they certainly could have been. I want to prevent that, You apparently want to swear at people and flex your epeen from your mother's basement. Go back to World of Warcraft, it is safer.
Oh, and yes, those types of elections DID work in the 1800s. THen again, horses worked for us then too, but I do not soo you suggesting that we start all riding horses and using the telegraph again. YOu see, there are some big problems with using that system. The first is the population is a LOT larger than it was then. Counting those votes accurately is a problem, especially with our current educational system, as you have nicely demonstrated. Also, the chances of corruption increase greatly in such a system. The chances of someone stealing an election actually increase when you add in the human element to that extreme, especially in large population environments. A GOOD computerized voting system, with adequate checks and balances, is safer, and more effective.
Now take your medication and/or put your tin foil hat back on.
Wow, now we degenerate into name calling and swearing. Incredible. My degree is worth nothing, eh? At least I know what CIA IS. I don't mean the agency. But then again if you had gotten a degree you might know that. You have been working with systems for years, yes? I know many people in your shoes that have been doing it WRONG for years. I assume you may very well fall into that category, since you can not come up with a way to make a system like this work effectively. You see, what my degree dis do was teach me to do things CORRECTLY.
How to do an electronic, or computerized voting machine that prints a paper ballot that works? That is pretty easy actually. You state that a programmer can make it say whatever they want, right? That is why the ballot needs to be verifiable by both the VOTER and the auditing system.
The voter casts their votes on a touch screen. A ballot is then printed and produced behind a tamper-proof glass screen. The voter is asked to verify that ballot visually to make sure it is correct, then the ballot is scanned. You now have the scanner that will check the computerized vote, and if need be, the paper ballots, which are accurate because they have been validated BY THE VOTER, can be hand counted if necessary.
Guess you hadn't thought of that. I have done my research on the subject. I don't need to resort to name calling and swears to make my point.
I also guess you do not realize that making the program Open Source also protects against tampering. Since the code is open, it can be validated. If it is written to violate the election, that can be seen, instead of now, where it can't.
Yet I guess you think it is somehow simpler to avoid the use of technologies altogether and do everything by hand. I guess humans can't make mistakes or be biased, or worse, bribed into making counts come off differently.
And why is Open Source and the MSIA degree not compatible? Do you KNOW what MSIA is? Do you know what CIA stands for? Some of the best security tools out there are Open Source. Some of the most secure systems out there are Open Source. Open Source and Information Assurance are not opposed to each other. In fact I believe it is exactly the opposite. If and when I go for my doctorate, that may even be my thesis.
I do indeed have my MSIA. You do not need to believe me, so it doesn't matter. I graduated cum laude from Norwich University with my MSIA. I hold several other degrees as well. You see, just because someone has been doing something for years, does not mean they have been doing it CORRECTLY. This is why we have educational institutions: to teach people how to do things correctly. At least, that is the goal.
So please stop with the insults and foul language. If you wish to have a debate with me about computerized voting I will gladly debate you, but I will not debate with someone who thinks flaming is an appropriate means of discourse. Computerized voting is the topic here.
There is a way to make computerized voting relatively safe and effective. There is a way to validate the voting process to be reasonably assured you have an accurate vote count. In fact, by using proper methods, and that includes consideration of CIA, we can gain a higher level of confidence than by simply using the antiquated paper ballot method alone. To say that it is impossible is an exercise in ignorance.
Will it be 100% secure and be impossible to manipulate? No. No more than any computer system can be called 100% secure. Security is a relative term. First you must decide what you want to be secure against, and then devise an acceptable level of security.
Additionally, electronic vote tabulation devices can be designed to also deliver a more than adequate level of security, and again, I believe that Open Source is part of the solution. What I have described is both a tabulation device and a computerized voting machine, since it also counts votes, and checks against itself. There are also methods of policy and procedure that can help assure the vote is counted accurately.
It isn't productive to simply abandon a technology that can help us. The problem is that existing devices are not secure, and are easily manipulated. It CAN be done, but not with existing machines and proprietary software.
First, I wasn't talking about electrons.
Second, verifiable electronic voting is indeed possible. I have done a lot of research on the subject. You are assuming that the whole process must be electronic, but this is not the case. There are several systems that have been proposed that will work, and can be verified first by the voter, and then by hand count if necessary,
We are not talking physics here, we are talking about voting. There are some very easy ways to do it.
As far as security, this is why we need verification. Sure, no system can ever be completely secure. I know this, as I do have my MSIA. However we can create verification systems that would make the voting process at least as secure as any other process used, and probably a whole lot more.
Security is not about making something 100% foolproof. That is impossible. It is, however, about making the system reliably safe from fraud. This includes the ability to know if the system has been violated. Right now this is near impossible. However by using Open Source in combination with verifiable (by both the voter and the audit team) paper trails, we can ensure an accurate counting of votes, and would have a process to check the results to ensure that CIA is ensured. Right now CIA is not a part of the system. In fact, it would seem that drastic efforts have been made to ensure that CIA is not even part of the process.
The goal is to steal elections. It is not surprising that they do not want verifiable voting.
It is EASY to make a reliable, verifiable, computerized, voting machine. Why then, do we not require that? The answer is simple. They do not want the votes verified, because they are not the actual votes! The only reason to NOT support the verifiable machines is because you want to manipulate the vote, plain and simple.
Voting machines should have a paper trail, and should be OPEN SOURCE! The source code should be open to anyone who wants to investigate it! We should know EXACTLY what these machines are doing! Yet now no one knows. No one in government even knows what these systems are actually doing! That is just wrong. It is unAmerican, and undemocratic. Welcome to the new age of America. We are losing our country.
Sugar was designed for this task, to go on low end laptops, and be used easily by people with minor or no computer knowledge, yet still be powerful.
XP is designed for more powerful workstations, and is aimed at people who know how to use computers, which is why we teach people in college how to use it.
Yet Microsoft felt threatened. If the project took off, this means countless numbers of people would be growing up using Linux. When they finally did grow up, what OS do YOU think they will choose? It was a threat to their dominance.
So what did they do? Did they go to work designing an OS that will work on the new systems, and be easier to learn? Nope. Instead they stuffed and crammed until the existing product fit, despite the fact that it doesn't use all the key features of the machine, because that would require more work, and the thing barely fits anyways.
An Operating system should not be noticed. It should just be there, and help you work or play. Sugar succeeds where XP fails in this regard on this machine. Yet, despite this, MS will push this OS all they can, even if it ends up ruining the project and denying all those kids a useful computer.
I love it when people make bold predictions like this. If they get lucky then they can claim that they predicted it and have some proof. I guess that gets them an "in" on think tanks. However if the prediction never comes true, they can just ignore it and no one ever says much, aside from some snickers from some people with good recall.
I highly doubt the age of the mouse is coming to an end, though it should. I don't think people will want to be reaching out and touching their screens. It is easier to use a mouse, badly designed as it is.
Personally, I haven't used a mouse in years. I use a TRackMan from Logitech. Now THIS is a well designed input device! No pushing it all over your desk, and falling off edges. No carpal tunnel, despite long hours of repeated use. It fits ergonomically under your palm, you move the ball with your thumb, and click/scroll with your fingers. I tried one and never looked back. Try one for a week, I dare you.
Will Apple learn from its own history? That seems unlikely. When will business practices end up gutting the company again? They already have problems. They have been great at releasing some products that appear cutting edge, and they do a great job marketing them. Eventually their attitude on product use has always sucked. Their "Do it our way or leave" attitude towards consumers ends up driving them away to products that do everything theirs does, only better, cheaper, and with more options. I mean, who is still buying Ipods?
I have to agree it is a bad article, and underlies a mistaken perception of security through obscurity. While some argument can be made that it is SthruO. By not stating the problem we are not drawing attention to it, thereby making it less likely that it will be taken advantage of before we fix it. Eh, yes, but also no.
SthruO is more like putting your server room on the third floor down a hallway no one uses, and not putting signs anywhere telling people where it is. However it is still weak, and can only be useful in a layered approach to security as a whole.
This is akin to trying to further the argument that Linux is only more secure because it isn't used on a whole lot of computers. This is being proven false each and every year. Linux is becoming more and more popular. It runs most of the web servers, most of the embedded OS's on devices, and is gaining popularity in desktops, especially as low end Linux machines gain in popularity. Yet the security factor remains about the same. A lot could be gained by the hacker group that gets an easy in to Linux machines. Yet they continue to focus on Windows because it is easier to hack! Unless of course, you actually take time to set it up right.
Yep, this makes me sick. Let's see, hire a hacker to protect your systems. What a great idea! I mean, what are the chances that he will steal all our sensitive information and sell it? What are the chances he will steal our customer's data and ruin our reputation as a business so no one will ever deal with us again?
I have a better idea, we will be proactive about it and make the whole thing public, so people can stop doing business with us now rather than after we get screwed!
Hire a professional. Hire someone with ethics. There are a lot of people who know how to hack. Some of us choose not to because of this, umm, ethical thing. We realize that we should do the right thing.
Next thing you know assassins will be hired to protect people, and bank robbers will be hired as Brinks truck drivers. When will business "get it?" Wait, that was a stupid question. Morons.
This bill clearly hurt us. It hurt the Constitution. The Bush administration has helped tear out huge chunks of the constitution, and congress has been far too eager to help.
However, what is the choice? Realistically we have Obama and McCain, right? I am sure not going to vote for McCain. At least Obama I think may come around. McCain has clearly lost his sense of direction and individuality. Someone is pulling his strings, and he is no more than a puppet.
Obama is close to losing me, but I have no where else to turn. He had better shape up, and start defending Americans and the Constitution.
I disagree. The difference, and ultimate point, is SCIENCE. Science does not need to prove anything absolutely. Science is about theory. You develop a hypothesis, and test that hypothesis using the scientific method. What determines if something is taught in the science curriculum is: "Does it fit within that scientific model," not "is it proven beyond doubt.
The difference between religion and science in the matter of "matter creation" is the method in which the topic is approached. Science comes up with a theory and using the scientific method, attempts to discover the most likely reason. Religion states the reason (because God made it) and you are left to take it on faith.
There is a distinct difference between the two. ID states that "God" made the world, mankind etc. They base this on saying that things are too complex to have it any other way. That is not science, it is faith. Any technology significantly enough advanced would appear as magic, right? Yes, it is complex, but does that necessarily mean that God has to have been the sole, undeniable force, and that the literal translation of the Bible must therefore be true? That assumes that Man is at the pinnacle of our intellectual understanding and development, and there can be no greater mind or mechanism beyond our understanding (beyond God's). This is the same type of thinking that kept mankind in the dark for centuries, and it is wrong.
That is not saying that God did not create all of what we behold. I think s/he did. However, I also believe that it was done through understandable laws and methods that we are left to figure out. As we come to understand how God created the Heavens and Earth, as well as ourselves, we come closer to understanding his/her message to us.
I am rambling, back on topic. What is science and can be tested and measured using the scientific method should be taught in the classroom. What is to be accepted as a matter of faith should be taught in church, or in Religion class. ID asks us to accept what it states based on faith and faith alone. It can prove nothing through the scientific method, because it can not be tested any more that Descartes philosophical question that there might exist nothing except myself (no one suggests moving that to the science classroom). Evolution can be tested, and we find evidence in our Earth's history that adds (or subtracts and refines) pieces of the Evolutionary puzzle. Evolution = science. ID = faith.
Not to mention that it is clearly creationism repackaged after the failed attempt to get it taught in school.
The real shame is that parts of our society are willing to erase centuries of scientific progress in an effort to hang on to the literal translations of one book. We embrace literal and radical religious dogma as education and even a form of government, while we decry those who use other radical dogma and do the same thing, just with a different book. Welcome to the crusades of the 21st century.
The systems in use now are horrible. Easily manipulated, and it becomes impossible to validate. Probably one of the worst problems is something I just learned, and that is the fact that one of the top people used in creating and programming the machines is a convicted felon who went to jail for putting sophisticated back door programs on financial computers. Hmm. Just the man you want programming the voting machines.
Not to mention the code is proprietary. If anything should be open source, it is voting machines!
Slashdot Mirror
To my knowledge, Youtube has never said that they are a public entity. They have not ever said that their servers are public property. They may do what they please, and limit content as they please. As for your privately owned park. The owner of that park has the right to change the terms of that park at any time. They can turn it into a parking lot if they like. They can also change the terms of who may and who may not use that park. It is theirs, and even if they say it is free and open for the public to use, they can place whatever limits on that use that they desire. Heck, this even happens on PUBLIC lands owned by the government. Many of these lands you are forbidden from using metal detectors. Most of them will ban you from going there if you displease the people that operate the park. The key in doing this is how you set up your policies. And you can change those policies as you wish.
You need to bone up on your rights. This has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with freedom of speech. Youtube is not run by the government. They have the right to ban anything they want from their servers for any reason they want. If they want to ban all videos with bananas in them, then they can. Freedom of speech does not apply to privately owned blogs, message boards, or video sites like YouTube. In short, you may not like them doing this, but it is perfectly within their rights to do so. You can protest by not watching YouTube, or complaining that they have chosen to take down terrorist training videos, or even start your own site that is full of terrorist videos. However, if you do the latter, your site will likely be taken down. Why? Because the government is trying to limit your freedom of speech? No. Freedom of speech has its limits. You are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You are not allowed to post videos that may be harmful to people. While the country is in a state of war against terrorists, you could be picked up be the US government and thrown in a deep hole for supporting terrorism. Perhaps you could even be brought up on charges of treason for doing something like that. In short, YouTube is not only well within their rights for withdrawing this material, they also are probably protecting themselves from charges being brought against them. Side note here. Since the US government has seen fit to take away some of our rights that our soldiers have died to protect, it makes it more likely for charges to be brought up against people who post these kinds of videos. It also would severely (and in my mind, unconstitutionally) limit your ability to get out of that hole. You could find yourself labeled in such a manner that you have no right to representation, and no right to release even if you are held for lengthy periods of time with no charges being brought against you. But I digress. The main issue is that Freedom of Speech does not apply here in any way. They may do what they want with their site (within legal limits). They can remove whatever material they deem unfit for viewing.
No, the news is that this is happening at all in our country. Routine? Since when? Why is it routine to suppress free speech? In both cases, war protesters were targeted. Granted it happens a LOT more at Republican functions. The Dem rally was full of protesters, many of whom were untouched. I saw representatives of the free pot brigade, even appearances by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. And yet the war protesters are routinely gathered up and arrested, even when there is no evidence of breaking laws. Now they are even admitting that they are infiltrating these groups? What are they doing that is so threatening or illegal? Routine my a..
This is good news. First, a great research job by a hacker, and I mean that term in the old and good sense of the term. This does not appear to be someone breaking the law, but doing an excellent job working with computers and the internet uncovering the truth. This is the spirit and love for computing that drove so many of us old timers. We hated to be told "it can not be done" and strived to do the impossible. Now this guy strikes a goal against censorship, and apparently uncovers a national conspiracy to cheat the US and the world! Now the IOC is "looking into it." That does not fill me with confidence. Gymnasts have been stripped of medals because of age before, but they also have sometimes been allowed to keep them. The US team worked hard, and in many instances I thought it was a shame they did not win. Then with the age thing I was plenty pissed off. Those girls did not deserve to have their dreams crushed because a country decided that the rules were not for them. Especially since China has plenty of qualified world class gymnasts they could have entered. This could strip the Chinese of something like 4 medals, and give the US the team gold, and one gold to Lukin (a medal she truly deserved anyways). Possibly more. More to come I am sure. I hope the US team gets justice in this.
In most businesses your work is not considered your own. It belongs to the business. Therefore you really have no say over the work you produce. The company owns the copyright on your work. If they decide they want to patent it, they can. Quite frankly, they don't even need you to do it. That is, unless it states somewhere in your company's policies that you share some ownership of the works and ideas you produce. In some businesses, like in higher education, the worker actually is assumed to own their work, though this is even changing in higher ed. I suggest you read your company's policies very thoroughly. Unless it says you get part or all ownership of works done while on the clock for your company. Most likely you are screwed here. You have two choices. First, you can leave and find work for a company that shares your views (good luck on that). Or 2. You can suck it up and do as you are told. In today's work environment, there are probably a number of people waiting for your job already. Hate to be the bearer of bad news on this one (unless you can afford a very good lawyer). While I agree the current patent system is whacked, and wasn't ready for the modern age, I also don't think it is going to be completely dissolved. Problem is, I haven't seen any decent recommendations for replacing it. Good luck in this decision. It is always tough when you have a problem with your company and work you have put time and effort into. I WOULD ask myself one thing though. Is this patent a genuine one? Is this something that will protect the company from getting cheated of the time and money they have invested in you and the product? Or is it just a cheap patent throw, hoping that they will be able to sue someone in the future? If it is the former I would relax. Your business is just doing what it has to to protect itself from getting screwed over by another company that wants to make profit without putting the work and effort you have into the process. If it is the latter, I would be asking myself if my personal ethics can allow me to keep working at the same company. Regardless of what you think about software patents, your company must follow the rules of business as they exist. Otherwise someone else will file the patent, and essentially steal your work. Don't blame your company for the patent problem. They are just trying to make sure they don't end up getting the short end of the stick on this one.
They don't have ME yet!
In one of the schools I attended recently, one professor insisted on teaching Cobol. They have since forced her out. However, students who did well in her classes were immediately snatched up and given good paying jobs, even though they only had AS degrees. Why? Because they know COBOL. There are a lot of systems still running on COBOL. It is a good language for what it does, and there is only one reason to replace it: No one knows it anymore. However, it is worth it, if you want a job, to learn COBOL. You will get a job. That is, IF you can find a school that teaches it.
Got to be careful. There are a number of laws that you can get busted on in this one. If you really can't resist snooping into email, then get into Information Security or systems administration. Then you can do it legally, if your policies are set up properly.
I agree that open source is a shining example of how things CAN work. However I also think that people should have the right to NOT share openly, and choose to charge for their work. I am a BIG proponent of open source and open source technologies. I also think that there is room for both open source and closed source in this world. In fact, when it comes to some things, I think that forcing all work to be open source would dry up a lot of productive ideas and works. Many authors would refuse to share their works. Many people would not share their ideas if they could not profit from them directly. Open Source is great, but there MUST be room for both if we want the most progress. Granted, this is my opinion, but I think it is realistic.
Abolish copyright laws? Then what is the motivation to create works? If money can no longer be made from the production of works, why do it? It costs money to bring this stuff to you, but no money would be coming in because there is no way to protect that work? The author of a book should have the right to sell that work and make profit from it every bit as much as a local smith should have the right to sell his goods at a profit. Abandoning copyright laws is not the answer. In fact, that would lead to stagnation. The sharing of ideas and information would dry up, because there is no protection for that work.
You are the on who said you knew who the domestic terrorists were, not me. Sorry if I hit a sore spot. I said I was trying to help a system. All you can do to combat it is come up with series of unlikely events, some of which would be impossible in this system. Insiders are a threat, but even more so in your system. In fact, that is the most likely method to throw an election of that type. Then there are a number of other ways, including voter impersonation, denying voting rights, change or addition of ballots by insiders. Using public oversight groups to overrun the chain and make it forensically unsound. Is my way fool proof? Nope. If I ever get it up and running don't worry, I will be offering a prize for the first person to change the outcome of a test election. I wouldn't want a bad machine to hit the public. At any rate, I am bored with this discussion. You seem to know a little bit about some of the things you talk about. Like I said, I don't have time to waste with hackers, we will just have to agree to disagree. We both want th current system gone, but you won't even recognize that point we both have. You are so determined to paint me as "fascist" and the enemy. You obviously have no CLUE who I am, or more importantly, who I WAS. Have a good life. WHen you go off on someone dude, make sure you go off on someone who deserves it.
As I said, I am done here. I have given you the basics of my idea, ok? Even if you could count all the ballots, and perhaps you can, you are missing my point. PUBLIC PERCEPTION. You must convince the public that it is necessary to take such a drastic step away from technology. You won't be able to do that. I am trying to make a system that will be ACCEPTED by the public. And you keep missing the major points I talk about, ok? I don't care WHAT hardware hacks you claim to have. The machine is available for a brief time on an encrypted channel. If the program doesn't match the hash, it locks. There are very few resources running on these machines, and almost no access. You would either need to gain access during the downstream transmission, and figure out the encryption, or you would have to have physical access to the machine. Since the voters aren't even in contact with the machine (except for the touchscreen) there isn't much you can do. Even if you DID get in at that point, you won't have permission to do much of anything. Even if someone did violate the machines, it would become evident, because the VOTERS THEMSELVES validate their votes. If something funny is going on, a CSERT team would be dispatched, and a maual count conducted to validate teh score. Also there will be audit teams sent to various (potential) trouble areas. THey will test the machines, the hash's, to make sure everything is in order. So even if you COULD get in, the worst you could do is shut down a machine. I am also toying with the idea of this being a live boot program. I think this may add even more functionality. The machine will be completely blank, and the program and safeguards and OS are all on disc, while data is saved on a smart card (which is wiped when it it inserted for use ). That way, if you, or anyone else did get in and try to manipulate the vote, we would know more or less immediately because of the tripwires and multiple checks, and we could save the system with a quick reboot. Hmm, that would also reduce the need for downloads. We could just send a new cd to the election centers, and they could check the cd against a hash to make sure no one intercepted and changed it. That would eliminate the nees to network it to anything except its own system, thereby reducing greatly any "backdoor" threats. To use the back door, you first need some sort of access. You give me some good ideas for a hacker that knows terrorists.
Hmm, MY fascist propaganda? If you stop and look for a minute you will realize that I agree with you on a lot of points. The current system is set up for only one purpose, and that is to manipulate the vote. How could it be otherwise, especially when they refuse to fix it? The CEO of Diebold himself said he was committed to delivering the vote for the Republicans. Sorry you didn't know what I meant by CIA. It was late and I was tired, but I immediately stated it wasn't the CIA you were thinking of. Yes, I received my MSIA from a private military institution. Yes, it is an 18 month course. 36 credits, accredited. Six ten week seminars. It also has been declared a center for academic excellence by the NSA and the DoD. I don't see why that makes me a fascist. You are a bit too paranoid that they are out to get you. I have been fighting and spreading the word. I teach. I don't work for the government, though I wouldn't mind a govt. job. Heck, I would probably be looking for one right now if I didn't want to teach so badly. How is it that I can not be a liberal and progressive AND go to a military institution, or even working for the government? A lot of my class was as liberal minded as myself. I would love to talk about the good points you bring up, and you do have them, but that is hard when you spend so much time insulting me. Your point that the current system is not, and can not possibly be secure is dead on. I would take it one step further and say that the current system has not only the potential for abuse, it was designed for abuse, and has been used to alter the outcomes in elections for years now. This is part of the reason that the UN won't even certify our last election as accurate. There is simply no way to do it! However the answer you advise is no good. We can not go off the deep end and start calling for a return to hand ballots and hand counting. First off, it sounds crazy, and therefore the public will not go for it. Second off the population is too high to count that many votes. We are a much more populous nation than we were. That is why I offer up the system I have. Some of the system has been proffered before, and I am working on ideas to ensure the program stays intact during transmission to the voting booths, and shuts down if mucked with. Where I am stuck is, I am wondering who I take my ideas to to get them done. You can call me whatever you want. The fact is I am against the current system, and I want to help make it work. You don't like the fact that I have my degree, and that is ok. I deal with security, and I get the feeling you deal with the other side of things. Just because I believe that data should be secured does not mean I am a fascist. You should realize that in this world there are no absolutes. The media would like you to think that. You are either one of them or one of the bad people. The truth is most people are somewhere in the middle. I am done now. This discussion is getting nowhere, and is not productive at all. You seem to think I am one of the bad guys, when I am not. You are very paranoid. Perhaps you have need to be, You have nothing to fear from me, at least not on this subject, because we agree on the main issue, just not its solution. From what I gather of your messages, there are probably other issues where we would have bigger problems with each other, so let's not go there. So, to sum up: We both agree, the current system is horrible, and is ripe with problems. I believe it is probably being used to steal elections. You seem to want to return to a paper ballot system, completely hand counted, which you say would be 100% secure. I say that no system, including that one, is 100% secure. Hand counted ballot votes are corrupted ALL THE TIME. Due to the population, it is also unrealistic. I suggest a system that is computerized, produces a paper ballot that is verified by the voter, is scanned to check the computerized tabulation, and can be hand counted if needed for further validation. THAT is where we differ. That
Wow, you really are simple, aren't you? I have been in the fight against the current electronic voting machine for years. You have apparently been working with conspiracy theories and smoking pot by the bushel full for years, because you can not understand simple logic. I never said I worked for the CIA. I even said I was not referring to the Central INtelligence Agency. I was referring to the CIA principle in INformation Assurance. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. You really could not understand that, can you? You really thought that I worked for the government? LMAO that is funny! I am compromised? JUst who do you think I am? ANd who do you think you are? WHat, am I supposed to be scared of you like you are some master hacker? YOu say you "know who I am." That is nice, though I doubt very much that you know who I am. Even if you did, it will not change the fact that my arguments are quite correct. You are apparently a technophobe, so scared of technology you can not see that it can be used legitimately for our good. Our country is in trouble. If the elections haven't been being stolen for years then they certainly could have been. I want to prevent that, You apparently want to swear at people and flex your epeen from your mother's basement. Go back to World of Warcraft, it is safer. Oh, and yes, those types of elections DID work in the 1800s. THen again, horses worked for us then too, but I do not soo you suggesting that we start all riding horses and using the telegraph again. YOu see, there are some big problems with using that system. The first is the population is a LOT larger than it was then. Counting those votes accurately is a problem, especially with our current educational system, as you have nicely demonstrated. Also, the chances of corruption increase greatly in such a system. The chances of someone stealing an election actually increase when you add in the human element to that extreme, especially in large population environments. A GOOD computerized voting system, with adequate checks and balances, is safer, and more effective. Now take your medication and/or put your tin foil hat back on.
Wow, now we degenerate into name calling and swearing. Incredible. My degree is worth nothing, eh? At least I know what CIA IS. I don't mean the agency. But then again if you had gotten a degree you might know that. You have been working with systems for years, yes? I know many people in your shoes that have been doing it WRONG for years. I assume you may very well fall into that category, since you can not come up with a way to make a system like this work effectively. You see, what my degree dis do was teach me to do things CORRECTLY. How to do an electronic, or computerized voting machine that prints a paper ballot that works? That is pretty easy actually. You state that a programmer can make it say whatever they want, right? That is why the ballot needs to be verifiable by both the VOTER and the auditing system. The voter casts their votes on a touch screen. A ballot is then printed and produced behind a tamper-proof glass screen. The voter is asked to verify that ballot visually to make sure it is correct, then the ballot is scanned. You now have the scanner that will check the computerized vote, and if need be, the paper ballots, which are accurate because they have been validated BY THE VOTER, can be hand counted if necessary. Guess you hadn't thought of that. I have done my research on the subject. I don't need to resort to name calling and swears to make my point. I also guess you do not realize that making the program Open Source also protects against tampering. Since the code is open, it can be validated. If it is written to violate the election, that can be seen, instead of now, where it can't. Yet I guess you think it is somehow simpler to avoid the use of technologies altogether and do everything by hand. I guess humans can't make mistakes or be biased, or worse, bribed into making counts come off differently. And why is Open Source and the MSIA degree not compatible? Do you KNOW what MSIA is? Do you know what CIA stands for? Some of the best security tools out there are Open Source. Some of the most secure systems out there are Open Source. Open Source and Information Assurance are not opposed to each other. In fact I believe it is exactly the opposite. If and when I go for my doctorate, that may even be my thesis. I do indeed have my MSIA. You do not need to believe me, so it doesn't matter. I graduated cum laude from Norwich University with my MSIA. I hold several other degrees as well. You see, just because someone has been doing something for years, does not mean they have been doing it CORRECTLY. This is why we have educational institutions: to teach people how to do things correctly. At least, that is the goal. So please stop with the insults and foul language. If you wish to have a debate with me about computerized voting I will gladly debate you, but I will not debate with someone who thinks flaming is an appropriate means of discourse. Computerized voting is the topic here. There is a way to make computerized voting relatively safe and effective. There is a way to validate the voting process to be reasonably assured you have an accurate vote count. In fact, by using proper methods, and that includes consideration of CIA, we can gain a higher level of confidence than by simply using the antiquated paper ballot method alone. To say that it is impossible is an exercise in ignorance. Will it be 100% secure and be impossible to manipulate? No. No more than any computer system can be called 100% secure. Security is a relative term. First you must decide what you want to be secure against, and then devise an acceptable level of security. Additionally, electronic vote tabulation devices can be designed to also deliver a more than adequate level of security, and again, I believe that Open Source is part of the solution. What I have described is both a tabulation device and a computerized voting machine, since it also counts votes, and checks against itself. There are also methods of policy and procedure that can help assure the vote is counted accurately. It isn't productive to simply abandon a technology that can help us. The problem is that existing devices are not secure, and are easily manipulated. It CAN be done, but not with existing machines and proprietary software.
First, I wasn't talking about electrons. Second, verifiable electronic voting is indeed possible. I have done a lot of research on the subject. You are assuming that the whole process must be electronic, but this is not the case. There are several systems that have been proposed that will work, and can be verified first by the voter, and then by hand count if necessary, We are not talking physics here, we are talking about voting. There are some very easy ways to do it. As far as security, this is why we need verification. Sure, no system can ever be completely secure. I know this, as I do have my MSIA. However we can create verification systems that would make the voting process at least as secure as any other process used, and probably a whole lot more. Security is not about making something 100% foolproof. That is impossible. It is, however, about making the system reliably safe from fraud. This includes the ability to know if the system has been violated. Right now this is near impossible. However by using Open Source in combination with verifiable (by both the voter and the audit team) paper trails, we can ensure an accurate counting of votes, and would have a process to check the results to ensure that CIA is ensured. Right now CIA is not a part of the system. In fact, it would seem that drastic efforts have been made to ensure that CIA is not even part of the process.
The goal is to steal elections. It is not surprising that they do not want verifiable voting. It is EASY to make a reliable, verifiable, computerized, voting machine. Why then, do we not require that? The answer is simple. They do not want the votes verified, because they are not the actual votes! The only reason to NOT support the verifiable machines is because you want to manipulate the vote, plain and simple. Voting machines should have a paper trail, and should be OPEN SOURCE! The source code should be open to anyone who wants to investigate it! We should know EXACTLY what these machines are doing! Yet now no one knows. No one in government even knows what these systems are actually doing! That is just wrong. It is unAmerican, and undemocratic. Welcome to the new age of America. We are losing our country.
Sugar was designed for this task, to go on low end laptops, and be used easily by people with minor or no computer knowledge, yet still be powerful. XP is designed for more powerful workstations, and is aimed at people who know how to use computers, which is why we teach people in college how to use it. Yet Microsoft felt threatened. If the project took off, this means countless numbers of people would be growing up using Linux. When they finally did grow up, what OS do YOU think they will choose? It was a threat to their dominance. So what did they do? Did they go to work designing an OS that will work on the new systems, and be easier to learn? Nope. Instead they stuffed and crammed until the existing product fit, despite the fact that it doesn't use all the key features of the machine, because that would require more work, and the thing barely fits anyways. An Operating system should not be noticed. It should just be there, and help you work or play. Sugar succeeds where XP fails in this regard on this machine. Yet, despite this, MS will push this OS all they can, even if it ends up ruining the project and denying all those kids a useful computer.
I love it when people make bold predictions like this. If they get lucky then they can claim that they predicted it and have some proof. I guess that gets them an "in" on think tanks. However if the prediction never comes true, they can just ignore it and no one ever says much, aside from some snickers from some people with good recall. I highly doubt the age of the mouse is coming to an end, though it should. I don't think people will want to be reaching out and touching their screens. It is easier to use a mouse, badly designed as it is. Personally, I haven't used a mouse in years. I use a TRackMan from Logitech. Now THIS is a well designed input device! No pushing it all over your desk, and falling off edges. No carpal tunnel, despite long hours of repeated use. It fits ergonomically under your palm, you move the ball with your thumb, and click/scroll with your fingers. I tried one and never looked back. Try one for a week, I dare you.
Will Apple learn from its own history? That seems unlikely. When will business practices end up gutting the company again? They already have problems. They have been great at releasing some products that appear cutting edge, and they do a great job marketing them. Eventually their attitude on product use has always sucked. Their "Do it our way or leave" attitude towards consumers ends up driving them away to products that do everything theirs does, only better, cheaper, and with more options. I mean, who is still buying Ipods?
I have to agree it is a bad article, and underlies a mistaken perception of security through obscurity. While some argument can be made that it is SthruO. By not stating the problem we are not drawing attention to it, thereby making it less likely that it will be taken advantage of before we fix it. Eh, yes, but also no. SthruO is more like putting your server room on the third floor down a hallway no one uses, and not putting signs anywhere telling people where it is. However it is still weak, and can only be useful in a layered approach to security as a whole. This is akin to trying to further the argument that Linux is only more secure because it isn't used on a whole lot of computers. This is being proven false each and every year. Linux is becoming more and more popular. It runs most of the web servers, most of the embedded OS's on devices, and is gaining popularity in desktops, especially as low end Linux machines gain in popularity. Yet the security factor remains about the same. A lot could be gained by the hacker group that gets an easy in to Linux machines. Yet they continue to focus on Windows because it is easier to hack! Unless of course, you actually take time to set it up right.
Yep, this makes me sick. Let's see, hire a hacker to protect your systems. What a great idea! I mean, what are the chances that he will steal all our sensitive information and sell it? What are the chances he will steal our customer's data and ruin our reputation as a business so no one will ever deal with us again? I have a better idea, we will be proactive about it and make the whole thing public, so people can stop doing business with us now rather than after we get screwed! Hire a professional. Hire someone with ethics. There are a lot of people who know how to hack. Some of us choose not to because of this, umm, ethical thing. We realize that we should do the right thing. Next thing you know assassins will be hired to protect people, and bank robbers will be hired as Brinks truck drivers. When will business "get it?" Wait, that was a stupid question. Morons.
This bill clearly hurt us. It hurt the Constitution. The Bush administration has helped tear out huge chunks of the constitution, and congress has been far too eager to help. However, what is the choice? Realistically we have Obama and McCain, right? I am sure not going to vote for McCain. At least Obama I think may come around. McCain has clearly lost his sense of direction and individuality. Someone is pulling his strings, and he is no more than a puppet. Obama is close to losing me, but I have no where else to turn. He had better shape up, and start defending Americans and the Constitution.
I disagree. The difference, and ultimate point, is SCIENCE. Science does not need to prove anything absolutely. Science is about theory. You develop a hypothesis, and test that hypothesis using the scientific method. What determines if something is taught in the science curriculum is: "Does it fit within that scientific model," not "is it proven beyond doubt. The difference between religion and science in the matter of "matter creation" is the method in which the topic is approached. Science comes up with a theory and using the scientific method, attempts to discover the most likely reason. Religion states the reason (because God made it) and you are left to take it on faith. There is a distinct difference between the two. ID states that "God" made the world, mankind etc. They base this on saying that things are too complex to have it any other way. That is not science, it is faith. Any technology significantly enough advanced would appear as magic, right? Yes, it is complex, but does that necessarily mean that God has to have been the sole, undeniable force, and that the literal translation of the Bible must therefore be true? That assumes that Man is at the pinnacle of our intellectual understanding and development, and there can be no greater mind or mechanism beyond our understanding (beyond God's). This is the same type of thinking that kept mankind in the dark for centuries, and it is wrong. That is not saying that God did not create all of what we behold. I think s/he did. However, I also believe that it was done through understandable laws and methods that we are left to figure out. As we come to understand how God created the Heavens and Earth, as well as ourselves, we come closer to understanding his/her message to us. I am rambling, back on topic. What is science and can be tested and measured using the scientific method should be taught in the classroom. What is to be accepted as a matter of faith should be taught in church, or in Religion class. ID asks us to accept what it states based on faith and faith alone. It can prove nothing through the scientific method, because it can not be tested any more that Descartes philosophical question that there might exist nothing except myself (no one suggests moving that to the science classroom). Evolution can be tested, and we find evidence in our Earth's history that adds (or subtracts and refines) pieces of the Evolutionary puzzle. Evolution = science. ID = faith. Not to mention that it is clearly creationism repackaged after the failed attempt to get it taught in school. The real shame is that parts of our society are willing to erase centuries of scientific progress in an effort to hang on to the literal translations of one book. We embrace literal and radical religious dogma as education and even a form of government, while we decry those who use other radical dogma and do the same thing, just with a different book. Welcome to the crusades of the 21st century.
The systems in use now are horrible. Easily manipulated, and it becomes impossible to validate. Probably one of the worst problems is something I just learned, and that is the fact that one of the top people used in creating and programming the machines is a convicted felon who went to jail for putting sophisticated back door programs on financial computers. Hmm. Just the man you want programming the voting machines. Not to mention the code is proprietary. If anything should be open source, it is voting machines!