"Of course, the prohibitiveness does affect me a little bit-- I can't paint my house bright orange or leave my garage door open all the time because of the CC&R's in my development; but at the same time I'm glad my neighbors can't do the same"
My watch has a sapphire face (generous gift). I have had it for about 5 years now and it will not scratch no matter how many times I put it into my pocket with loose change or toss it aside. Translucent alumina is not the same thing, but if it or something with similar properties could be made more economical to produce and in larger sizes, then it would be good for more common uses where durability, strength and optical clarity are needed.
"I say, if you love your SUV so much that you're willing to drive it all around and consume twice as much gas as a normal car, you're funding the fundamentalist Islamist states that are the bankers of terrorism, and YOU are the terrorist."
"If you look at success vs. failure, Google failed by a long ways in terms of how much capital they expected to raise. They sold only half as many shares as they had planned, at roughly two-thirds the price. Yes, they got the investment banks involved to take a smaller portion of the pie, but that is well outweighed by the less-than-spectacular demand that met this offering."
How would you have any idea what they really expected to raise? You always ask for more than you expect to get. To call this anything other than a complete success is silly. It is remarkable that this thing is trading at $100 a share, estimating the IPO at $135 was just a little bit of bravado.
I believe the playboy article would have come out after the original IPO date, so they were a few days off. It did not substantially effect investor sentiment or the share price. I'll stand by my assertion that the negative press on this was promulgated by those that felt threatened by their displacement from the process and by the shear popular nature of this company. The kind of press generated by ammended filings and such that would have otherwise been squashed as "business as usual" had legs only because of the dutch auction process and the brash reputation of the company.
I am not a google fan, I think Google's financials and outlook don't merit the current valuation. Any good will that I know feel because of the way the company has done business in the past is not necessarily going to hold in the future. I am always weary of power and influence, and Google has a lot right now. But this IPO nonsense is just bad apples.
"We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings."
Airplane hijakings, that is. ships and ground transport would still be up for grabs. The only real solution to prevent the possiblity of hijakings is to not have any vehicles that transport large numbers of people at all. That would thwart al qaeda terrorists and their mass transit loving eco terrorist friends alike.
"Mind you, I think Google is a great tool, but they've bungled this IPO pretty badly. "
Seems they have done better than most, at least by the only measure of success that is important to the company. They will have gotten a much larger share of the potential IPO revenue than companies that take the usual route and have the investment banks divvy up the shares amongst their buddies with big kickbacks and fees. Sure they had a few well publicized mistakes, probably well publicized by the people that would loose out if this method of IPO became popular.
The message that the investment banks want other companies to take from this is that only google can hold a dutch auction and get away with it, for the rest of the companies they should let the pros handle an IPO in the usual way, even though half the IPO revenue will get pocketed in kickbacks and fees. The middlemen are always afraid when they are bypassed and are sure to point out everything that went wrong, even when this result was better for Google and better for investors.
"Sure, as long as we are making the assumption that there is no option but to be a part of the communist society - I guess it only works when you can count on the buy-in of all those involved, at which point it ceases to be a matter of force, and becomes a question of choice. Not having the freedom to leave is a different matter."
There is no assumption being made, this was the stated goal of the original communist doctrine. Everyone had to participate in order for it to work. The Communist argument was that the ecomony was so interconnected that you couldn't let others outside the communist system compete with it. Here I think the implicit understanding is that a communist system is going to be unable to compete because every individual and industry would carry the burden of everyone else on their shoulders. Anyway, communists leave out the messy parts about worker's slave camps, death squads and other means of control, but there are only so many ways to make someone do something. Sure if everyone agreed, then no force is needed. But then you wouldn't need central control then either. Which is how Communist ideology works, talk about the workers paradise and don't worry about how we get there... the only problem is that the only way we could get to the supposed goal of communism is if there was mass mechanization and noone was really required to do much of anything to make it all work, so we could all just sit back and be fed and clothed and entertainment would be our only occupation. The flaw in the logic is that communism is a brutal system that won't actually lead to the system that it envisions. Sure someday we might be just sitting around boinkin' eachother while robots feed us grapes, but it will be through technological innovations, that allow limitless supplies of energy and motive power and programmed intelligent robots which can carry out most vital tasks, But the creation of these things are not dependent on the economic system.
So, why subject ourselves to the rigors and insanity of an economic system where there is no way out except death.
It is flawed reasoning that makes a man spend the entirety of his life in the pursuit of happiness through means that do not make him happy.
"Here is the big problem: Baggage MUST be positively matched to passengers. You cannot takeoff if there are bags aboard without the corresponding passengers. Sad to say if you don't do this then non-suicidal terrorists will put bombs in their bags and "miss" the flight."
Yes, we all understand that this is one of the many ways people can do bad things to airplanes. But the point is that the airlines can do this if they want to protect their customers and planes if they believe it is a problem, but not the government. There is a line here that should not have been crossed.
"Eventually, all those cards would end up in a database. So, don't worry...it's not a possibilty, it's been done for at least 10 years.;)"
I assumed that this type of thing has been going on formally and informally for a lot longer than 10 years. If you think about it it seems perfectly natural and correct for police to take notes whenever they suspect something might be going on, but with disk space becoming cheaper and search algorithms better and with law enforcement under ever increasing pressure to prevent crime rather than just wait for it to happen, just having your name listed more than once in a police database for whatever reason could cause you trouble. To as seamingly harmless as having to wait longer during a police stop while the policeman reviews all the information available on you during which patience could run out or when corruption takes hold those with more "trouble" in their past could become more convenient scapegoats in the future.
"Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole -- that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society."
or how about
"(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
Ummm... How else do you read "participation of all members of society" and "equal obligation on all members of society to work"
In a fascist state only some are forced to work for others, in a communist state everyone is forced to work for the common good.
In a free society people can decide what they work for.
There were quite a few misguided notions to subject "private airplanes" to airline style security until the futility of trying to secure 250,000 privately owned vehicles in that way became apparent.
If I own a plane then (or car for that matter), I should be able to ask you for whatever I want if you want me to transport you someplace. But damnit if I'll let the government tell me who I can or cannot give a ride too and what I have to make them do.
The legal and civil rights problem with post Septemer 11 security was the nationalization of airline security screening, not the actual measures that were put into place. If the airlines want to ask their passengers to wear jump suits with complete biometric data transmitted wirelessly every few seconds and have their passengers locked in their seats, then so be it. But if the Government mandates it then it rightly becomes a matter of civil rights rather than personal choice. If the airlines want your bags checked before you get on their plane and some sort of ID, then that is their right. But if it is a government law especially when performed by government agents, then that is a violation of my right to travel and right to privacy.
So, in some ways this fight won't likely have any effect on the actual security measures that are put into effect, just whether they are imposed by law and who enacts them. Which is really what people concerned with Freedom should hope for, not that suddenly airlines are not asking for ID anymore, but that there are no laws (secret or otherwise) that mandate that they do so.
Right. When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information. Hopefully the government does something next time.
There will be no next time, very simply, the terrorists exploited a flaw in hijacking response doctrine, which for years stated that the passengers and crew should not resist terrorist hijackings. That changed on September 11, now we should be more worried about cargo planes where there are no passengers to take back the plane. I submit that each and every one of the actions of the hijackers of sept 11 could be repeated today with the exceptions of the closed and locked cockpit doors and doctrine, every one of the other new security procedures is innefective and for show.
"Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY [cornell.edu]. Dudley Hiibel [papersplease.org] was approached by a cop and told to identify himself"
yeah, the majority was wrong on that one. All too many times the courts pin all speech rights when regarding criminal matters on the 5th amendment, but relegate the 1st ammendment to only protect speech that it considers political in nature. Silence is a type of speech.
They did however leave the the door wide open to reconsider the opinion: "If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here."
Interesting, so if identifying yourself when such action is not voluntary provides a crucial link in chain of evidence, then by this ruling that evidence could be disallowed. Seems if that is the case, then the Supreme Court really provided a major reason for Police officers not to ask people to identify themselves, unless the case is already made.
People of good conscience have a responsibility to practice civil disobedience on this one. One of the real possibilities here is that police set up a system of justice outside of the courts, where evertime someone is seen doing something "suspicious" their name is recorded which serves to build up a record, so that laws which have been enacted to give police wider "discretion" will be enforced against those that are the most "suspicious" which usually means those that are most unlike or unfamiliar to the policeman.
OpenSource Software would only be communist if people were forced to perform work for the "common good" Instead people have their own reasons for creating open source software. Some of those reasons are market driven such as wanting to create a demand for services that otherwise wouldn't be needed. Or some are socially motivated, such as wanting acknowledgement or to help improve society as has happened with the explosion of communication on the web and internet.
If people were somehow prevented from writing Open Source Software because it can take some jobs away from certain companies or some other reason, now that would be communistic.
People are free to create and decide what they want to do with that creation. Communism is all about others deciding for you.
"I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid. Likewise for solar panels on homes. The energy generated would be used to heat water and whatnot, then the rest feeds back into the grid, causing the power meter to run backwards a bit and reduce your bill."
Why maintain such a complex and expensive distribution system if it only acts as a backup to local generation? The economics of running the meter backwards just don't scale. It will only ever work to the benefit of those that do this if they remain few.
Having set up a cheap wind turbine as an experiment and pissed off a few neighbors with the noise during a couple wind storms... there is no way that individuals living in close proximity will be able to generate meaningful amounts of electricity at a reasonable cost with current levels of technology. And even if we someday get efficient solar panels that cost $1 a square foot, those that live in cities will still need to rely upon centralized generation because there won't be enough light and surface area to go around.
That is at current levels of technology. If we all get a "mr. fusion" or cold fusion, then the economics change. But all you earthy crunchy types living in densly populated city neighborhoods thinking that someday you will independent in your energy needs, might as well test that theory by trying to meet all your nutrional needs with your roof garden.
Though for those of you living outside of a city on at least 5 acres of land, may I suggest setting up 3 of these turbines Especially, if you have some outdoor off the grid energy requirements.
Who is injured? That is the question here, clearly if there was false representation, just like titling a cook book as "Sex here" and an injury proximately and reasonably resulted, then compensation is deserved, but not prior restraint... this is still a fundamental freedom of expression.
"Not exactly. They spend money on advertising to make money, they don't take the money they recieved from customers to then make the commercials. The difference? They're causing the customers to give them money."
People and Companies get money two ways, Investors and customers. They absolutely do take the money they recieve from customers and then make the next commercials, unless as I said before that they are still working off of investment capital and not making any money.
meant to finish and say 'or maybe just about as guilty as a seventeen year old hacker that releases a virus onto the internet that threatens someone's source of livelyhood. Just one step too far removed for human compassion or guilt'
Or, if you're a conspiracy theorist, one can argue that the politicians, especially the incumbents, want to be able to tamper with ballet result.
Who needs a conspiracy, just one guy with an agenda and a connected system can tamper with elecotronic ballots, that is why there is all the fuss. At least with physical ballots you really do need a conspiracy to tamper with them successfully. And then there is usually more physical evidence of the tampering.
Computers are useful for the same reason they are dangerous for voting, computers substantially seperate the content from the physical medium, making deleting, copying, and modification much easier. Sure you can recontruct some deleted files on a hard disk, but try figuring out what the votes should have been if they are deleted, especially by someone with knowledge of the system.
Once these machines are around for a few years, then you can be assured that even that sweet little grandmother volunteering down at the polling place, whom you don't realize has been strong armed by the local party boss, will be plugging in her ipod to the back of one of these machines and revoting 70% of the votes the correct way using a simple program she downloaded off the web. Even she will not really feel too guilty just plugging in a wire into the back of a terminal... or maybe just about as guilty as a seventeen year old hacker
Slashdot Mirror
"Of course, the prohibitiveness does affect me a little bit-- I can't paint my house bright orange or leave my garage door open all the time because of the CC&R's in my development; but at the same time I'm glad my neighbors can't do the same"
Go away.
"Remember when they used to license clones? Remember how big of a flop it was?"
Yes, I remember. That was the last time I was an Apple customer. It was a flop for the company, but for customers it was good to have more choices.
My watch has a sapphire face (generous gift). I have had it for about 5 years now and it will not scratch no matter how many times I put it into my pocket with loose change or toss it aside. Translucent alumina is not the same thing, but if it or something with similar properties could be made more economical to produce and in larger sizes, then it would be good for more common uses where durability, strength and optical clarity are needed.
"I say, if you love your SUV so much that you're willing to drive it all around and consume twice as much gas as a normal car, you're funding the fundamentalist Islamist states that are the bankers of terrorism, and YOU are the terrorist."
moron.
"If you look at success vs. failure, Google failed by a long ways in terms of how much capital they expected to raise. They sold only half as many shares as they had planned, at roughly two-thirds the price. Yes, they got the investment banks involved to take a smaller portion of the pie, but that is well outweighed by the less-than-spectacular demand that met this offering."
How would you have any idea what they really expected to raise? You always ask for more than you expect to get. To call this anything other than a complete success is silly. It is remarkable that this thing is trading at $100 a share, estimating the IPO at $135 was just a little bit of bravado.
I believe the playboy article would have come out after the original IPO date, so they were a few days off. It did not substantially effect investor sentiment or the share price. I'll stand by my assertion that the negative press on this was promulgated by those that felt threatened by their displacement from the process and by the shear popular nature of this company. The kind of press generated by ammended filings and such that would have otherwise been squashed as "business as usual" had legs only because of the dutch auction process and the brash reputation of the company.
I am not a google fan, I think Google's financials and outlook don't merit the current valuation. Any good will that I know feel because of the way the company has done business in the past is not necessarily going to hold in the future. I am always weary of power and influence, and Google has a lot right now. But this IPO nonsense is just bad apples.
"We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings."
Airplane hijakings, that is. ships and ground transport would still be up for grabs. The only real solution to prevent the possiblity of hijakings is to not have any vehicles that transport large numbers of people at all. That would thwart al qaeda terrorists and their mass transit loving eco terrorist friends alike.
"Mind you, I think Google is a great tool, but they've bungled this IPO pretty badly. "
Seems they have done better than most, at least by the only measure of success that is important to the company. They will have gotten a much larger share of the potential IPO revenue than companies that take the usual route and have the investment banks divvy up the shares amongst their buddies with big kickbacks and fees. Sure they had a few well publicized mistakes, probably well publicized by the people that would loose out if this method of IPO became popular.
The message that the investment banks want other companies to take from this is that only google can hold a dutch auction and get away with it, for the rest of the companies they should let the pros handle an IPO in the usual way, even though half the IPO revenue will get pocketed in kickbacks and fees. The middlemen are always afraid when they are bypassed and are sure to point out everything that went wrong, even when this result was better for Google and better for investors.
All I have to say is: All your base are belong to us
"Sure, as long as we are making the assumption that there is no option but to be a part of the communist society - I guess it only works when you can count on the buy-in of all those involved, at which point it ceases to be a matter of force, and becomes a question of choice. Not having the freedom to leave is a different matter."
There is no assumption being made, this was the stated goal of the original communist doctrine. Everyone had to participate in order for it to work. The Communist argument was that the ecomony was so interconnected that you couldn't let others outside the communist system compete with it. Here I think the implicit understanding is that a communist system is going to be unable to compete because every individual and industry would carry the burden of everyone else on their shoulders. Anyway, communists leave out the messy parts about worker's slave camps, death squads and other means of control, but there are only so many ways to make someone do something. Sure if everyone agreed, then no force is needed. But then you wouldn't need central control then either. Which is how Communist ideology works, talk about the workers paradise and don't worry about how we get there... the only problem is that the only way we could get to the supposed goal of communism is if there was mass mechanization and noone was really required to do much of anything to make it all work, so we could all just sit back and be fed and clothed and entertainment would be our only occupation. The flaw in the logic is that communism is a brutal system that won't actually lead to the system that it envisions. Sure someday we might be just sitting around boinkin' eachother while robots feed us grapes, but it will be through technological innovations, that allow limitless supplies of energy and motive power and programmed intelligent robots which can carry out most vital tasks, But the creation of these things are not dependent on the economic system.
So, why subject ourselves to the rigors and insanity of an economic system where there is no way out except death.
It is flawed reasoning that makes a man spend the entirety of his life in the pursuit of happiness through means that do not make him happy.
"Here is the big problem: Baggage MUST be positively matched to passengers. You cannot takeoff if there are bags aboard without the corresponding passengers. Sad to say if you don't do this then non-suicidal terrorists will put bombs in their bags and "miss" the flight."
Yes, we all understand that this is one of the many ways people can do bad things to airplanes. But the point is that the airlines can do this if they want to protect their customers and planes if they believe it is a problem, but not the government. There is a line here that should not have been crossed.
Power corrupts.
"Eventually, all those cards would end up in a database. So, don't worry...it's not a possibilty, it's been done for at least 10 years. ;)"
I assumed that this type of thing has been going on formally and informally for a lot longer than 10 years. If you think about it it seems perfectly natural and correct for police to take notes whenever they suspect something might be going on, but with disk space becoming cheaper and search algorithms better and with law enforcement under ever increasing pressure to prevent crime rather than just wait for it to happen, just having your name listed more than once in a police database for whatever reason could cause you trouble. To as seamingly harmless as having to wait longer during a police stop while the policeman reviews all the information available on you during which patience could run out or when corruption takes hold those with more "trouble" in their past could become more convenient scapegoats in the future.
read here
"Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole -- that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society."
or how about
"(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished. Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
Ummm... How else do you read "participation of all members of society" and "equal obligation on all members of society to work"
In a fascist state only some are forced to work for others, in a communist state everyone is forced to work for the common good.
In a free society people can decide what they work for.
There were quite a few misguided notions to subject "private airplanes" to airline style security until the futility of trying to secure 250,000 privately owned vehicles in that way became apparent.
If I own a plane then (or car for that matter), I should be able to ask you for whatever I want if you want me to transport you someplace. But damnit if I'll let the government tell me who I can or cannot give a ride too and what I have to make them do.
The legal and civil rights problem with post Septemer 11 security was the nationalization of airline security screening, not the actual measures that were put into place. If the airlines want to ask their passengers to wear jump suits with complete biometric data transmitted wirelessly every few seconds and have their passengers locked in their seats, then so be it. But if the Government mandates it then it rightly becomes a matter of civil rights rather than personal choice. If the airlines want your bags checked before you get on their plane and some sort of ID, then that is their right. But if it is a government law especially when performed by government agents, then that is a violation of my right to travel and right to privacy.
So, in some ways this fight won't likely have any effect on the actual security measures that are put into effect, just whether they are imposed by law and who enacts them. Which is really what people concerned with Freedom should hope for, not that suddenly airlines are not asking for ID anymore, but that there are no laws (secret or otherwise) that mandate that they do so.
Right. When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information. Hopefully the government does something next time.
There will be no next time, very simply, the terrorists exploited a flaw in hijacking response doctrine, which for years stated that the passengers and crew should not resist terrorist hijackings. That changed on September 11, now we should be more worried about cargo planes where there are no passengers to take back the plane. I submit that each and every one of the actions of the hijackers of sept 11 could be repeated today with the exceptions of the closed and locked cockpit doors and doctrine, every one of the other new security procedures is innefective and for show.
"Actually, the US Supreme Court just decided otherwise in the case of HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY [cornell.edu]. Dudley Hiibel [papersplease.org] was approached by a cop and told to identify himself"
yeah, the majority was wrong on that one. All too many times the courts pin all speech rights when regarding criminal matters on the 5th amendment, but relegate the 1st ammendment to only protect speech that it considers political in nature. Silence is a type of speech.
They did however leave the the door wide open to reconsider the opinion: "If a case arises where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense, the court can then consider whether the Fifth Amendment privilege applies, whether it has been violated, and what remedy must follow. Those questions need not be resolved here."
Interesting, so if identifying yourself when such action is not voluntary provides a crucial link in chain of evidence, then by this ruling that evidence could be disallowed. Seems if that is the case, then the Supreme Court really provided a major reason for Police officers not to ask people to identify themselves, unless the case is already made.
People of good conscience have a responsibility to practice civil disobedience on this one. One of the real possibilities here is that police set up a system of justice outside of the courts, where evertime someone is seen doing something "suspicious" their name is recorded which serves to build up a record, so that laws which have been enacted to give police wider "discretion" will be enforced against those that are the most "suspicious" which usually means those that are most unlike or unfamiliar to the policeman.
OpenSource Software would only be communist if people were forced to perform work for the "common good" Instead people have their own reasons for creating open source software. Some of those reasons are market driven such as wanting to create a demand for services that otherwise wouldn't be needed. Or some are socially motivated, such as wanting acknowledgement or to help improve society as has happened with the explosion of communication on the web and internet.
If people were somehow prevented from writing Open Source Software because it can take some jobs away from certain companies or some other reason, now that would be communistic.
People are free to create and decide what they want to do with that creation. Communism is all about others deciding for you.
"I was recently reading about hybrid cars that would be able to sell their excess electricity back to the power grid. Likewise for solar panels on homes. The energy generated would be used to heat water and whatnot, then the rest feeds back into the grid, causing the power meter to run backwards a bit and reduce your bill."
Why maintain such a complex and expensive distribution system if it only acts as a backup to local generation? The economics of running the meter backwards just don't scale. It will only ever work to the benefit of those that do this if they remain few.
Having set up a cheap wind turbine as an experiment and pissed off a few neighbors with the noise during a couple wind storms... there is no way that individuals living in close proximity will be able to generate meaningful amounts of electricity at a reasonable cost with current levels of technology. And even if we someday get efficient solar panels that cost $1 a square foot, those that live in cities will still need to rely upon centralized generation because there won't be enough light and surface area to go around.
That is at current levels of technology. If we all get a "mr. fusion" or cold fusion, then the economics change. But all you earthy crunchy types living in densly populated city neighborhoods thinking that someday you will independent in your energy needs, might as well test that theory by trying to meet all your nutrional needs with your roof garden.
Though for those of you living outside of a city on at least 5 acres of land, may I suggest setting up 3 of these turbines Especially, if you have some outdoor off the grid energy requirements.
Advertising and marketing is about directing capital, not ownership, there is a difference.
This is about some twit being given a position of control in some corporate structure over capital that he neither created nor deserves.
The further decision making is removed from those that create wealth in society, the worse things will become. That is essential.
Remember that openness, while embarrassing for some, could also help protect those arrested from abuse.
Who is injured? That is the question here, clearly if there was false representation, just like titling a cook book as "Sex here" and an injury proximately and reasonably resulted, then compensation is deserved, but not prior restraint... this is still a fundamental freedom of expression.
"Not exactly. They spend money on advertising to make money, they don't take the money they recieved from customers to then make the commercials. The difference? They're causing the customers to give them money."
People and Companies get money two ways, Investors and customers. They absolutely do take the money they recieve from customers and then make the next commercials, unless as I said before that they are still working off of investment capital and not making any money.
"Seeing as how they're paying the bills..."
Well, unless their burning capital, the customers are the ones really paying the bills.
meant to finish and say 'or maybe just about as guilty as a seventeen year old hacker that releases a virus onto the internet that threatens someone's source of livelyhood. Just one step too far removed for human compassion or guilt'
Or, if you're a conspiracy theorist, one can argue that the politicians, especially the incumbents, want to be able to tamper with ballet result.
Who needs a conspiracy, just one guy with an agenda and a connected system can tamper with elecotronic ballots, that is why there is all the fuss. At least with physical ballots you really do need a conspiracy to tamper with them successfully. And then there is usually more physical evidence of the tampering.
Computers are useful for the same reason they are dangerous for voting, computers substantially seperate the content from the physical medium, making deleting, copying, and modification much easier. Sure you can recontruct some deleted files on a hard disk, but try figuring out what the votes should have been if they are deleted, especially by someone with knowledge of the system.
Once these machines are around for a few years, then you can be assured that even that sweet little grandmother volunteering down at the polling place, whom you don't realize has been strong armed by the local party boss, will be plugging in her ipod to the back of one of these machines and revoting 70% of the votes the correct way using a simple program she downloaded off the web. Even she will not really feel too guilty just plugging in a wire into the back of a terminal... or maybe just about as guilty as a seventeen year old hacker
Some things are just meant to be physical.
" You say "progressive Democrat" like it's a good thing."
I read "progressive Democrat" about the same as "Republican" as "ready to dictate what everyone else does with their lives"