Electronic voting machines are shown to dramatically reduce the error rate in elections.
But electronic voting machines that don't let the voter verify that their vote is properly recorded, and that offer no way for election officials to know if they correctly recorded the votes - now that's really, really, really dumb!
Even more interesting is that Diebold would MAKE MORE MONEY if they sold voting machines with add-on printers so you could deposit a paper record of your vote in a separate ballot box! However, Diebold - and the other voting machines companies that happen to be owned by Republicans - OPPOSE this!
Additional revenue from add-on sales like this - and the service contracts that would go with it - are immensely profitable.
So what is going on here?
Also, they insult and ridicule anyone who tries to point out that electronic voting machines that cannot be audited are a problem! Even the hundreds of computer scientists who have spoken out are told they don't know what they are talking about. What IS going on here?
What would be so difficult about adding a printer, and having the voter look over the printout and then deposit it into a separate ballot box? Why are they so dead-set against doing this, even when it would make them tons more money? Are these Republican-owned "businesses" after something besides money?
I've had spammers forge my company's address as the return address. Man oh man did we get a lot of bounces - tens of thousands- and nasty e-mails clogging up our server. Only one order.
Many Microsoft employees I spoke with - especially engineers - were hoping that the company would be broken up. They were tired of working only on products designed to reinforce the monopoly and wanted to design, market and sell competitive products.
For example, the Office people wanted to be able to really improve the products, and design great products for Linux, etc. But they were stuck with the Windows legacy and reinforcing the Windows monopoly.
Hereâ(TM)s the numbers. In 1981 the on-budget (not from Social Security) tax receipts were $469 billion which was a 16% increase over the prior year. Then the Reagan tax cuts started. 1982 tax receipts were $474.3 billion, 1.1% over 1981, and the on-budget deficit shot up to $120 billion, an increase of 62% in a single year!. 1983 receipts were $453.2 billion, a DROP of 4.4% creating a deficit of $208 BILLION, and increase of 73%!
Then they increased taxes. This huge jump in deficits panicked Congress enough to pass the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, the largest tax increase in our history. Tax receipts climbed to $500.3 billion, a 10.4% increase, and the deficit shrank almost 11% to $185.6 billion.
In 1985 Congress passed the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings Anti-Deficit Act. In 1985 tax receipts were $548 billion, a 9.5% increase. But now the huge military spending increases AND the debt interest were kicking in and the deficit rose to $221 billion, and increase of 19%. That's another story - the TAX RECEIPTS were climbing again, leading to the doubling Republicans claim was brought about by cutting taxes, conveniently leaving out that the largest tax increase in the history of the world occurred in between.
Or a public works project to make buildings energy efficient. Employ everyone, and you get the benefit of a more efficient economy. Less dependence on oil imports, lower energy prices, better for the environment.
And just so there is no mistake - the money that is going out to the tax cuts is the money that is supposed to pay off the Social Security of the "baby boomers" who start retiring in about 8 years.
I suppose you could have the alternative of NOT joining the union - and NOT accepting the higher pay, health innsurance, pension, vacations, sick pay, job protection and other things you get from having a union.
"If 700+ additional people actually contacted the offices of the 3 republicans in favor of this FCC move and told them they would vote against them based solely on this single issue, then I believe the impact would have been much greater."
You must be misunderstanding what's going on. The FCC received SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND messages from people objecting to this. Over 99% of all input they received was opposed.
The fix was in. This is the Bush administration we're talking about. You know, the one that got into office with almost exactly half the vote - they are doing everything for one side, and one side only. Period.
And what about the interest we'll be paying on the money borrowed to pay out these tax cuts? How do you think we'll be paying that?
We are BORROWING the money for this tax cut. Get that through your head. And YOU are going to be one of us who has to pay that money back - one way or another, sucker. You fell for it.
One more thing -- ALL of the money for this tax cut is being borrowed. We currently pay out over $300 billion per year paying interest on the money Reagan borrowed for HIS tax cuts. Imagine what we could be doing with that $300 billion each year if those tax cuts hadn't happened!
And this time we're borrowing even more than Reagan did! How do you expect we're going to pay that back, except by cancelling Social Security and Meidcare? Oh, I get it - that's the idea!
Slashdot Mirror
Electronic voting machines are shown to dramatically reduce the error rate in elections.
But electronic voting machines that don't let the voter verify that their vote is properly recorded, and that offer no way for election officials to know if they correctly recorded the votes - now that's really, really, really dumb!
That is an interesting comment.
Why would it be "bitter liberal types" who should be worried about voting machines that cannot be audited?
Why shouldn't right wingers also be concerned about voting machines that give you no way to verify who voted for what?
Why is it a "liberal" issues? And why do the right wingers instinctively want these machines?
Curiouser and curiouser!
Even more interesting is that Diebold would MAKE MORE MONEY if they sold voting machines with add-on printers so you could deposit a paper record of your vote in a separate ballot box! However, Diebold - and the other voting machines companies that happen to be owned by Republicans - OPPOSE this!
Additional revenue from add-on sales like this - and the service contracts that would go with it - are immensely profitable.
So what is going on here?
Also, they insult and ridicule anyone who tries to point out that electronic voting machines that cannot be audited are a problem! Even the hundreds of computer scientists who have spoken out are told they don't know what they are talking about. What IS going on here?
What would be so difficult about adding a printer, and having the voter look over the printout and then deposit it into a separate ballot box? Why are they so dead-set against doing this, even when it would make them tons more money? Are these Republican-owned "businesses" after something besides money?
The Commonweal Institute has compiled quite a bit of information (scroll down to the links) about the problems with electronic voting machines.
You can't allow the voter to take a record out. This opens up the possibility of vote buying, which is a common problem.
The key to this is that the voter look at the paper to verify that is shows what the voter did.
This solves every problem with these machines. If the vote in even one machine doesn't exactly match the paper, you know something's going on.
Whoa! BAD IDEA! Microsoft isn't going to see it that way! They better realize that Microsoft is going to try to kill them and take steps...
I remember Be tried that strategy -- don't make the other guy mad. Ha!
If there aren't enough government employees to handle the public's questions and concerns, that tells you that the government is too LARGE?
Huh? Has your ideology warped your thinking THAT much?
OK, fine - swhat happens to people who don't save money? Do they just die?
No, what will happen is the government will put together programs to feed, shelter and care for them.
With Social Security people are setting their OWN money aside for this.
You're saying his brilliant strategy to get elected is to "repackage himself to appeal to the far left?"
Wow, that's a brilliant strategy. Or maybe YOUR strategy is the problem here?
I've had spammers forge my company's address as the return address. Man oh man did we get a lot of bounces - tens of thousands- and nasty e-mails clogging up our server. Only one order.
Yeah, cause Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine were completely non-commercial.
You're confusing freedom of speech with freedom of the press. Hustler is press. Corporate communications are always commercial speech.
Many Microsoft employees I spoke with - especially engineers - were hoping that the company would be broken up. They were tired of working only on products designed to reinforce the monopoly and wanted to design, market and sell competitive products.
For example, the Office people wanted to be able to really improve the products, and design great products for Linux, etc. But they were stuck with the Windows legacy and reinforcing the Windows monopoly.
Are any computer manufacturers offering dual-boot Windows/Linux computers yet? That was supposedly the POINT of the phony Justice Dept. "settlement."
http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2002_07_28_seethe forest_archive.html#79710987
Hereâ(TM)s the numbers. In 1981 the on-budget (not from Social Security) tax receipts were $469 billion which was a 16% increase over the prior year. Then the Reagan tax cuts started. 1982 tax receipts were $474.3 billion, 1.1% over 1981, and the on-budget deficit shot up to $120 billion, an increase of 62% in a single year!. 1983 receipts were $453.2 billion, a DROP of 4.4% creating a deficit of $208 BILLION, and increase of 73%!
Then they increased taxes. This huge jump in deficits panicked Congress enough to pass the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act, the largest tax increase in our history. Tax receipts climbed to $500.3 billion, a 10.4% increase, and the deficit shrank almost 11% to $185.6 billion.
In 1985 Congress passed the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings Anti-Deficit Act. In 1985 tax receipts were $548 billion, a 9.5% increase. But now the huge military spending increases AND the debt interest were kicking in and the deficit rose to $221 billion, and increase of 19%. That's another story - the TAX RECEIPTS were climbing again, leading to the doubling Republicans claim was brought about by cutting taxes, conveniently leaving out that the largest tax increase in the history of the world occurred in between.
Or a public works project to make buildings energy efficient. Employ everyone, and you get the benefit of a more efficient economy. Less dependence on oil imports, lower energy prices, better for the environment.
And just so there is no mistake - the money that is going out to the tax cuts is the money that is supposed to pay off the Social Security of the "baby boomers" who start retiring in about 8 years.
"Because capitalism is self-regulating."
Tell it to anyone who ever tried to compete with Microsoft.
"But where I hate unionization is at the professional, post graduate level, e.g. doctors unionizing. Makes no sense."
I guess you've never heard of HMOs.
I suppose you could have the alternative of NOT joining the union - and NOT accepting the higher pay, health innsurance, pension, vacations, sick pay, job protection and other things you get from having a union.
Bullshit. You can organize your union any way you want, and the union can negotiate any contract it can get with management.
"If 700+ additional people actually contacted the offices of the 3 republicans in favor of this FCC move and told them they would vote against them based solely on this single issue, then I believe the impact would have been much greater."
You must be misunderstanding what's going on. The FCC received SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND messages from people objecting to this. Over 99% of all input they received was opposed.
The fix was in. This is the Bush administration we're talking about. You know, the one that got into office with almost exactly half the vote - they are doing everything for one side, and one side only. Period.
And what about the interest we'll be paying on the money borrowed to pay out these tax cuts? How do you think we'll be paying that?
We are BORROWING the money for this tax cut. Get that through your head. And YOU are going to be one of us who has to pay that money back - one way or another, sucker. You fell for it.
>"The BBC's Jessica Lynch "expose" was recently exposed as a fraud."
Bullshit. How about posting any references.
One more thing -- ALL of the money for this tax cut is being borrowed. We currently pay out over $300 billion per year paying interest on the money Reagan borrowed for HIS tax cuts. Imagine what we could be doing with that $300 billion each year if those tax cuts hadn't happened!
And this time we're borrowing even more than Reagan did! How do you expect we're going to pay that back, except by cancelling Social Security and Meidcare? Oh, I get it - that's the idea!