You posted a nice troll, but I'll bite (I'm waiting for a phone call). Typical modern liberalism requires that the government set controls on as many aspects of private life as possible. While some conservatives may whine about the "moral fabric" of this nation, it's usually the liberals that try to legislate fixes to what they view as ills. The SCOTUS decided that the COPA act involved too much government intervention into private citizens affairs, therefore it got ruled down. True blue conservatism requires a small, limited government and this goes parallel with that thought. Take your Limbaugh-esque bitching somewhere else, or at least label it for what it is (= mindless whining).
A voter-verified paper trail is the only way to verify that the system
is working. Under this system, the machine would produce a paper ballot,
which the voter checks then deposits into a locked box. The paper receipts
are counted in the event of a recount (unlike our current requirements, where
totals from an end-of-night printout can be used, assuming the machines total
the votes accurately). The bill also requires a recount in 0.5% of districts
chosen at random to verify that the machines are totalling accurately.
HR
2239 is a bill which requires all touch-screen voting machines to produce
a paper receipt which the voter can read and verify, then drop in a lock box.
The receipts in that lock box are used in a recount. This bill also mandates
a recount in 0.5% of districts chosen at random to verify that
the touch-screen voting machines are reporting the results accurately.
We also need legal help with injunctions against the machines, starting with
the 37 Diebold states. The organizers of
BlackBoxVoting.org have 65,000
documents to make the case.
Paper petitions are no more effective than electronic ones. The electrons or paper are not what is important--what is important is a large enough demonstration of public sentiment and awareness that a politian can fear reprisal.
That being said, I do recommend writing your representatives directly. Letting them know that the people with the opinions are actually their constituents is very important.
Also, raise public awareness. Write to your local papers, and join your local election reform meetup (need one more for Cleveland, Ohio anyone?).
Because if you get a receipt to take with you out of the polling place, you can prove who you voted for, and purchasing votes then becomes feasible. The only thing preventing buying votes right now is that the people would take the money then vote for who they were going to vote for anyway.
Er, how would the receipt be fake? It would have the name of the candidate you voted for printed on it. You verify that it says the right thing, then drop it in the box. Are you claiming that it doesn't say who you voted for when you receive it, or later when it is recounted .
Sign the HR 2239 petition.
It requires electronic machines to produce a receipt which is deposited in a lock box in case of a recount and mandates.5% of districts at random do a recount to verify accuracy of the machines.
It does *not* mandate using touch screen voting machines. It mandates that all voting systems (electronic or not) "shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system." It goes on to define that specifically:
`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-
`(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record, each individual paper record of which shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter at the time the vote is cast, and preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within the polling place on Election Day for later use in any manual audit.
`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system before the permanent record is preserved for use in any manual audit.
`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.
The point is that, if the machine does not produce a voter-verifiable ballot, you cannot guaruntee that your vote was recorded. We have instances of machines loosing up to 100,000 votes due to software errors (Florida, 2002) since all they have to do is print totals at the end of the night.
While a manual recount can have issues, these issues aren't of the same order of magnitude and are controllable. Not to mention that we still have the paper trail if we have any evidence of foul play.
... and talk to your representatives in the house to get them to sign on. HR2239 requires touch-screen voting machines to print a receipt which the voter can read, then drop into a lock-box. This receipt is then used for recounts, and in a mandatory recount of.5% of districts chosen at random to verify the accuracy of the machines.
While you could theoretically build a cryptographic system to do something similar, I'd rather not have a theoretic democracy!
Nothing prevents you from signing a paper petition 500 times, either. That's not the point. As long as you can verify that the signers are mostly unique individuals, an elected official can guage the magnitude of public opinion on a topic. That is what is important, as that is what affects his or her yay or nay.
And please do contact your representatives. My rep is a co-sponser of the bill so I haven't had to make any calls, but I'm ready to! Specifically, VerifiedVoting needs to get position statements on the bill from some House members yet. Some apparently refuse to talk to people who aren't their consitutents (last I heard, they are looking for a constituent of Robert Ney - Ohio 18th district, to get his position on the bill).
This petition is the only way to guaruntee that your vote will be counted--it mandates that machine give the voter a human-readable receipt which the voter drops into a lock box in case. In the case of a recount, the paper receipts are counted. It also mandates a manual recount in.5% of districts to verify the accuracy of the machines.
The petititions are linked to at the bottom of the VerifiedVoting site.
The only way to make sure that your vote counts is a voter-verified paper trail for use in recounts and mandatory recount in a small percentage of districts chosen at random (to verify that the equipment is working). This is the only way to have meaningful recounts.
HR 2239 does just this (and was written by a physicist, no less)!
Sign the petition supporting HR 2239, there's a link to it at the bottom of VerifiedVoting.org!
Because of "short pencil" tactics. In Cleveland, we got punch voting machines very late. Some of the many vote-counters snuck in short pencils which could be held in the hand while tallying votes, and they could fill in blanks where voters hadn't entered a decision.
HR 2239 is a bill in the House which requires exactly this: a voter-verified paper ballot usable for manual recounts. It also requires manual recounts to verify accuracy in some small percentage of districts (like.5%), chosen at random.
Please visit this site and sign the online petititons.
The solution is a voter-verified paper trail which would allow actual recounts, plus mandated recounts at random in a small percentage of districts (like.5% I think). HR 2239 is a bill in the house which proposes to do that. Sign the online petitions to support it and get more information at VerifiedVoting.org.
Under RedHat, rpm -qi will tell you the license, or at least the gist of it. (It's a one-line fields).
For rdist, it says BSD, tho.
Hrmm...
Freedom != No Restrictions
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
But as soon as someone starts defining "encumbered" as "free", they've overstepped the bounds of honesty. There's nothing inherently wrong with encumbrance, mind you. It's unpleasant in certain cases, but it's not "wrong". If there were, I would be arguing against the GPL, and really I'm not. I'm arguing against deception.
I've been fairly amused at arguments claiming absence of freedom in the presence of restrictions. The question is much subtler than that. If you live in the United States, for example, you are a free person. Free to do whatever you like, right? No, there are restrictions, because without those restrictions you would not be free. Paradoxical, yes. But you are not free to rape or pillage or plunder under American law simply because you are taking away another person's freedoms. And the goal of freedom in this case has ultimately succeeded by making restrictions.
Those who see restrictions as the antithesis of freedom should devote a little more thought to the subject.
Such is the case here, in pretty much the same form.
The only real question is whether you believe the redistribution, use, and modification of software is a freedom which should be granted to you; in other words, if you believe that the scholarly tradition of improving on your neighbors' ideas in a cooperative fasion is of more importance than the capitalistic idea of intellectual property.
I was/am too, and for the same reasons, not as much anymore , but in different ways, my group of friends at school's the 'goth/raver/whatever' group and that's perfectly fucking fine with me. People are sheep by nature and all it takes is one thug to lead the herd against the lone person to show how fucking stupid they are.
We didn't have the term "goth" when I was in high school. It was "freak", or "headrot" (although that's a bit older than my generation -- I just turned 24). "Freak" pretty much became a greeting shouted accross the hall at each other in jest. Or maybe seriously, who cares?
When I heard the killers singled out the 'jocks' I wasn't sorry in the least for those that had been _singled out_ . Jocks are on average, wankers who simply use idiot methods to gain some measure of respect from other sheep. (oooh look at that, I'm a cold prick, so bite me).
The first thing I have to say to you is that any disrespect or singling out you get from Jocks or Teachers or Whiggers or whatever the hell they are now you deserve for that last comment. If there is one thing I can't stand, and couldn't stand then either, it's hypocracy. Letting those words out of your mouth was a statement that you refuse to let it stop with you no matter how dead wrong it is in the first place. When I was in high school, the buck stopped with me and I got the shit beat out of me for it.
That's what a freak was then.
The second thing I have to say is that you really don't seem to understand how grave this really is. Imagine yourself dead. When one imagines oneself dead, one imagines oneself laying face up in a box. One forgets to imagine the fact that one's dead.
You need to admit that this is bigger than you. Some things are. Deal with it.
Microsoft's rights? The first amendment grants us the right to bear firearms. If you kill people with guns, the government can take those rights away from that particular individual. Microsoft has not acted responsibly, and when that occurs, and the defendant is proven guilty, the government has the right to take preventative measures.
The government does not have the right to confine people, but do you disagree it should be able to jail the aforementioned gun-weilder?
I don't see how it could _not_ be within the government's rights to prevent any wrongdoings Microsoft is proven guilty of. The question is simply how to ensure the pattern of malicious business practices is broken. If the government _ever_ told me it didn't have the rights to prevent this harm to the general public of the country (indeed, the world in this case), I would then propose that such a government is useless.
Frankly, if Microsoft is proven guilty in this trial, which is a fair one, they have no rights. Any measure which would remunerate the damaged parties is acceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
It's from a co-worker of his that didn't realize he was logged in on this server (using links)... gaah...
You posted a nice troll, but I'll bite (I'm waiting for a phone call). Typical modern liberalism requires that the government set controls on as many aspects of private life as possible. While some conservatives may whine about the "moral fabric" of this nation, it's usually the liberals that try to legislate fixes to what they view as ills. The SCOTUS decided that the COPA act involved too much government intervention into private citizens affairs, therefore it got ruled down. True blue conservatism requires a small, limited government and this goes parallel with that thought. Take your Limbaugh-esque bitching somewhere else, or at least label it for what it is (= mindless whining).
Sign the online petition to support HR 2239.
A voter-verified paper trail is the only way to verify that the system is working. Under this system, the machine would produce a paper ballot, which the voter checks then deposits into a locked box. The paper receipts are counted in the event of a recount (unlike our current requirements, where totals from an end-of-night printout can be used, assuming the machines total the votes accurately). The bill also requires a recount in 0.5% of districts chosen at random to verify that the machines are totalling accurately.
We need your help!
HR 2239 is a bill which requires all touch-screen voting machines to produce a paper receipt which the voter can read and verify, then drop in a lock box. The receipts in that lock box are used in a recount. This bill also mandates a recount in 0.5% of districts chosen at random to verify that the touch-screen voting machines are reporting the results accurately.
Sign the online petition to support the bill. Contact your representatives, educate them and demand they support the bill.
We also need legal help with injunctions against the machines, starting with the 37 Diebold states. The organizers of BlackBoxVoting.org have 65,000 documents to make the case.
Paper petitions are no more effective than electronic ones. The electrons or paper are not what is important--what is important is a large enough demonstration of public sentiment and awareness that a politian can fear reprisal.
That being said, I do recommend writing your representatives directly. Letting them know that the people with the opinions are actually their constituents is very important.
Also, raise public awareness. Write to your local papers, and join your local election reform meetup (need one more for Cleveland, Ohio anyone?).
Because if you get a receipt to take with you out of the polling place, you can prove who you voted for, and purchasing votes then becomes feasible. The only thing preventing buying votes right now is that the people would take the money then vote for who they were going to vote for anyway.
Er, how would the receipt be fake? It would have the name of the candidate you voted for printed on it. You verify that it says the right thing, then drop it in the box. Are you claiming that it doesn't say who you voted for when you receive it, or later when it is recounted .
Sign the HR 2239 petition. It requires electronic machines to produce a receipt which is deposited in a lock box in case of a recount and mandates .5% of districts at random do a recount to verify accuracy of the machines.
It does *not* mandate using touch screen voting machines. It mandates that all voting systems (electronic or not) "shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system." It goes on to define that specifically:
`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-
`(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record, each individual paper record of which shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter at the time the vote is cast, and preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within the polling place on Election Day for later use in any manual audit.
`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system before the permanent record is preserved for use in any manual audit.
`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.
The point is that, if the machine does not produce a voter-verifiable ballot, you cannot guaruntee that your vote was recorded. We have instances of machines loosing up to 100,000 votes due to software errors (Florida, 2002) since all they have to do is print totals at the end of the night.
While a manual recount can have issues, these issues aren't of the same order of magnitude and are controllable. Not to mention that we still have the paper trail if we have any evidence of foul play.
While you could theoretically build a cryptographic system to do something similar, I'd rather not have a theoretic democracy!
(Petitions are linked to at the bottom of VerifiedVoting.org.)
Nothing prevents you from signing a paper petition 500 times, either. That's not the point. As long as you can verify that the signers are mostly unique individuals, an elected official can guage the magnitude of public opinion on a topic. That is what is important, as that is what affects his or her yay or nay.
And please do contact your representatives. My rep is a co-sponser of the bill so I haven't had to make any calls, but I'm ready to! Specifically, VerifiedVoting needs to get position statements on the bill from some House members yet. Some apparently refuse to talk to people who aren't their consitutents (last I heard, they are looking for a constituent of Robert Ney - Ohio 18th district, to get his position on the bill).
This petition is the only way to guaruntee that your vote will be counted--it mandates that machine give the voter a human-readable receipt which the voter drops into a lock box in case. In the case of a recount, the paper receipts are counted. It also mandates a manual recount in .5% of districts to verify the accuracy of the machines.
The petititions are linked to at the bottom of the VerifiedVoting site.
VerifiedVoting.org appears to be down, coincidentally. You can go directly to the HR2239 petition.
The only way to make sure that your vote counts is a voter-verified paper trail for use in recounts and mandatory recount in a small percentage of districts chosen at random (to verify that the equipment is working). This is the only way to have meaningful recounts.
HR 2239 does just this (and was written by a physicist, no less)!
Sign the petition supporting HR 2239, there's a link to it at the bottom of VerifiedVoting.org!
Because of "short pencil" tactics. In Cleveland, we got punch voting machines very late. Some of the many vote-counters snuck in short pencils which could be held in the hand while tallying votes, and they could fill in blanks where voters hadn't entered a decision.
HR 2239 is a bill in the House which requires exactly this: a voter-verified paper ballot usable for manual recounts. It also requires manual recounts to verify accuracy in some small percentage of districts (like .5%), chosen at random.
Please visit this site and sign the online petititons.
The solution is a voter-verified paper trail which would allow actual recounts, plus mandated recounts at random in a small percentage of districts (like .5% I think). HR 2239 is a bill in the house which proposes to do that. Sign the online petitions to support it and get more information at VerifiedVoting.org.
Under RedHat, rpm -qi will tell you the license, or at least the gist of it. (It's a one-line fields).
For rdist, it says BSD, tho.
Hrmm...
I've been fairly amused at arguments claiming absence of freedom in the presence of restrictions. The question is much subtler than that. If you live in the United States, for example, you are a free person. Free to do whatever you like, right? No, there are restrictions, because without those restrictions you would not be free. Paradoxical, yes. But you are not free to rape or pillage or plunder under American law simply because you are taking away another person's freedoms. And the goal of freedom in this case has ultimately succeeded by making restrictions.
Those who see restrictions as the antithesis of freedom should devote a little more thought to the subject.
Such is the case here, in pretty much the same form.
The only real question is whether you believe the redistribution, use, and modification of software is a freedom which should be granted to you; in other words, if you believe that the scholarly tradition of improving on your neighbors' ideas in a cooperative fasion is of more importance than the capitalistic idea of intellectual property.
-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice
We didn't have the term "goth" when I was in high school. It was "freak", or "headrot" (although that's a bit older than my generation -- I just turned 24). "Freak" pretty much became a greeting shouted accross the hall at each other in jest. Or maybe seriously, who cares?
When I heard the killers singled out the 'jocks' I wasn't sorry in the least for those that had been _singled out_ . Jocks are on average, wankers who simply use idiot methods to gain some measure of respect from other sheep. (oooh look at that, I'm a cold prick, so bite me).
The first thing I have to say to you is that any disrespect or singling out you get from Jocks or Teachers or Whiggers or whatever the hell they are now you deserve for that last comment. If there is one thing I can't stand, and couldn't stand then either, it's hypocracy. Letting those words out of your mouth was a statement that you refuse to let it stop with you no matter how dead wrong it is in the first place. When I was in high school, the buck stopped with me and I got the shit beat out of me for it.
That's what a freak was then.
The second thing I have to say is that you really don't seem to understand how grave this really is. Imagine yourself dead. When one imagines oneself dead, one imagines oneself laying face up in a box. One forgets to imagine the fact that one's dead.
You need to admit that this is bigger than you. Some things are. Deal with it.
Microsoft's rights? The first amendment grants us the right to bear firearms. If you kill people with guns, the government can take those rights away from that particular individual. Microsoft has not acted responsibly, and when that occurs, and the defendant is proven guilty, the government has the right to take preventative measures.
The government does not have the right to confine people, but do you disagree it should be able to jail the aforementioned gun-weilder?
I don't see how it could _not_ be within the government's rights to prevent any wrongdoings Microsoft is proven guilty of. The question is simply how to ensure the pattern of malicious business practices is broken. If the government _ever_ told me it didn't have the rights to prevent this harm to the general public of the country (indeed, the world in this case), I would then propose that such a government is useless.
Frankly, if Microsoft is proven guilty in this trial, which is a fair one, they have no rights. Any measure which would remunerate the damaged parties is acceptable.