The point is that paper can be verifyed by anyone. Volunteers can follow the ballots and witness tampering where they think there is such a risk. The PCB thing might be slightly better than the current system, but that depends on what the circuits would be doing exactly. Incrementing electronic counters? Control a robot that puts beans in jars? Also it's kindof hard by looking at a PCB to determine that it hasn't been tampered with. I have printed circuits boards before and all the chips and transistors kinda look the same. Any amount of complexity that would let it deal with everything on a ballot would make it impossible to determine by visual inspection.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution and the fact that printed recieps are so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious. What honest and experienced company would chose anything but the easy and elegant solution of a printout considering that it is already implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud?
No amount of tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if the company had the best intentions in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within what I'm sure are millions of lines? This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have plenty programming experience and I can tell you that it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happened ONLY on the day of the election so that previous and following tests would show no bias.
Consider,
If you were a company and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure each and everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or, 2) add a small printer similar or identical to the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printers that are part of *every* cash register. These receips would then be hand veryfied by each voter and then put in a ballot box for future verification and recounts.
Which option do you think is less expensive? What rational is there for a company to chose option one?
Obviously adding receips to the paper pile is a lot easyer for witnesses to catch than to find a line of code in millions companies won't even let you see. With paper, people can actually watch the process with their own eyes. It's not so easy with bits on hard drives or memory cards. It's not a "tie" by any means.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution and the fact that printed receips are so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious.
What honest and experienced company would chose anything but the easy and elegant solution of a printout considering that it is already implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if the company had the best intentions in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within what I'm sure are millions of lines? This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have plenty programming experience and I can tell you that it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happened ONLY on the day of the election so that previous and following tests would show no bias.
Consider,
If you were a company and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure each and everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
2) add a small printer similar or identical to the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printers that are part of *every* cash register. These receips would then be hand veryfied by each voter and then put in a ballot box for future verification and recounts.
Which option do you think is less expensive? What rational is there for a company to chose option one?
I assume you mean the Kurd slaughterings. You speak as if the US hadn't sanctioned the use of chemical weapons while ignoring the fact that it was used on Iraqis by Saddam in 1983 just before, and I'm sure you have seen the picture, Rumsfeld and Saddam shook hands.
"The U.S.[...]had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Unless of course you are suggesting that after its done with Iraq the US should attacks itself for being an accomplice of Saddam.
That's ridiculous within slashdot and even more so in the general american population.
between:
"Communism is stupid and doesn't work"
"Jesus is a figment of nonexistant god's imagination"
The second one will offend more. I'll eat Bush's brown stained holy underpants if you can show there are more communists than christians on/.
Almost no one will say they believe in strict moral relativism, (the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.)
Its funny though, how to ones who decry it are usually the ones who use it the most:
"For example, claiming that slaughtering civilians is unconscionable when Saddam Hussein does it, but is in the service of a greater good when we do it, is a fine example of moral relativism.
one astute commentator on Kuro5hin put it:
From the repugnant agenda of the Evangelical Christians (who see any social progress as a delay for their beloved Second Coming) to the blatant hypocrisy of attacking sexual misconduct (unless it is Newt Gingrich), degenerate gambling (unless it is Bill Bennett), government expansion and increased spending (unless it is done by G.W. Bush), drug use (unless it is done by Rush Limbaugh), the lies of the government (unless it is about a country the Republicans want to invade), treason (unless it is perpetrated by Robert Novak), and providing aid and comfort to the enemy (unless it done by Geraldo Riveria on FOX news)." -shamelessly ripped of from mykeru.com
True about Marxism, and true about some forms of environmentalism. But that is such a straw man argument. Almost no one promotes or even acknowledges Marxism. Almost no one try to legislate anything but the most pragmatic environmentalist policies that internalise market failures and have a clearly positive benefit/cost ratio.
Your examples are way out of the mainstream. Mine aren't.
Anti-abortion ideas along with other values that are mostly based on religion can't really be debated because they are based on dogma and not on reality or reason. Although anti-abortionists sometimes try to tie their ideas with reality it's a futile excersise and their arguments always end up being about faith and endoctrinated religious beliefs.
This is crucial to understand why there has been such a polarisation in americans. People are too ignorant to realise that debating such ideas is impossible and these impossible debates lead to very high frustration about the other side. When you combine this with the fact that this administration has brought so many issues that stem from religious beliefs, you get a very angry ans frustrated nation.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution and the fact that it is so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative which was chosen so suspicious.
What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution considering that it is already implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have programmed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happened ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests would show no bias. A paper trail is necessary!
Consider,
If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
2) add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.
The fact that a paper trail is such an obvious solution and that it is so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative used so suspicious.
What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution that is currently implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? Hell, they might even had to pay to remove that standard feature from the hardware. No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have programmed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happens ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests show no bias. A paper trail is necessary!
Consider,
If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
2) add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.
Which option do you think is less expensive?
What would be the motivation for even trying the first option other than you _want_ to leave doors open?
It's time America realizes it. The new breed of so called "conservatives" (read religious fanatics in disguise) are the enemy. They are the ones fuelling terrorism around the world which at any given time risks coming back to the US. You'll like this selection of fine literature:
I should have previewed. Forgot to put the Plain Old Text option.
Furthurmore
Consider,
If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
Hire an expensive team of delveloppers responsable for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.
Which option do you think is less expensive?
What would be the motivation for even trying the first option other than you _want_ to leave doors open?
Amen
The fact that this is such an obvious solution and that it is so trivial to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious.
What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution you describe if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud???
No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be sure that a partisant lone coder did not sneake a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer etc.
I have programed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement the "bug" so that it happens ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests show no bias.
a paper trail is necessary!
Of course hes going there to save money, but the reason he can do that is that indians with the same level of education are poor and in need hence they are willing to work for less. They are in need of money and deserve these jobs much more than the americans. In a free market, jobs tend to go to the poorest regions which just serve to make it richer thus balancing wealth distribution. If it wasn't for that mechanism, the poor would never get a chance.
And with the money you will save next time you buy MS products made in India or from the capital gain generated by the MS stocks you own, you can give to US charity or spend in local businesses to create jobs.
Re:no laughing matter (and how to avoid it)
on
Merck's Deleted Data
·
· Score: 1
So you admit that you work at a place that uses illegal practices?
Someone should really do a survey of documents with TrackChanges found on company web sites. It could give us emperical data about the standard of ethics in corporations.
You know, its not illegal to cross the border to the south and get your health care there. You have both options in Canada, wait and get it for free or pay for a US specialist.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that paper can be verifyed by anyone. Volunteers can follow the ballots and witness tampering where they think there is such a risk. The PCB thing might be slightly better than the current system, but that depends on what the circuits would be doing exactly. Incrementing electronic counters? Control a robot that puts beans in jars? Also it's kindof hard by looking at a PCB to determine that it hasn't been tampered with. I have printed circuits boards before and all the chips and transistors kinda look the same. Any amount of complexity that would let it deal with everything on a ballot would make it impossible to determine by visual inspection.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution and the fact that printed recieps are so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious. What honest and experienced company would chose anything but the easy and elegant solution of a printout considering that it is already implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud?
No amount of tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if the company had the best intentions in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within what I'm sure are millions of lines? This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have plenty programming experience and I can tell you that it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happened ONLY on the day of the election so that previous and following tests would show no bias.
Consider,
If you were a company and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure each and everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or, 2) add a small printer similar or identical to the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printers that are part of *every* cash register. These receips would then be hand veryfied by each voter and then put in a ballot box for future verification and recounts.
Which option do you think is less expensive? What rational is there for a company to chose option one?
Obviously adding receips to the paper pile is a lot easyer for witnesses to catch than to find a line of code in millions companies won't even let you see. With paper, people can actually watch the process with their own eyes. It's not so easy with bits on hard drives or memory cards. It's not a "tie" by any means.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution and the fact that printed receips are so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious. What honest and experienced company would chose anything but the easy and elegant solution of a printout considering that it is already implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if the company had the best intentions in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within what I'm sure are millions of lines? This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have plenty programming experience and I can tell you that it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happened ONLY on the day of the election so that previous and following tests would show no bias. Consider, If you were a company and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options: 1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure each and everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering. Or, 2) add a small printer similar or identical to the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printers that are part of *every* cash register. These receips would then be hand veryfied by each voter and then put in a ballot box for future verification and recounts. Which option do you think is less expensive? What rational is there for a company to chose option one?
Yeah its really time people rebel agains the big religions which are nothing but cults of death and violence. Let's see what we can find in the bible:
l #012304
r t.html
o mmanded-by-god/
Gen.7:21-22
God drowns all children (except for Noah's) in a flood.
Gen.22:2
God tells Abraham to kill his son for a burnt offering.
Ex.12:30
God murders the Egyptian firstborn children.
Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21
Children who are disobedient, or who curse or strike their parents are to be killed.
Dt.20:16, Jos.10:40
God ordered the Israelites to kill all of the children in the cities that they invaded.
2 Sam.12:15, 18
To punish David for having Uriah killed, God kills David's newborn son.
2 Kg.2:23-24
God sends bears to kill 42 little boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head.
Jer.19:9
God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.
Ps.135:8, 136:10
God is praised for slaughtering little babies.
Ps.137:9
Happiness is smashing your little children against rocks.
Ezek.5:10
God will cause fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers.
Hos.9:16
God assures Hosea that he will "slay even the beloved fruit of the womb."
Hos.13:16
God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and "their women with child shall be ripped up."
Zech.13:3
A prophet must be killed by his own parents by "thrusting him through when he prophesieth."
--http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0118_0124.htm
more here:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/sho
and here
http://www.goatstar.org/atrocities-committed-or-c
I assume you mean the Kurd slaughterings. You speak as if the US hadn't sanctioned the use of chemical weapons while ignoring the fact that it was used on Iraqis by Saddam in 1983 just before, and I'm sure you have seen the picture, Rumsfeld and Saddam shook hands. "The U.S.[...]had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ Unless of course you are suggesting that after its done with Iraq the US should attacks itself for being an accomplice of Saddam.
That's ridiculous within slashdot and even more so in the general american population. between: "Communism is stupid and doesn't work" "Jesus is a figment of nonexistant god's imagination" The second one will offend more. I'll eat Bush's brown stained holy underpants if you can show there are more communists than christians on /.
Almost no one will say they believe in strict moral relativism, (the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references.)
Its funny though, how to ones who decry it are usually the ones who use it the most:
"For example, claiming that slaughtering civilians is unconscionable when Saddam Hussein does it, but is in the service of a greater good when we do it, is a fine example of moral relativism.
one astute commentator on Kuro5hin put it:
From the repugnant agenda of the Evangelical Christians (who see any social progress as a delay for their beloved Second Coming) to the blatant hypocrisy of attacking sexual misconduct (unless it is Newt Gingrich), degenerate gambling (unless it is Bill Bennett), government expansion and increased spending (unless it is done by G.W. Bush), drug use (unless it is done by Rush Limbaugh), the lies of the government (unless it is about a country the Republicans want to invade), treason (unless it is perpetrated by Robert Novak), and providing aid and comfort to the enemy (unless it done by Geraldo Riveria on FOX news)." -shamelessly ripped of from mykeru.com
hehe that reminds me: think of the children!
True about Marxism, and true about some forms of environmentalism. But that is such a straw man argument. Almost no one promotes or even acknowledges Marxism. Almost no one try to legislate anything but the most pragmatic environmentalist policies that internalise market failures and have a clearly positive benefit /cost ratio.
Your examples are way out of the mainstream. Mine aren't.
Hehe that's because the bible such an inconsistant book. It says one thing and then in the next paragraph it says the opposite.
Anti-abortion ideas along with other values that are mostly based on religion can't really be debated because they are based on dogma and not on reality or reason. Although anti-abortionists sometimes try to tie their ideas with reality it's a futile excersise and their arguments always end up being about faith and endoctrinated religious beliefs.
This is crucial to understand why there has been such a polarisation in americans. People are too ignorant to realise that debating such ideas is impossible and these impossible debates lead to very high frustration about the other side. When you combine this with the fact that this administration has brought so many issues that stem from religious beliefs, you get a very angry ans frustrated nation.
The fact that using a printed balot as a paper trail is such an obvious solution and the fact that it is so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative which was chosen so suspicious.
What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution considering that it is already implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have programmed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happened ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests would show no bias. A paper trail is necessary!
Consider,
If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
2) add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.
Which option do you think is less expensive?
The fact that a paper trail is such an obvious solution and that it is so easy to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative used so suspicious.
What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution that is currently implemented on every ATM and all cash registers if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud? Hell, they might even had to pay to remove that standard feature from the hardware. No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be certain that a lone partisan coder wouldn't sneak a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer, the flash memory files etc. etc. etc. I have programmed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement this "bug" so that it happens ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests show no bias. A paper trail is necessary!
Consider,
If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
1)Hire an expensive team of developers responsible for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
2) add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.
Which option do you think is less expensive?
What would be the motivation for even trying the first option other than you _want_ to leave doors open?
It's time America realizes it. The new breed of so called "conservatives" (read religious fanatics in disguise) are the enemy. They are the ones fuelling terrorism around the world which at any given time risks coming back to the US. You'll like this selection of fine literature:
0 126041 007040 323040 418040 421040 415040 604040 526040 91604
_ are_bl.htm
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0125_0131.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_1017_1023.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0321_0327.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0418_0424.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0418_0424.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0411_0417.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0530_0605.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0523_0529.html#
http://www.mykeru.com/weekly/2004_0912_0918.html#
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2006/01/the_dems
I should have previewed. Forgot to put the Plain Old Text option.
Furthurmore
Consider,
If you were Diebold and you were designing a voting machine you would have two options:
Hire an expensive team of delveloppers responsable for surveying all the code components of your system to make sure everyone one of them are 100% secure and bug free. A feat that no leading software company (say MS) has succeded in doing for their own software even after decades and millions of man-hours of debugging and re-engineering.
Or,
add a small printer similar or identical the ones used for printing lotto tickets or even those good old receipt printer that are part of *every* cash registers.
Which option do you think is less expensive?
What would be the motivation for even trying the first option other than you _want_ to leave doors open?
Amen The fact that this is such an obvious solution and that it is so trivial to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious. What honest and experienced company would chose anything but that easy and elegant solution you describe if not because they want to open the possibility to election fraud??? No amount of electronic tweaking will make the system secure. There is always a weak link. Even if Diebold had the best intention in the world, how can they be sure that a partisant lone coder did not sneake a line of code within I'm sure what are millions of lines, converting say 5% of the votes. This could be done at any point in the chain of programs that handle the votes; from the user interface, to the final tally, through the individual machine databases, the talying computer etc. I have programed plenty and I can tell you that, it would be very easy to implement the "bug" so that it happens ONLY on the day of the election and previous and following tests show no bias. a paper trail is necessary!
I'm not advocating free market regonomics. Im just saying, in this case, the india deserves it.
Of course hes going there to save money, but the reason he can do that is that indians with the same level of education are poor and in need hence they are willing to work for less. They are in need of money and deserve these jobs much more than the americans. In a free market, jobs tend to go to the poorest regions which just serve to make it richer thus balancing wealth distribution. If it wasn't for that mechanism, the poor would never get a chance. And with the money you will save next time you buy MS products made in India or from the capital gain generated by the MS stocks you own, you can give to US charity or spend in local businesses to create jobs.
So you admit that you work at a place that uses illegal practices? Someone should really do a survey of documents with TrackChanges found on company web sites. It could give us emperical data about the standard of ethics in corporations.
"Go astroturf elsewhere." are you implying he was hired by microsoft?
You actually spend precious time reading EULAs?
No it should be: In Soviet Russia they don't call you and let you eat your F$%?& dinner in peace...err You
You know, its not illegal to cross the border to the south and get your health care there. You have both options in Canada, wait and get it for free or pay for a US specialist.
I think someone today accidently but appropriately coined the term Hypocracy when trying to write hypocrisy.