'Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software enough to also grant me right to run it?'
Yes. The fact that you LEGALLY acquired the software is enough to grant you the right to run it. Just as you need no license to read a book, you need no license to use the software you bought.
'I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software, unless that right is explicit given to me.'
No. In fact, you could even modify and distribute said software if the authors weren't explicitly given a temporary and limited monopoly on those rights.
'If possession is enough, then I can also conclude that any software EULA is invalid, because I can just run the software without accepting the EULA.'
That is a highly debated topic and it partially hinges on a subtle point. Possession is not enough, legal possession is required. The copyright holder gets to set the terms under which you can legally acquire a copy and the most popular belief is that they can make that acquisition dependent on agreeing to the contract they include with the software.
At one point a judge ruled that they couldn't spring a EULA on the user after purchase however, there had to be an indication on the packaging that agreeing to the EULA would be required.
Recently Blizzard sued a company and won. The ruling essentially supported the idea that you didn't buy a copy of the software at all, that game CD actually still belongs to blizzard and you only have a license to utilize the CD under the terms of the EULA.
Let me explain further, the reason they both do this is because they want to maximize the profits on the research and development they have already done.
You release just enough technology to be the top contender now so that you reserve as much technology as possible to sell later. The longer you can profit on any given technology without releasing more the better.
Both AMD are decades ahead of what they are releasing. While both are researching and developing as fast as they can, its to develop products that will come far down the road. The stuff coming in the next few years is all about being faster than what the other guy is releasing.
I'd be careful about tossing around the L word if I were you.
'For the same car, the diesel engine only costs $2-4K more than the gasoline version.'
Maybe for the same car but not for the car you'd choose if you were buying a gas efficient vehicle.
'A gasoline version of that Ford, made in Europe (so that the exchange-rate-related economics would be the same) would still cost at least $20K here (compared to the $25,700 for the diesel version).'
There are no economical vehicles available here but there are economical gas vehicles. One unsubstantiated claim about a single Ford really doesn't do much for you.
A fair comparison might make you feel all fuzzy inside but those of who might actually consider buying a vehicle need a REAL WORLD comparison. A better comparison is the VW vs a Hyundai. Both have reliable and efficient vehicles but they have dramatically different price tags. Both are imports.
The difference is even more dramatic if you take a buyer with a couple neurons floating around who buys a used vehicle that is 2-4yrs old with low mileage. After all, only complete morons buy vehicles off the lot that perform no better for a boat load more money and that depreciate rapidly in the first few years. German car owners have this odd idea that their vehicles don't depreciate as much as other cars and that the result is that they fix the prices.
Also I forgot to mention the incredible butt load of cash you'll have to lay out to repair even minor problems with your VW.
Everyone I have talked to regarding the German vehicles has said that the repair and maintenance costs more than offset the longer lifespan of the vehicle.
If you want the best bang for the buck these days look to a Honda or a Hyundai. High quality, long life vehicles that get good gas mileage and hold their values. They are no more expensive to repair than their American counterparts using commodity parts.
The American counterparts are subpar in many respects and used to come with a smaller price tag. Now days they actually come with a higher price tag than the higher quality Japanese vehicles.
Incorrect. Copyright ONLY covers ideas. Actual tangible materials are covered by patents. Other forms of IP might protect an idea, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. As far as I know, the only non-idea IP is patents.
'Because you can't physically stop someone from taking your life does not mean killing is a natural right.'
Tell the rabbit and the wolf all about these laws you seem to think exist in nature. I'm sure they will find your arguments fascinating. Fortunately for them, natural law can neither be made nor destroyed by a poor argument.
'"Because you can't physically stop me" is by definition the absence of law.'
Excellent, you have conceded that in the absence of any law to the contrary that is the standard applied to all actions and behaviors. Including the use of the poem you handed me.
However, that is not the only reason copyright is not natural. What you are claiming is akin to attempting to prevent others from walking because you managed to walk fully upright before anyone else you know of. Once others see you walk upright, the expression of your idea, you can't make them forget what they saw. That idea now belongs to them just as much as it belonged to you and they have every right to express it in turn and let others see the expression.
The same is true of the Mona Lisa. I have seen the Mona Lisa only in Photographs, the painting was Leonardo's expression of his idea. The photograph is the photographers expression of the idea passed to him by the photograph. And in my mind is stored yet another copy of the image. There is natural or physical law that would give Leonardo an actual, moral, or ethical right to prevent me from sharing that idea in turn with others. Once it is in my mind it belongs to me.
The only rights you have when you think of an idea, be it a book, software, music, a drawing, or other idea that is or is not currently copyrightable is to not express the idea to others.
After all, ideas you don't express won't be transmitted to others and will be all yours... until someone else has the same idea. And someone else will, because your amazing idea, is actually only a twist on the millions of ideas you absorbed from the expressions of others throughout your life.
Most agree that the right to property is natural law. But your property is not the idea or the control of the expression of that idea. Your property is only the actual expression you created. Weave a rug, the rug is yours but if someone else sees the rug they have every natural right to make a rug with the same pattern.
'No. You're glossing over the part where copyright engages. You write a poem. It is entirely yours to control. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with the material, having created it yourself.'
Copyright is not a natural or moral thing. It exists only because of law. You do not naturally or morally own an idea. While I can do anything I like with the material I do not have the right to prevent anyone from doing what they like with it.
'"Because you can't physically stop me" is never a justification for an act in a society.'
Because you can't stop me is natural law. In a society we make laws that run contrary to natural law, such as copyright. Copyright works naturally copy to every person who hears or sees them.
'This applies to the author, in whose body is vested a full set of rights.'
False, and you can't quote rights granted by copyright to demonstrate what rights exist without that grant.
'This is correct, if the author chooses not to impose additional or different license terms. But in the case of most software, the authorization comes in the form of a conditional grant, without which, you have no rights to the work whatsoever.'
Yes, just not in the case of the GPL software we are all discussing. The GPL is not an agreement for end-users. It is an agreement for those who wish to distribute the work. The terms are for those who wish to distribute the work. It isn't a matter of end users merely not having to agree to the GPL, they aren't supposed to agree to the GPL. The GPL is something the person who distributed your copy had to agree to so that you would have a legal copy and all the natural rights that come with that copy.
Everyone is talking about when copyright becomes binding. You are simply attempting to talk around it.
I write a poem. I hand you the poem. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with that material. Copyright law however, imposes restrictions upon what you may do with it. If Copyright law does not impose a restriction upon what you would like to do with the material, then you retain your natural right to do whatever that may be.
Those rights exist without any license agreement or EULA or any kind whatsoever. If you have acquired copyrighted material of any kind legally, you have rights to use that material by default without the need for any agreement from the copyright holder whatsoever.
If that material is software, I might also offer a license agreement that relaxes the restrictions imposed upon you by copyright law such as the GPL. Simply because that is the case does not magically require that individuals who have no need of that agreement be bound to enter into it. The only time the two would be connected is if I required the user to agree to a license agreement in order to legally obtain the material in the first place (EULA). If there is no EULA, there can be no restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law because an end-user is under no obligation to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder to exercise rights they already have.
'Not only that, but as you state, no Windows user would think twice about clicking through a EULA. As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.
Displaying a license agreement is not the same thing as displaying a EULA. The problem isn't that you have to click "I agree" before you can use the program. The problem is that EULA's attempt to use a contract to allow the copyright holder to assert rights and restrictions that copyright law says rests with the user.
The reason you see no EULA's in free software is that free software relaxes copyright restrictions and certainly doesn't attempt to usurp the rights that already belong to the end-user via a EULA!
'But it should be. The EULA is at present still considered to be binding. Now that may very well change in the future due to the tenuous nature of it. Not showing the EULA when requested is really a dick move.'
I agree that if Mozilla has a EULA that EULA should be displayed if they want. That said, its having a EULA in the first place that is a really dick move. It's not about the annoyance factor, EULA's are anti-thesis to the spirit of free and open software. Something Mozilla seems to care less and less about since it went.com
'I do live in Florida - although not in an area with a lot of retirees. I'd say that in my neighborhood, which is a lot of young families, people who speak English as their first language are in the minority.'
Then you most likely fall under the Large city category. Miami or at least within 50 miles of the coast.
Those areas, along with the major cities in the US have experienced immigration at a level where pocket communities developed. This has resulted in either slower integration with mainstream american culture or an outright avoidance of american culture.
There are all types of people everywhere. But outside of those areas you will find more american's than italian-americans, irish-americans, polish-americans, etc.
'don't meet to many people who have no knowledge of'
Agreed. Most still know where their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents came from.
'or don't attribute how they are to heritage'
This is where a divergence comes in. This is not nearly as common as you think.
'Apple's own description is that the patent exists to stop legitimate competition. That just doesn't seem like the original intention of the patent system.'
Actually, preventing competition during its term is the ONLY purpose for a patent. At least from the perspective of the person filing.
'it's just that some of these churches seem keen on getting involved in politics. and for those that do, they should lose their tax exempt status.'
I hate the involvement of churches and religion in government as much as anyone I promise. But the answer is not to fail to respect the right to practice religion without fear of prosecution. Even if part of your religion requires you to attempt to control secular matters. Tax exemption of churches isn't a privilege. The IRS seriously violates constitutional law with regard to churches already.
That said, there is something of an answer. The answer is to make it a criminal offense for a politician to listen to churches. Let churches tell their congregation what they will or encourage them to vote how they will. Politicians on the other hand should be held to a strict separation from religious lobbying and from voting based upon a religious principle. The second would be hard to prove but would at least make politicians watch their step.
'Imagine being able to look up your vote on the post-election website, and see that it was counted. And how it was counted.'
That would break the system. The idea is that the voter can see the vote register on a large publicly visible display along with an incrementing running total. Maybe the last 5 or 10 show, just enough that the voter will be able to confirm his vote before it disappears. Once it disappears the system only stores the vote and not the number associated with it, or only stores the number for a short period of time in case the voter noticed a problem.
There is no black box voodoo, any member of the public can stand and watch the tally from the start to the finish of the election on the big screen (and snap pictures, etc) and can make sure the official numbers reported match. Any individual can watch their own vote be added and see that it is added correctly right then.
The system is fully transparent, at no point does anyone need to trust the voting machine, the storage cards, the election staff, or the tally system.
One thing I would add is that the voter should be allowed and required to put their receipt into a shredder on their way out. Even someone videotaping the public display board couldn't go back and confirm how they voted. That way no votes could be sold.
Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the major media outlets. Buried on a Tech news site that probably gets less traffic than Slashdot itself wasn't what I had in mind.
Re:Sucked in....
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Thats the new secretary, it might be worth exploring what else she sucks in.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
'Einstein is the last physicist that I remember actually did something productive with his theories. But there was also a big war going on and the us was OK to fund the ultimate weapon. As Nuclear Weapons have reached the good enough stage that we don't need anything more powerful, as our current set is scary enough.'
What did Einstein do with his theories then? He didn't build the atomic bomb if that is what you are suggesting.
'Yeah, the machines are delivered the day before election day to the polling places (firehalls, schools, etc) by moving companies. Election Judges swear oaths enforceable under rule of law. Moving companies or anyone else who happens to wander in to where the machines have been left, well, no (but you don't have to swear an oath to be found guilty of tampering with election materials, of course).'
Sounds like gun laws. Those who are doing criminal acts don't especially care how many laws there are against what they are doing. Especially when the guy they are rigging the election for has the power to pardon.
'The embedded systems model I have in mind is more like what runs your microwave, your digitally-enhanced stove, your car's transmission, countless other devices.'
And my DVD player, etc. Yes, all buggy and DEFINITELY not secure.
'Publish the code.'
That doesn't do any good if there is no way to patch the code.
Even if your voting machine were unhackable, you could hack the results on the usb key or alter them at the system that tallies the votes. Refer to the post you just responded to for a system which is transparent enough that it can't be compromised.
'It uses its advertising platform (one that is also considered a benchmark of the online advertising industry) to sell space on its own web properties.'
It's primary web property being the search engine that is the reason anyone has ever heard of google advertising or its other web properties. None of google's services would exist or be popular if they didn't piggy back off the search.
'Just because Google's Search is the defacto standard doesn't mean it can't use it any way it chooses.'
Actually it does. That's what anti-trust is. You are allowed to have a monopoly, you are NOT allowed to utilize that monopoly to block competition or leverage it to gain market share in other markets. I really can't say I disagree entirely, if a company already has a monopoly I can't see any argument that would justify not being content with what they already have.
That said, I still disagree that Google has a monopoly in the first place. While you couldn't compete with Google out of a garage (times have changed from when Google started) you could compete with some Venture Capital and it could be done for thousands rather than millions or billions with the right people.
'Maybe because campaigns and parties compete against *each other*?'
You actually believe that nonsense? I didn't realize there were still people naive enough to believe that it mattered which of the candidates you vote for.
Slashdot Mirror
'Or is the fact that I am in possession of the software enough to also grant me right to run it?'
Yes. The fact that you LEGALLY acquired the software is enough to grant you the right to run it. Just as you need no license to read a book, you need no license to use the software you bought.
'I mean I don't think I have any right to use any software, unless that right is explicit given to me.'
No. In fact, you could even modify and distribute said software if the authors weren't explicitly given a temporary and limited monopoly on those rights.
'If possession is enough, then I can also conclude that any software EULA is invalid, because I can just run the software without accepting the EULA.'
That is a highly debated topic and it partially hinges on a subtle point. Possession is not enough, legal possession is required. The copyright holder gets to set the terms under which you can legally acquire a copy and the most popular belief is that they can make that acquisition dependent on agreeing to the contract they include with the software.
At one point a judge ruled that they couldn't spring a EULA on the user after purchase however, there had to be an indication on the packaging that agreeing to the EULA would be required.
Recently Blizzard sued a company and won. The ruling essentially supported the idea that you didn't buy a copy of the software at all, that game CD actually still belongs to blizzard and you only have a license to utilize the CD under the terms of the EULA.
'As have been said before in the case of GPL you are free to not accept the license'
Right. However that is not true of the EULA they are now saying they no longer wish to call a EULA.
Let me explain further, the reason they both do this is because they want to maximize the profits on the research and development they have already done.
You release just enough technology to be the top contender now so that you reserve as much technology as possible to sell later. The longer you can profit on any given technology without releasing more the better.
Both AMD are decades ahead of what they are releasing. While both are researching and developing as fast as they can, its to develop products that will come far down the road. The stuff coming in the next few years is all about being faster than what the other guy is releasing.
Good on topic information does not a troll make. Sorry german car owning mod.
'That's a lie.'
I'd be careful about tossing around the L word if I were you.
'For the same car, the diesel engine only costs $2-4K more than the gasoline version.'
Maybe for the same car but not for the car you'd choose if you were buying a gas efficient vehicle.
'A gasoline version of that Ford, made in Europe (so that the exchange-rate-related economics would be the same) would still cost at least $20K here (compared to the $25,700 for the diesel version).'
There are no economical vehicles available here but there are economical gas vehicles. One unsubstantiated claim about a single Ford really doesn't do much for you.
A fair comparison might make you feel all fuzzy inside but those of who might actually consider buying a vehicle need a REAL WORLD comparison. A better comparison is the VW vs a Hyundai. Both have reliable and efficient vehicles but they have dramatically different price tags. Both are imports.
The difference is even more dramatic if you take a buyer with a couple neurons floating around who buys a used vehicle that is 2-4yrs old with low mileage. After all, only complete morons buy vehicles off the lot that perform no better for a boat load more money and that depreciate rapidly in the first few years. German car owners have this odd idea that their vehicles don't depreciate as much as other cars and that the result is that they fix the prices.
Also I forgot to mention the incredible butt load of cash you'll have to lay out to repair even minor problems with your VW.
Everyone I have talked to regarding the German vehicles has said that the repair and maintenance costs more than offset the longer lifespan of the vehicle.
If you want the best bang for the buck these days look to a Honda or a Hyundai. High quality, long life vehicles that get good gas mileage and hold their values. They are no more expensive to repair than their American counterparts using commodity parts.
The American counterparts are subpar in many respects and used to come with a smaller price tag. Now days they actually come with a higher price tag than the higher quality Japanese vehicles.
'Who cares if it costs more per gallon if the increase in mileage more than offsets the increase in cost?'
Because the 65mpg diesel will run you $20k+ the 30mpg gas car will run about $8k+. Most of us simply don't use that much gas.
'Copyright doesn't cover ideas.'
Incorrect. Copyright ONLY covers ideas. Actual tangible materials are covered by patents. Other forms of IP might protect an idea, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. As far as I know, the only non-idea IP is patents.
'Because you can't physically stop someone from taking your life does not mean killing is a natural right.'
Tell the rabbit and the wolf all about these laws you seem to think exist in nature. I'm sure they will find your arguments fascinating. Fortunately for them, natural law can neither be made nor destroyed by a poor argument.
'"Because you can't physically stop me" is by definition the absence of law.'
Excellent, you have conceded that in the absence of any law to the contrary that is the standard applied to all actions and behaviors. Including the use of the poem you handed me.
However, that is not the only reason copyright is not natural. What you are claiming is akin to attempting to prevent others from walking because you managed to walk fully upright before anyone else you know of. Once others see you walk upright, the expression of your idea, you can't make them forget what they saw. That idea now belongs to them just as much as it belonged to you and they have every right to express it in turn and let others see the expression.
The same is true of the Mona Lisa. I have seen the Mona Lisa only in Photographs, the painting was Leonardo's expression of his idea. The photograph is the photographers expression of the idea passed to him by the photograph. And in my mind is stored yet another copy of the image. There is natural or physical law that would give Leonardo an actual, moral, or ethical right to prevent me from sharing that idea in turn with others. Once it is in my mind it belongs to me.
The only rights you have when you think of an idea, be it a book, software, music, a drawing, or other idea that is or is not currently copyrightable is to not express the idea to others.
After all, ideas you don't express won't be transmitted to others and will be all yours... until someone else has the same idea. And someone else will, because your amazing idea, is actually only a twist on the millions of ideas you absorbed from the expressions of others throughout your life.
Most agree that the right to property is natural law. But your property is not the idea or the control of the expression of that idea. Your property is only the actual expression you created. Weave a rug, the rug is yours but if someone else sees the rug they have every natural right to make a rug with the same pattern.
'No. You're glossing over the part where copyright engages. You write a poem. It is entirely yours to control. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with the material, having created it yourself.'
Copyright is not a natural or moral thing. It exists only because of law. You do not naturally or morally own an idea. While I can do anything I like with the material I do not have the right to prevent anyone from doing what they like with it.
'"Because you can't physically stop me" is never a justification for an act in a society.'
Because you can't stop me is natural law. In a society we make laws that run contrary to natural law, such as copyright. Copyright works naturally copy to every person who hears or sees them.
'This applies to the author, in whose body is vested a full set of rights.'
False, and you can't quote rights granted by copyright to demonstrate what rights exist without that grant.
'This is correct, if the author chooses not to impose additional or different license terms. But in the case of most software, the authorization comes in the form of a conditional grant, without which, you have no rights to the work whatsoever.'
Yes, just not in the case of the GPL software we are all discussing. The GPL is not an agreement for end-users. It is an agreement for those who wish to distribute the work. The terms are for those who wish to distribute the work. It isn't a matter of end users merely not having to agree to the GPL, they aren't supposed to agree to the GPL. The GPL is something the person who distributed your copy had to agree to so that you would have a legal copy and all the natural rights that come with that copy.
Everyone is talking about when copyright becomes binding. You are simply attempting to talk around it.
I write a poem. I hand you the poem. By default, there are no natural or moral restrictions on what you can do with that material. Copyright law however, imposes restrictions upon what you may do with it. If Copyright law does not impose a restriction upon what you would like to do with the material, then you retain your natural right to do whatever that may be.
Those rights exist without any license agreement or EULA or any kind whatsoever. If you have acquired copyrighted material of any kind legally, you have rights to use that material by default without the need for any agreement from the copyright holder whatsoever.
If that material is software, I might also offer a license agreement that relaxes the restrictions imposed upon you by copyright law such as the GPL. Simply because that is the case does not magically require that individuals who have no need of that agreement be bound to enter into it. The only time the two would be connected is if I required the user to agree to a license agreement in order to legally obtain the material in the first place (EULA). If there is no EULA, there can be no restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law because an end-user is under no obligation to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder to exercise rights they already have.
'Not only that, but as you state, no Windows user would think twice about clicking through a EULA. As a long time Ubuntu user, I myself never realized until today that there are no EULAs present.
Displaying a license agreement is not the same thing as displaying a EULA. The problem isn't that you have to click "I agree" before you can use the program. The problem is that EULA's attempt to use a contract to allow the copyright holder to assert rights and restrictions that copyright law says rests with the user.
The reason you see no EULA's in free software is that free software relaxes copyright restrictions and certainly doesn't attempt to usurp the rights that already belong to the end-user via a EULA!
'But it should be. The EULA is at present still considered to be binding. Now that may very well change in the future due to the tenuous nature of it. Not showing the EULA when requested is really a dick move.'
I agree that if Mozilla has a EULA that EULA should be displayed if they want. That said, its having a EULA in the first place that is a really dick move. It's not about the annoyance factor, EULA's are anti-thesis to the spirit of free and open software. Something Mozilla seems to care less and less about since it went .com
'I do live in Florida - although not in an area with a lot of retirees. I'd say that in my neighborhood, which is a lot of young families, people who speak English as their first language are in the minority.'
Then you most likely fall under the Large city category. Miami or at least within 50 miles of the coast.
Those areas, along with the major cities in the US have experienced immigration at a level where pocket communities developed. This has resulted in either slower integration with mainstream american culture or an outright avoidance of american culture.
There are all types of people everywhere. But outside of those areas you will find more american's than italian-americans, irish-americans, polish-americans, etc.
'don't meet to many people who have no knowledge of'
Agreed. Most still know where their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents came from.
'or don't attribute how they are to heritage'
This is where a divergence comes in. This is not nearly as common as you think.
'and most people I meet still identify on some level with their ancestry'
Let me take a stab in the dark. You either live in a large city or somewhere retirees from a large city flock (such as New York, or Florida).
Am I right?
'Apple's own description is that the patent exists to stop legitimate competition. That just doesn't seem like the original intention of the patent system.'
Actually, preventing competition during its term is the ONLY purpose for a patent. At least from the perspective of the person filing.
'it's just that some of these churches seem keen on getting involved in politics. and for those that do, they should lose their tax exempt status.'
I hate the involvement of churches and religion in government as much as anyone I promise. But the answer is not to fail to respect the right to practice religion without fear of prosecution. Even if part of your religion requires you to attempt to control secular matters. Tax exemption of churches isn't a privilege. The IRS seriously violates constitutional law with regard to churches already.
That said, there is something of an answer. The answer is to make it a criminal offense for a politician to listen to churches. Let churches tell their congregation what they will or encourage them to vote how they will. Politicians on the other hand should be held to a strict separation from religious lobbying and from voting based upon a religious principle. The second would be hard to prove but would at least make politicians watch their step.
'Imagine being able to look up your vote on the post-election website, and see that it was counted. And how it was counted.'
That would break the system. The idea is that the voter can see the vote register on a large publicly visible display along with an incrementing running total. Maybe the last 5 or 10 show, just enough that the voter will be able to confirm his vote before it disappears. Once it disappears the system only stores the vote and not the number associated with it, or only stores the number for a short period of time in case the voter noticed a problem.
There is no black box voodoo, any member of the public can stand and watch the tally from the start to the finish of the election on the big screen (and snap pictures, etc) and can make sure the official numbers reported match. Any individual can watch their own vote be added and see that it is added correctly right then.
The system is fully transparent, at no point does anyone need to trust the voting machine, the storage cards, the election staff, or the tally system.
One thing I would add is that the voter should be allowed and required to put their receipt into a shredder on their way out. Even someone videotaping the public display board couldn't go back and confirm how they voted. That way no votes could be sold.
Sorry, I thought the discussion was about the major media outlets. Buried on a Tech news site that probably gets less traffic than Slashdot itself wasn't what I had in mind.
Thats the new secretary, it might be worth exploring what else she sucks in.
'Einstein is the last physicist that I remember actually did something productive with his theories. But there was also a big war going on and the us was OK to fund the ultimate weapon. As Nuclear Weapons have reached the good enough stage that we don't need anything more powerful, as our current set is scary enough.'
What did Einstein do with his theories then? He didn't build the atomic bomb if that is what you are suggesting.
'Yeah, the machines are delivered the day before election day to the polling places (firehalls, schools, etc) by moving companies. Election Judges swear oaths enforceable under rule of law. Moving companies or anyone else who happens to wander in to where the machines have been left, well, no (but you don't have to swear an oath to be found guilty of tampering with election materials, of course).'
Sounds like gun laws. Those who are doing criminal acts don't especially care how many laws there are against what they are doing. Especially when the guy they are rigging the election for has the power to pardon.
'The embedded systems model I have in mind is more like what runs your microwave, your digitally-enhanced stove, your car's transmission, countless other devices.'
And my DVD player, etc. Yes, all buggy and DEFINITELY not secure.
'Publish the code.'
That doesn't do any good if there is no way to patch the code.
Even if your voting machine were unhackable, you could hack the results on the usb key or alter them at the system that tallies the votes. Refer to the post you just responded to for a system which is transparent enough that it can't be compromised.
'It uses its advertising platform (one that is also considered a benchmark of the online advertising industry) to sell space on its own web properties.'
It's primary web property being the search engine that is the reason anyone has ever heard of google advertising or its other web properties. None of google's services would exist or be popular if they didn't piggy back off the search.
'Just because Google's Search is the defacto standard doesn't mean it can't use it any way it chooses.'
Actually it does. That's what anti-trust is. You are allowed to have a monopoly, you are NOT allowed to utilize that monopoly to block competition or leverage it to gain market share in other markets. I really can't say I disagree entirely, if a company already has a monopoly I can't see any argument that would justify not being content with what they already have.
That said, I still disagree that Google has a monopoly in the first place. While you couldn't compete with Google out of a garage (times have changed from when Google started) you could compete with some Venture Capital and it could be done for thousands rather than millions or billions with the right people.
'Maybe because campaigns and parties compete against *each other*?'
You actually believe that nonsense? I didn't realize there were still people naive enough to believe that it mattered which of the candidates you vote for.