Diebold spokesman David Bear said by phone that no one would risk manipulating votes in an election because it's against the law and carries a heavy penalty.
WTF?!? Murder is against the law and carries a heavy penalty and people still do it, numbnuts.
Diebold is saying essentially what the Bush administration and, really, all NeoCons. "Trust us, we'll do what's right. Why shouldn't you trust us? We're respected people in power."
Hell, that was an argument a White House attorney made in front of the Supreme Court! When asked whether a chief executive could falsify documents he said something to the effect of "Yes, but *this* chief executive wouldn't do that."
Why not create a system with ways to keep people from doing things that we don't like, instead of *trusting* people you *don't know* to do the right thing. We could call it something like "checks and balances."
The Scientific American article I posted about says that paper ballots are even more subject to jamming than punch card ballots. And while they're human readable, they take much longer to count than electronic ballots.
Their solution: A dual-method system. First, the person fills out a card with their choices. Then they put the card into a slot which reads it, so they get a chance to review their choices. If they want to make changes, the old ballot is stamped with "Void" and shredded, and a new one pops out, ready to use. If they accept the choices, the ballot is placed in a bin *and* recorded electronically.
Because we've been together for 7 years and want a really nice wedding and honeymoon.
And we make enough to pay off all of our debt (except her student loans) in six months. We just didn't have the money *right now* like we were expecting. It took a little longer than estimated to find good paying jobs.
So I will soon be making enough money to "waste" (my fiancee's term for "spend on computer stuff"). That is, if I let her "waste" it too. ("Waste" being my term for spending it on clothes and decorative items.)
To be fair, she did buy me a Powerbook as a wedding present.
Where the heck do you people get the money to drop $1000 on a monitor? I work, make okay money, and don't have the money to buy lunch every day, let alone drop a grand on a monitor.
Of course, I just got a $7,000 loan for a friggin' wedding.
Restrictions like that are great ways to teach your kid valuable job skills.
My parents locked me out of the Internet once, so I installed a keytracker on the computer, got their password, and got back on the net, always careful to wipe my tracks clean after each session.
I'd love a 40 GB iPod because I could also use it as a backup HD. There are several utilities out there that will let you sync files to the iPod automagically. Very handy in the event of a HD crash like the one I experienced two weeks ago.
Spammers fight back with artificially intelligent spam sending bots. They decide it's really the humans who are at fault, and decide to turn us all into vegetables living in clear plastic pods, hooked up to a totally fake world through a hole in the back of our skull.
Overheard in Yahoo's most recent marketing meeting:
"We need to synergize our core competencies so we should leverage our intellectual property to provide best-of-breed services for this on demand e-economy."
"Really Jim? What the hell does that mean?"
"Download services are hothothot. We should start one."
You don't have to know how a computer works to be safe, just like you don't need to know about blinker fluid to drive a car, but you should still follow at a safe distance, not drive like a maniac, and use your turn signals.
There's being an auto mechanic, and then there's being a safe driver. The same thing goes with computers.
Of course, having just came in the door from a death-defying commute home, I can attest that if there were as many safe computer users as there were safe drivers the problem would be much worse than it is.
I only have faith in people who meet two categories.: 1) I know them well and they have earned my trust or 2) I know they have a vested interest in not screwing me over. I have been burned too many times to inherently trust people I don't know.
Goodness can come two ways. First, it can come from actually caring about people. Most small communities and families do this. Second, it can come from the fact that doing ill will get your ass fined, jailed, shot.
Case in point: Why did the tobacco companies hide the fact that cigarettes were not only addictive, but also deadly? Because they were nice people? Hell no. They didn't want to see their profits drop. Now the Feds want $280 billion dollars from them, and I totally agree with it.
I know that I'm a man. I trust my own judgement, but when you see people consistently exercising very, very poor judgement you tend to lose faith in anyone you don't know well. Or even people you do know well.
The drum was inside the greenhouse, so it didn't ever get below freezing. Not only were the back wall and floor of the greenhouse made of concrete (which helped to store the heat of the sun to radiate it into the house at night), but my dad also put heat in the greenhouse so my mom's tomatoes, peppers and spices didn't get too cold.
Oh, and even with electric heat we only spent $300 per year for heat and hot water. We supplimented the electric heat with a woodstove that ran off of fast-growing birch trees in the backyard, so it was a closed-carbon cycle.
So we have cheap heat, cheap hot water, and fresh veggies all year round.
The idea that environmentalism means shivering in the dark or handing over huge sum of money ignores our most important asset: Brains.
>he's not for any gun restriction
Hmm, neither is the constitution. What's your point?
So we should be able to buy RPGs and Kalashnikovs and carry them around the streets? What about small nuclear devices? They're all arms, and there's no distinction in the Constitution as to what kind of arms.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF?!? Murder is against the law and carries a heavy penalty and people still do it, numbnuts.
Diebold is saying essentially what the Bush administration and, really, all NeoCons. "Trust us, we'll do what's right. Why shouldn't you trust us? We're respected people in power."
Hell, that was an argument a White House attorney made in front of the Supreme Court! When asked whether a chief executive could falsify documents he said something to the effect of "Yes, but *this* chief executive wouldn't do that."
Why not create a system with ways to keep people from doing things that we don't like, instead of *trusting* people you *don't know* to do the right thing. We could call it something like "checks and balances."
Their solution: A dual-method system. First, the person fills out a card with their choices. Then they put the card into a slot which reads it, so they get a chance to review their choices. If they want to make changes, the old ballot is stamped with "Void" and shredded, and a new one pops out, ready to use. If they accept the choices, the ballot is placed in a bin *and* recorded electronically.
If you'd like some more in-depth knowledge about voting machines, Scientific American is running a great article in their 10/2004 issue.
And we make enough to pay off all of our debt (except her student loans) in six months. We just didn't have the money *right now* like we were expecting. It took a little longer than estimated to find good paying jobs.
So I will soon be making enough money to "waste" (my fiancee's term for "spend on computer stuff"). That is, if I let her "waste" it too. ("Waste" being my term for spending it on clothes and decorative items.)
To be fair, she did buy me a Powerbook as a wedding present.
Besides, I bet we'll get a lot of presents for the wedding. And the stuff on our registry is kinda expensive.
I don't want to. I love her, and she's nice to me. Besides, I get more inheritance when I get married.
Of course, I just got a $7,000 loan for a friggin' wedding.
My parents locked me out of the Internet once, so I installed a keytracker on the computer, got their password, and got back on the net, always careful to wipe my tracks clean after each session.
Oh, unless of course you're using it with a PC.
It's a waste of bandwidth to transmit voice only over FM. It can be served by the quality of an AM transmission without wasting an FM signal.
Spammers fight back with artificially intelligent spam sending bots. They decide it's really the humans who are at fault, and decide to turn us all into vegetables living in clear plastic pods, hooked up to a totally fake world through a hole in the back of our skull.
Yeah, I'm sure my sysadmin would love me using our broadband to stream my own music all friggin day.
/me turns around to ask him if I can stream music
He said "When you pay the bill, you can stream all the music you want."
"We need to synergize our core competencies so we should leverage our intellectual property to provide best-of-breed services for this on demand e-economy."
"Really Jim? What the hell does that mean?"
"Download services are hothothot. We should start one."
There's being an auto mechanic, and then there's being a safe driver. The same thing goes with computers.
Of course, having just came in the door from a death-defying commute home, I can attest that if there were as many safe computer users as there were safe drivers the problem would be much worse than it is.
If you can detect and change the spin of an electron, and can entangle them, why can't you communicate using this?
So one might say they have the skills to pay the bills?
Is it Obvious Day on /. or am I just crazy?
Goodness can come two ways. First, it can come from actually caring about people. Most small communities and families do this. Second, it can come from the fact that doing ill will get your ass fined, jailed, shot.
Case in point: Why did the tobacco companies hide the fact that cigarettes were not only addictive, but also deadly? Because they were nice people? Hell no. They didn't want to see their profits drop. Now the Feds want $280 billion dollars from them, and I totally agree with it.
I know that I'm a man. I trust my own judgement, but when you see people consistently exercising very, very poor judgement you tend to lose faith in anyone you don't know well. Or even people you do know well.
They need one of These
Oh, and even with electric heat we only spent $300 per year for heat and hot water. We supplimented the electric heat with a woodstove that ran off of fast-growing birch trees in the backyard, so it was a closed-carbon cycle.
So we have cheap heat, cheap hot water, and fresh veggies all year round.
The idea that environmentalism means shivering in the dark or handing over huge sum of money ignores our most important asset: Brains.
Since it got by the fact checkers at the NY Post. They're never wrong, you know.
They're showing on [adult swim] forchrissakes! WTFOMGBBQ!!1!11!
Pretty insightful Democratic commentary. I like it so much I signed up for their weekly email update.
Hmm, neither is the constitution. What's your point?
So we should be able to buy RPGs and Kalashnikovs and carry them around the streets? What about small nuclear devices? They're all arms, and there's no distinction in the Constitution as to what kind of arms.
Oh well, I guess I'm off to buy some mutated anthrax. For duck hunting...
Democrat: "I would encourage those of you who are Republicans to take a good look at Badnarik."