Original story here, comment is the one dated 2011-09-01 at 14:55:
I also hate to break the news to you, the network won’t become better with the merger, it will get a lot worse before it could ever get better. That is because you are going to try and add spectrum to the issue when the reality is that this about backhaul, engineering philosophy, optimization techniques and know how. If ATT cannot make what they have work, getting another overlaying network will only complicate things, let alone the mix of billing, back end and multiple vendors.
That's a dubious comparison but you did make one valid point: The law can't prevent murder, all it can do is punish it after the fact. The 2nd Amendment exists in part so that you have the ability to defend yourself against that would-be murderer. Even the UDHR recognizes this:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
For better or worse weaponry is the only thing that will enable human beings to have such security. A 120 pound female stands virtually no chance against a 200 pound male without some sort of weapon. Ditto for someone with a physical handicap. Ditto for the elderly. Ditto for a person faced with multiple aggressors. Hell, the UDHR places this right ahead of free speech. The above is Article III, free speech is Article XIX.
In any case the original point stands. You can punish people for exercising free speech after the fact but you can't stop them beforehand. Ditto for the keeping and bearing of arms. We can't successfully disarm people in prison -- the most controlled environment on Earth -- it's futile to assume that we can disarm them in a free society. It also runs afoul of the inalienable right to defend oneself against aggression. Self defense is recognized and protected in virtually every country on the planet. In no jurisdiction that I'm aware of are you expected to meekly submit to someone who seeks to inflict bodily harm upon you. The question then becomes does the law allow you to legally possess the tools required to effectively exercise the right of self defense. In the United States and many other countries it does.
A lot of other countries do not hold the same western values of free speech as the rest of us. Why can't some people respect that?
Because free speech is a natural right that all human beings are born with. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "western values" (whatever the hell those are). The fact is that all human beings have the ability to engage in free speech; Governments or individuals may punish you for exercising that ability but the ability is still there. It's the same with the 2nd Amendment really -- you can regulate weapons all you want but people can still obtain and use them. Doubt this? Ask the guy who just got shanked in prison if the person who stabbed him didn't keep and bear arms.
BTW, you need not limit yourself to the US Constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
When you publicly call someone "nigger" or broadcast "fuck the Jews" you are implying a threat of violence
So now you're a mind eater and can tell the motivation of every single person who uses the word "nigger"? An acquaintance of mine is fond of saying "There's a difference between niggers and black people." He's an ignorant fool but I'd love for you tell me what part of that statement implies a threat of violence. He's expressing his opinion; it's an opinion that most people would find repugnant but at the end of the day that's all it is: an opinion.
I'm sorry but we don't apply prior restraint to speech based on the actions of people have previously used a word that was once so common as to appear in classic American Literature.
Have you ever been credibly attacked by being called a slur on Jews?
I've been called all sorts of things; you try living in the Bible Belt as a Yankee Agnostic Jew/Native-American and get back to me on how fun it is. It still doesn't change the old adage about sticks and stones.
The rabbi and family firebombed nearby a couple weeks ago won't be protected by "thicker skin"
Firebombing is violence and already illegal regardless of the underlying motivation.
But they will be protected by intolerance of the intimidation that happens much more often by racist words.
If you want to be intolerant towards racism be my guest; I'll stand beside you. If you want to legislate against it while trampling all over the First Amendment I'm getting off the bus and opposing you with every means at my disposal. Once we get into the business of regulating what kinds of speech are protected we no longer have free speech. I sincerely hope you see the pitfalls of the Government prohibiting speech that represents a minority opinion. And please, for the love of $deity, do not make the tired old "fire in a theater" analogy.
Air France Flight 447 is believed to have gone down due to icing on the pitot tubes. Auto-pilot would not have helped when the computer was getting the same faulty airspeed readings as the human pilots. Computer geeks have a term for this: Garbage in, garbage out.
Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way
I'm part Jewish; to borrow a quote from Hesh on The Sopranos: You're talking to the wrong white man, my friend. My people were the white man's nigger when yours were still painting their faces and chasing zebras.
you just don't think anyone else should be protected
People should be protected from violence. Offensive wi-fi names? Not so much. Put up an offensive wi-fi network by my house; my family background is Jewish, Native American, Polish, German and Swedish. I'm sure if you think long enough you can come up with a name that offends every one of those ethnic groups. I still won't be calling the police.
The last time I checked the 1st amendment didn't contain an exemption for asshattery. How is this any different from the KKK arranging a public protest and shouting the word "nigger" at the top of their lungs? The former is protected free speech but an offensive wi-fi network name is investigated as a crime? Seriously? From TFA, the mother of all overreactions:
“I was shocked, hurt. I felt harassed."
“This should not be tolerated in this town. They should see jail time for it," the mom of two said.
Really? They should go to jail because you felt "harassed" over an offensive SSID that popped up on your iPhone?
Except I never said nor implied that Sully was a hero. He did his duty; nothing more and nothing less. From what I've seen of the man I think he'd be the first one to tell you that he's no hero. As for "hero-building", I will make no apologies for my countrymen when they choose to honor a man who saved 155 lives. It's not "hero-building" to honor such an achievement and I would tip my hat to him regardless of his nationality.
possibly bygone conception of the role of a captain of a vessel.
It's not a bygone conception; when you take charge of passengers (be you the pilot of an airline, the captain of a ship or the driver of an automobile) you are assuming responsibility for their lives. You don't abandon your post during a crisis until every last one of them is safe. I could not look at myself in the mirror if I left a passenger in my car to die and I'm not in responsible for four thousand souls.
Clearly the people involved in the evacuation, even without the management of a ships captain, were very capable.
Actually they weren't. The ship never sent an SOS -- the Italian Coast Guard only knew of the disaster because the ship was close enough to shore for passengers to use their cell phones. Read this op-ed; he summarizes it far more eloquently than I can.
The problem with that is there are other toxic substances aboard a ship besides fuel. It took two years (never mind the time spent procuring approval from various interested agencies) to prepare the USS Oriskany as an artificial reef. It was done while she was in port, not lying on her side half submerged while subject to tidal and wave influences. A modern cruise ship probably has less toxic substances aboard than a warship built in the 1940s (the Essex class carriers used asbestos as fire insulation and PCBs in their electrical cabling) but she still isn't safe for disposal in a marine sanctuary.
The owners may well want to salvage her for a possible return to service too. Not sure if that's feasible with the damage she absorbed (any marine engineers who care to weigh in?) but the owners doubtless want to recover their $400 million investment.
.... it may not advance the salvage process any but hey it can't hurt. This guy was the anti-Sully by all accounts. I wouldn't abandon passengers in my automobile after an accident; this guy is responsible for thousands of souls and abandons them to save his own ass. Pathetic.
I don't think four on one when the one has his back turned to the four qualifies as a "reasonable fear" even if the one puts his hand into a pocket. Understand I've thought about this a great deal; one doesn't casually decide to carry a deadly weapon in public (at least I hope not!). The Cooper color code is as good of an explanation of mindset as any. I don't see how it was justifiable for the officers to go to red, let alone squeeze their triggers.
Maybe I'm excessively conservative but carrying a gun in public has made me that way. It's a last fucking resort; I have little sympathy for shooters (be they civilian or LEO) whom I perceive to have overreacted. I'm one of the few gun toting people that has no issue with duty to retreat laws. At least as it is worded in NYS -- the duty only comes into play if you can retreat with complete safety as to yourself and others -- I'm of the opinion that if you can do that you don't have the right to end someone's life. This doesn't make me very popular amongst my card-carrying NRA friends but it is what it is.
I also think that some of the more gung-ho people in the RKBA crowd should talk to somebody who has actually ended a human life. Personally I do not want to carry that burden around for the rest of my life; I'll do it without hesitation if the choice is "him or me" (you have to be alive to feel guilty) but it's not something I approach as casually as a lot of the people I know.
To be fair to the cops, they're trained to keep shooting until the target is incapacitated. "shot 40 times" sounds like a lot but it's really just the few officers there following their training.
You are half right; people who have trained with firearms (not just LEOs) are taught to shoot until the target is incapacitated. We are also taught that deadly force can only be used in response to the imminent threat of the same. You do not get to shoot someone once, twice or 40 times over reaching for a wallet.
I have a concealed carry license; do you think I could get away with shooting someone (even if he didn't die) merely because he reached into his pocket? Those LEOs should have gone to jail; that's what would have happened to John Q. Public in their situation.
It almost comes off as intentional that this occurred the day after the SOPA protests
I highly doubt one had to do with the other. The Feds don't casually put together a criminal case; they take their time and line up all the ducks before they pull the trigger. That's one of the reasons why Federal cases have a substantially higher conviction rate than State ones. One of the lawyers around here could provide an exact number but if I recall correctly >90% of Federal indictments wind up with either a conviction or guilty plea.
This investigation was in the pipeline for months. The indictment was likely handed down by a Grand Jury some time ago.
This universe is the beta version; God had to rush it out because the PHB promised the customer a bunch of features that weren't in the original design. He'll work these bugs out when he has time, right after he finishes commenting all the code for the benefit of the next guy who works on the universe.
Sadly this is nothing new in NYC; they have been doing stop and frisks for years. I wonder what happens when they deploy this technology and find a firearm on someone who is licensed to carry one? There are actually people who hold such licenses in NYC; given the extreme anti-gun attitude of the NYPD they'll probably wind up looking at the wrong end of a Glock and discovering the wonders of face meeting asphalt. That's if they are lucky; if they aren't they'll wind up being shot 40 times as they reach for their drivers license/pistol permit.
Re:Part of a money conflict within the King family
on
A Copyright Nightmare
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
How can an speech that occurs in public be "copyrighted"? I can see how an individual recording could be -- If I take a photograph of you I own the copyright, presumably that applies to videos as well. How can it be though that there isn't one recording of his speech that's been released in the public domain? Surely not everybody who was there with a camera was interested in money and greed?
If either of those things translated into real votes Ron Paul would be President. Seriously, I see four of his lawn signs around these parts for every one I've seen for another candidate.
You know, for the Americans to but the hell out of other countries business and look at their own issues instead.
So let's play your game; the United States withdraws from the Middle East and let's Iran do what it will. One of things happens:
1) Israel decides to go it alone and attempt to destroy/delay the Iranian nuclear program. Iran retaliates through it's terrorist proxies and the global price of oil skyrockets.
2) Israel uncharacteristically shows restraint; Iran goes nuclear. Now the Saudi's feel compelled to develop their own nukes. They do so. Tensions rise, nerves fray and someone on either side makes a tiny mistake that spirals out of control. The global price of oil skyrockets.
You are also overlooking the fact that Europe is heavily invested in preventing the Iranians from going nuclear. Much of Europe is already within reach of Iran's missile technology. When Iran figures out how to mate a nuclear weapon to a ballistic missile Europe will be living under the threat of nuclear attack for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
One last point: Consider who is reliant on oil from the Middle East. Hint: It's not the United States; we meet the vast majority of our energy needs from Western Hemisphere sources. China on the other hand is almost wholly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If the United States decides to withdraw from that region do you think they are going to stand idly by or might they be inclined to step into our role as a regional stabilizer? Now ask yourself if you want a Chinese military presence in that part of the world.
Our laws require voting technology that is accessible to the handicapped. The machines that we use here have headphones for the blind, foot pedals for paraplegics and a sip/puff device for quadriplegics. If you know a way to enable such people to independently vote without technology the New York State Board of Elections would be interested in hearing it.
And no, this still isn't "e-voting". The ballot marking portion of the machine is exactly that; it prints a paper ballot that matches the selections made by the voter via the handicapped interface. They or a trusted third party can verify this ballot before depositing it into the scanning side of the machine. We can verify it for them as Elections Inspectors provided that one from each party assists the voter (no ballot is ever handled without one Inspector from each party present). Other voters manually mark their ballots with a pen and then deposit it into the scanner. Every piece of paper from the ballots themselves to the poll books and even the notepads the Inspectors use is retained for seven years.
There's no conspiracy at play with optical scanning technology. I decided to become an Elections Inspector specifically so I could observe the process from the inside. Having done it for seven years I'm satisfied that our elections are fair and honest. I can't speak for the other States in the Union but I sleep quite well at night knowing that my vote was popularly counted here in New York.
Optical scanning technology != "e-voting machine"; it's a paper ballot that's simply tabulated by a machine. It's no different than the bubble tests that you took in school. If you doubt the results of the machine you are free to volunteer your time to manually count each and every ballot. As I said, they are available for inspection by any interested party.
Slashdot Mirror
Original story here, comment is the one dated 2011-09-01 at 14:55:
I also hate to break the news to you, the network won’t become better with the merger, it will get a lot worse before it could ever get better. That is because you are going to try and add spectrum to the issue when the reality is that this about backhaul, engineering philosophy, optimization techniques and know how. If ATT cannot make what they have work, getting another overlaying network will only complicate things, let alone the mix of billing, back end and multiple vendors.
That's a dubious comparison but you did make one valid point: The law can't prevent murder, all it can do is punish it after the fact. The 2nd Amendment exists in part so that you have the ability to defend yourself against that would-be murderer. Even the UDHR recognizes this:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
For better or worse weaponry is the only thing that will enable human beings to have such security. A 120 pound female stands virtually no chance against a 200 pound male without some sort of weapon. Ditto for someone with a physical handicap. Ditto for the elderly. Ditto for a person faced with multiple aggressors. Hell, the UDHR places this right ahead of free speech. The above is Article III, free speech is Article XIX.
In any case the original point stands. You can punish people for exercising free speech after the fact but you can't stop them beforehand. Ditto for the keeping and bearing of arms. We can't successfully disarm people in prison -- the most controlled environment on Earth -- it's futile to assume that we can disarm them in a free society. It also runs afoul of the inalienable right to defend oneself against aggression. Self defense is recognized and protected in virtually every country on the planet. In no jurisdiction that I'm aware of are you expected to meekly submit to someone who seeks to inflict bodily harm upon you. The question then becomes does the law allow you to legally possess the tools required to effectively exercise the right of self defense. In the United States and many other countries it does.
A lot of other countries do not hold the same western values of free speech as the rest of us. Why can't some people respect that?
Because free speech is a natural right that all human beings are born with. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "western values" (whatever the hell those are). The fact is that all human beings have the ability to engage in free speech; Governments or individuals may punish you for exercising that ability but the ability is still there. It's the same with the 2nd Amendment really -- you can regulate weapons all you want but people can still obtain and use them. Doubt this? Ask the guy who just got shanked in prison if the person who stabbed him didn't keep and bear arms.
BTW, you need not limit yourself to the US Constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
After all, everyone likes sex, so we have that in common.
When you publicly call someone "nigger" or broadcast "fuck the Jews" you are implying a threat of violence
So now you're a mind eater and can tell the motivation of every single person who uses the word "nigger"? An acquaintance of mine is fond of saying "There's a difference between niggers and black people." He's an ignorant fool but I'd love for you tell me what part of that statement implies a threat of violence. He's expressing his opinion; it's an opinion that most people would find repugnant but at the end of the day that's all it is: an opinion.
I'm sorry but we don't apply prior restraint to speech based on the actions of people have previously used a word that was once so common as to appear in classic American Literature.
But then, he's like Italian and honestly, they have a great track record for being cowards.
I'm reasonably sure you are being a wise ass here but nonetheless, here's a real Italian. I don't think that guy can be branded a coward.
Have you ever been credibly attacked by being called a slur on Jews?
I've been called all sorts of things; you try living in the Bible Belt as a Yankee Agnostic Jew/Native-American and get back to me on how fun it is. It still doesn't change the old adage about sticks and stones.
The rabbi and family firebombed nearby a couple weeks ago won't be protected by "thicker skin"
Firebombing is violence and already illegal regardless of the underlying motivation.
But they will be protected by intolerance of the intimidation that happens much more often by racist words.
If you want to be intolerant towards racism be my guest; I'll stand beside you. If you want to legislate against it while trampling all over the First Amendment I'm getting off the bus and opposing you with every means at my disposal. Once we get into the business of regulating what kinds of speech are protected we no longer have free speech. I sincerely hope you see the pitfalls of the Government prohibiting speech that represents a minority opinion. And please, for the love of $deity, do not make the tired old "fire in a theater" analogy.
Air France Flight 447 is believed to have gone down due to icing on the pitot tubes. Auto-pilot would not have helped when the computer was getting the same faulty airspeed readings as the human pilots. Computer geeks have a term for this: Garbage in, garbage out.
Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way
I'm part Jewish; to borrow a quote from Hesh on The Sopranos: You're talking to the wrong white man, my friend. My people were the white man's nigger when yours were still painting their faces and chasing zebras.
you just don't think anyone else should be protected
People should be protected from violence. Offensive wi-fi names? Not so much. Put up an offensive wi-fi network by my house; my family background is Jewish, Native American, Polish, German and Swedish. I'm sure if you think long enough you can come up with a name that offends every one of those ethnic groups. I still won't be calling the police.
The last time I checked the 1st amendment didn't contain an exemption for asshattery. How is this any different from the KKK arranging a public protest and shouting the word "nigger" at the top of their lungs? The former is protected free speech but an offensive wi-fi network name is investigated as a crime? Seriously? From TFA, the mother of all overreactions:
“I was shocked, hurt. I felt harassed."
“This should not be tolerated in this town. They should see jail time for it," the mom of two said.
Really? They should go to jail because you felt "harassed" over an offensive SSID that popped up on your iPhone?
I just hate American hero-building
Except I never said nor implied that Sully was a hero. He did his duty; nothing more and nothing less. From what I've seen of the man I think he'd be the first one to tell you that he's no hero. As for "hero-building", I will make no apologies for my countrymen when they choose to honor a man who saved 155 lives. It's not "hero-building" to honor such an achievement and I would tip my hat to him regardless of his nationality.
possibly bygone conception of the role of a captain of a vessel.
It's not a bygone conception; when you take charge of passengers (be you the pilot of an airline, the captain of a ship or the driver of an automobile) you are assuming responsibility for their lives. You don't abandon your post during a crisis until every last one of them is safe. I could not look at myself in the mirror if I left a passenger in my car to die and I'm not in responsible for four thousand souls.
Clearly the people involved in the evacuation, even without the management of a ships captain, were very capable.
Actually they weren't. The ship never sent an SOS -- the Italian Coast Guard only knew of the disaster because the ship was close enough to shore for passengers to use their cell phones. Read this op-ed; he summarizes it far more eloquently than I can.
The problem with that is there are other toxic substances aboard a ship besides fuel. It took two years (never mind the time spent procuring approval from various interested agencies) to prepare the USS Oriskany as an artificial reef. It was done while she was in port, not lying on her side half submerged while subject to tidal and wave influences. A modern cruise ship probably has less toxic substances aboard than a warship built in the 1940s (the Essex class carriers used asbestos as fire insulation and PCBs in their electrical cabling) but she still isn't safe for disposal in a marine sanctuary.
The owners may well want to salvage her for a possible return to service too. Not sure if that's feasible with the damage she absorbed (any marine engineers who care to weigh in?) but the owners doubtless want to recover their $400 million investment.
.... it may not advance the salvage process any but hey it can't hurt. This guy was the anti-Sully by all accounts. I wouldn't abandon passengers in my automobile after an accident; this guy is responsible for thousands of souls and abandons them to save his own ass. Pathetic.
but is nothing close to the millions you can steal on Wall Street.
I don't think four on one when the one has his back turned to the four qualifies as a "reasonable fear" even if the one puts his hand into a pocket. Understand I've thought about this a great deal; one doesn't casually decide to carry a deadly weapon in public (at least I hope not!). The Cooper color code is as good of an explanation of mindset as any. I don't see how it was justifiable for the officers to go to red, let alone squeeze their triggers.
Maybe I'm excessively conservative but carrying a gun in public has made me that way. It's a last fucking resort; I have little sympathy for shooters (be they civilian or LEO) whom I perceive to have overreacted. I'm one of the few gun toting people that has no issue with duty to retreat laws. At least as it is worded in NYS -- the duty only comes into play if you can retreat with complete safety as to yourself and others -- I'm of the opinion that if you can do that you don't have the right to end someone's life. This doesn't make me very popular amongst my card-carrying NRA friends but it is what it is.
I also think that some of the more gung-ho people in the RKBA crowd should talk to somebody who has actually ended a human life. Personally I do not want to carry that burden around for the rest of my life; I'll do it without hesitation if the choice is "him or me" (you have to be alive to feel guilty) but it's not something I approach as casually as a lot of the people I know.
To be fair to the cops, they're trained to keep shooting until the target is incapacitated. "shot 40 times" sounds like a lot but it's really just the few officers there following their training.
You are half right; people who have trained with firearms (not just LEOs) are taught to shoot until the target is incapacitated. We are also taught that deadly force can only be used in response to the imminent threat of the same. You do not get to shoot someone once, twice or 40 times over reaching for a wallet.
I have a concealed carry license; do you think I could get away with shooting someone (even if he didn't die) merely because he reached into his pocket? Those LEOs should have gone to jail; that's what would have happened to John Q. Public in their situation.
It almost comes off as intentional that this occurred the day after the SOPA protests
I highly doubt one had to do with the other. The Feds don't casually put together a criminal case; they take their time and line up all the ducks before they pull the trigger. That's one of the reasons why Federal cases have a substantially higher conviction rate than State ones. One of the lawyers around here could provide an exact number but if I recall correctly >90% of Federal indictments wind up with either a conviction or guilty plea.
This investigation was in the pipeline for months. The indictment was likely handed down by a Grand Jury some time ago.
This universe is the beta version; God had to rush it out because the PHB promised the customer a bunch of features that weren't in the original design. He'll work these bugs out when he has time, right after he finishes commenting all the code for the benefit of the next guy who works on the universe.
Sadly this is nothing new in NYC; they have been doing stop and frisks for years. I wonder what happens when they deploy this technology and find a firearm on someone who is licensed to carry one? There are actually people who hold such licenses in NYC; given the extreme anti-gun attitude of the NYPD they'll probably wind up looking at the wrong end of a Glock and discovering the wonders of face meeting asphalt. That's if they are lucky; if they aren't they'll wind up being shot 40 times as they reach for their drivers license/pistol permit.
How can an speech that occurs in public be "copyrighted"? I can see how an individual recording could be -- If I take a photograph of you I own the copyright, presumably that applies to videos as well. How can it be though that there isn't one recording of his speech that's been released in the public domain? Surely not everybody who was there with a camera was interested in money and greed?
If either of those things translated into real votes Ron Paul would be President. Seriously, I see four of his lawn signs around these parts for every one I've seen for another candidate.
You know, for the Americans to but the hell out of other countries business and look at their own issues instead.
So let's play your game; the United States withdraws from the Middle East and let's Iran do what it will. One of things happens:
1) Israel decides to go it alone and attempt to destroy/delay the Iranian nuclear program. Iran retaliates through it's terrorist proxies and the global price of oil skyrockets.
2) Israel uncharacteristically shows restraint; Iran goes nuclear. Now the Saudi's feel compelled to develop their own nukes. They do so. Tensions rise, nerves fray and someone on either side makes a tiny mistake that spirals out of control. The global price of oil skyrockets.
You are also overlooking the fact that Europe is heavily invested in preventing the Iranians from going nuclear. Much of Europe is already within reach of Iran's missile technology. When Iran figures out how to mate a nuclear weapon to a ballistic missile Europe will be living under the threat of nuclear attack for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
One last point: Consider who is reliant on oil from the Middle East. Hint: It's not the United States; we meet the vast majority of our energy needs from Western Hemisphere sources. China on the other hand is almost wholly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If the United States decides to withdraw from that region do you think they are going to stand idly by or might they be inclined to step into our role as a regional stabilizer? Now ask yourself if you want a Chinese military presence in that part of the world.
Our laws require voting technology that is accessible to the handicapped. The machines that we use here have headphones for the blind, foot pedals for paraplegics and a sip/puff device for quadriplegics. If you know a way to enable such people to independently vote without technology the New York State Board of Elections would be interested in hearing it.
And no, this still isn't "e-voting". The ballot marking portion of the machine is exactly that; it prints a paper ballot that matches the selections made by the voter via the handicapped interface. They or a trusted third party can verify this ballot before depositing it into the scanning side of the machine. We can verify it for them as Elections Inspectors provided that one from each party assists the voter (no ballot is ever handled without one Inspector from each party present). Other voters manually mark their ballots with a pen and then deposit it into the scanner. Every piece of paper from the ballots themselves to the poll books and even the notepads the Inspectors use is retained for seven years.
There's no conspiracy at play with optical scanning technology. I decided to become an Elections Inspector specifically so I could observe the process from the inside. Having done it for seven years I'm satisfied that our elections are fair and honest. I can't speak for the other States in the Union but I sleep quite well at night knowing that my vote was popularly counted here in New York.
Optical scanning technology != "e-voting machine"; it's a paper ballot that's simply tabulated by a machine. It's no different than the bubble tests that you took in school. If you doubt the results of the machine you are free to volunteer your time to manually count each and every ballot. As I said, they are available for inspection by any interested party.