The ballot stuffers must love you, because you just made their lives so much easier. They don't even have to leave their computer keyboard. Just write a quick trojan, plop it onto a PCMCIA card, and have their paid stooge feed it into the Diebold machines. Done.
When this country was founded people did not vote anonymously.
Why is it necessary to be anonymous? Thomas Jefferson and the rest of them voted publically and in full view of all their neighbors. Why can't we do the same? I'd personally have no qualms if I was mailed a receipt verifying my choice (and thereby revealing if any hacking too place).
As shown in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" (?), it doesn't take a lot of brains to alter the official election results. All you need is one stoolpigeon to insert the PCMCIA card, and it's over. All the thousands of votes have been mangled/corrupted by the PCMCIA's hidden trojan. The job can be done in just 30 seconds. ----- Doing the same thing with paper would take hours.
The State of Maryland had a really good system (I think). Each person was handed a paper ballot, and you drew a line next to the person you wanted. The ballot was then scanned by machine. So this provided two benefits:
- it was quick to tally the results because it was done electronically
- but in the case of suspected fraud (like the main article) it was easy to go back and review the ballots. Like a paper receipt at a store provides proof of purchase, the voter ballots provided proof of how each person voted. The electronics provided the primary tally, while the paper provided a secondary backup system.
Now we have computers. Easily hacked & changed. And no way to undo the hack (no paper trail).
When companies collude, the customer is harmed through either higher prices or less choice (or both). This is what happened when the record companies decided (circa 1990) to unite as one, and artificially inflate CD prices to $18 or more.
The customer was hurt, and eventually the U.S. government had to step-in, break-up the illegal record company cartel, and restore competition. The result was a huge drop in CD prices via discount retailers. It is better to have companies competing, then to have them holding hands.
If this happened to me, I'd just shrug my shoulders and go "oh well". It's just internet, not the end of the world. I'm not starving, homeless in the street.
Whenever you have a free market, you're going to have some bumps from time-to-time.
I feel awake because I get 9 hours sleep every night.
That's the real problem in today's modern world --- people are staying up too late & not getting enough hours sack time. Then the lack of sleep catches up, and they nod off in the office (or worse, their car).
In most U.S. states, if you ride in the "passing lane" you can get ticketed by a cop.
That's because the passing lane is supposed to remain open for... yep you guessed it... passing. If you're blocking that lane, then you're being inconsiderate towards other people (and may get ticketed). Move over and let others use the passing lane for its stated purpose.
Riiiight. And now here are the POSITIVE aspects of car ownership:
- I don't have to live within walking distance of my job (inside Baltimore City) with 1000 people all trying to squeeze into the same building (due to lack of living space/overpopulation).
- Instead we can spread out to the countryside and find plenty of room to breathe & live like human beings instead of ants (crawling on top of one another).
- Instead of having to walk to the local market every day, I can buy a whole month's worth of food in a single trip, thanks to my car. That saves time and lets me pursue other hobbies.
- On weekends I can go visit my parents or friends... something which would be impossible w/o a car. (There's train service, but it takes half a day to travel just 60 miles. The train is inconvenient.)
I would not want to give up my car (a 70mpg Honda Insight by the way).
You're still better off than an European living in Italy (slow connections).
You should be happy about that fact. As for speeding-up your connection, have you looked into Verizon DSL? They offer 3 megabit/s in most cities, and for a much lower price than cable.
FiOS has only been around a few years (less than 5?), and yet you act as if the whole 2500-mile wide continent should already be wired-up with fiber.
Jeez.
These things take time... wiring up a whole continent doesn't just instantly happen overnight. It will take a couple years to buy the wires, hire the manpower, and lay down the necessary equipment. Be. Patient.
There are vast economic differences between the U.S. States as well. Utah is nowhere near as wealthy as Maryland, and that's reflected in the broadband stats where Maryland average ~15 megabits while Utah barely averages 1.0.
I don't think it's fair to say "Europe has ultrafast rates & Americans are falling behind" while ignoring the slow 1.0 Mbps rates in places like Greece or Poland. Not all Europeans have ultrafast internet connection. Only SOME of them do... same as here in America.
Likewise, you shouldn't try to compare a continent-spanning nation like the U.S. to a tiny island like the UK, or a small state like France. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It's easy to connect tiny states, because they are largely metropolitan, whereas the U.S. is largely empty space with hundreds of miles between cities! It takes more effort to string wires across a continent than it does to wire-up tiny little states.
If you're going to compare, then you should do it on the SAME SCALE - continent versus continent. America versus Europe versus Australia..... On the continental scale, we're all pretty much even.
Alternatively:
You could compare one tiny state versus another tiny state. i.e. Massachusetts versus France. Or Maryland versus the Netherlands. In the metropolitan American states, we have very very high speeds, equal to any of the E.U. states. Most of Massachusetts and Maryland are wired with Fiber Optic Internet. Extremely fast.
I notice you said it took a GROUP of people. And not ordinary people, but wealthy businessmen. So not just one person acting alone, and not someone poor like myself.
Also:
I notice you support Barak Obama, who attends a "hate all whites" racist church. I now question the validity of your thought processes if you support such a man.
I repeat my earlier question: Does this also mean I'm not allowed to "serve" my family photos to my website, or "serve" my latest DV video to youtube.com, or "serve" my webcam for chatting online every night with my friends (a major bandwidth hog)?
Hmmm.
I don't know the answer, but if it is "no" then it's a stupid policy. All of these functions (especially the webcam) are uploading huge amounts of data. Technically I'm acting as a server, and therefore violating the TOS, so does this mean I can no longer do video uploading or webcam video chatting?
I already suggested that idea, and my brother's response was:
"How much will it cost?"
"About $25."
He rejected the idea and said he'd just use the computer with 1/2 gigabyte of RAM. Oh well. Not my machine. I don't have to deal with the snail-like pace.
You worry too much (IMHO). The rural communities are always last to get new technologies, but they DO get it eventually:
- The rural homes were last to get cable tv (I got it in the mid-90s). - The rural homes were last to get their phone lines upgraded from analog to digital (thus enabling 56k). - The rural homes will be last to get Digital Television (low-power stations switch-over in 2010 or 11). - Likewise rural homes don't currently have DSL or Cable internet, but they will eventually get it.
Technology slowly moves outward: First the highly-populated areas (cities) and then it gradually drops in cost & filters out to the rural communities. It just takes a little bit of time.
Does this also mean I'm not allowed to "serve" my family photos to my website, or "serve" my latest DV video to youtube.com, or "serve" my webcam for chatting online every night with my friends (a major bandwidth hog)?
Hmmm.
I don't know the answer, but if it is "no" then it's a stupid policy. Also: Where's the justification for Comcast to block access to Itunes.com? That doesn't violate any terms of service, so why's it blocked for some Comcast customers?
I don't think it's unreasonable to compare the Whole United States to the Whole of the European Union. We have similar levels of technology & lifestyle & culture. We have a similar system of government (federalism). We are more alike than different.
It's comparing apples to apples.
Vice-versa: To compare the whole continent-stradling U.S. or Canada to a single small state* (example: Netherlands) is comparing apples and oranges. It's an invalid comparison. Like comparing farmland to city.
* (Before you object to me calling Netherlands a state, you will note on the European Union website that "state" is its official designation.)
Every survey will have different results. It depends upon HOW they gather their data. HOWEVER this article does confirm what I was saying (that the U.S. is not that horrible) (that it's a myth U.S. is a third world country in terms of broadband speeds).
Why?
Because the European Union average is only 3.1 Megabit/s..... which makes it the fifth fastest region after Japan, Korea, Canada (7.6), and the United States (4.8 Mbps). We Americans are no worse off than our European brethern.
Comcast makes no distinction between small files and large files.
It is ALL blocked.
So no more Linux downloads if Comcast has its way. (Also your Usenet solution won't work, if Comcast decides to block that as well.) (And let's not forget how they locked Itunes.com because heaven forbid people watch tv on ipods, instead of on Comcast.)
Slashdot Mirror
And now you've given them computer ballots.
The ballot stuffers must love you, because you just made their lives so much easier. They don't even have to leave their computer keyboard. Just write a quick trojan, plop it onto a PCMCIA card, and have their paid stooge feed it into the Diebold machines. Done.
Much much easier than those messy paper ballots.
When this country was founded people did not vote anonymously.
Why is it necessary to be anonymous? Thomas Jefferson and the rest of them voted publically and in full view of all their neighbors. Why can't we do the same? I'd personally have no qualms if I was mailed a receipt verifying my choice (and thereby revealing if any hacking too place).
As shown in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" (?), it doesn't take a lot of brains to alter the official election results. All you need is one stoolpigeon to insert the PCMCIA card, and it's over. All the thousands of votes have been mangled/corrupted by the PCMCIA's hidden trojan. The job can be done in just 30 seconds. ----- Doing the same thing with paper would take hours.
The State of Maryland had a really good system (I think). Each person was handed a paper ballot, and you drew a line next to the person you wanted. The ballot was then scanned by machine. So this provided two benefits:
- it was quick to tally the results because it was done electronically
- but in the case of suspected fraud (like the main article) it was easy to go back and review the ballots. Like a paper receipt at a store provides proof of purchase, the voter ballots provided proof of how each person voted. The electronics provided the primary tally, while the paper provided a secondary backup system.
Now we have computers.
Easily hacked & changed.
And no way to undo the hack (no paper trail).
When companies collude, the customer is harmed through either higher prices or less choice (or both). This is what happened when the record companies decided (circa 1990) to unite as one, and artificially inflate CD prices to $18 or more.
The customer was hurt, and eventually the U.S. government had to step-in, break-up the illegal record company cartel, and restore competition. The result was a huge drop in CD prices via discount retailers. It is better to have companies competing, then to have them holding hands.
If this happened to me, I'd just shrug my shoulders and go "oh well". It's just internet, not the end of the world. I'm not starving, homeless in the street.
Whenever you have a free market, you're going to have some bumps from time-to-time.
So this thing uses ions.
Don't ions produce Ozone?
Isn't ozone dangerous to breathe, especially in a small confined space like a house? Sounds like a bad design to me.
Hmmm.
Maybe we should just call them "The Internet SS". Short, to the point, and descriptive of what they do (spy for the government).
I feel awake because I get 9 hours sleep every night.
That's the real problem in today's modern world --- people are staying up too late & not getting enough hours sack time. Then the lack of sleep catches up, and they nod off in the office (or worse, their car).
In most U.S. states, if you ride in the "passing lane" you can get ticketed by a cop.
That's because the passing lane is supposed to remain open for... yep you guessed it... passing. If you're blocking that lane, then you're being inconsiderate towards other people (and may get ticketed). Move over and let others use the passing lane for its stated purpose.
Riiiight. And now here are the POSITIVE aspects of car ownership:
- I don't have to live within walking distance of my job (inside Baltimore City) with 1000 people all trying to squeeze into the same building (due to lack of living space/overpopulation).
- Instead we can spread out to the countryside and find plenty of room to breathe & live like human beings instead of ants (crawling on top of one another).
- Instead of having to walk to the local market every day, I can buy a whole month's worth of food in a single trip, thanks to my car. That saves time and lets me pursue other hobbies.
- On weekends I can go visit my parents or friends... something which would be impossible w/o a car. (There's train service, but it takes half a day to travel just 60 miles. The train is inconvenient.)
I would not want to give up my car
(a 70mpg Honda Insight by the way).
You're still better off than an European living in Italy (slow connections).
You should be happy about that fact. As for speeding-up your connection, have you looked into Verizon DSL? They offer 3 megabit/s in most cities, and for a much lower price than cable.
You sound impatient.
FiOS has only been around a few years (less than 5?), and yet you act as if the whole 2500-mile wide continent should already be wired-up with fiber.
Jeez.
These things take time... wiring up a whole continent doesn't just instantly happen overnight. It will take a couple years to buy the wires, hire the manpower, and lay down the necessary equipment. Be. Patient.
There are vast economic differences between the U.S. States as well. Utah is nowhere near as wealthy as Maryland, and that's reflected in the broadband stats where Maryland average ~15 megabits while Utah barely averages 1.0.
I don't think it's fair to say "Europe has ultrafast rates & Americans are falling behind" while ignoring the slow 1.0 Mbps rates in places like Greece or Poland. Not all Europeans have ultrafast internet connection. Only SOME of them do... same as here in America.
Likewise, you shouldn't try to compare a continent-spanning nation like the U.S. to a tiny island like the UK, or a small state like France. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It's easy to connect tiny states, because they are largely metropolitan, whereas the U.S. is largely empty space with hundreds of miles between cities! It takes more effort to string wires across a continent than it does to wire-up tiny little states.
If you're going to compare, then you should do it on the SAME SCALE - continent versus continent. America versus Europe versus Australia..... On the continental scale, we're all pretty much even.
Alternatively:
You could compare one tiny state versus another tiny state. i.e. Massachusetts versus France. Or Maryland versus the Netherlands. In the metropolitan American states, we have very very high speeds, equal to any of the E.U. states. Most of Massachusetts and Maryland are wired with Fiber Optic Internet. Extremely fast.
I notice you said it took a GROUP of people. And not ordinary people, but wealthy businessmen. So not just one person acting alone, and not someone poor like myself.
Also:
I notice you support Barak Obama, who attends a "hate all whites" racist church.
I now question the validity of your thought processes if you support such a man.
So Comcast's "no server" policy effectively bans webcam video chatting (because my computer is acting as a server providing video to my friends).
Lousy policy.
Well...
I repeat my earlier question: Does this also mean I'm not allowed to "serve" my family photos to my website, or "serve" my latest DV video to youtube.com, or "serve" my webcam for chatting online every night with my friends (a major bandwidth hog)?
Hmmm.
I don't know the answer, but if it is "no" then it's a stupid policy. All of these functions (especially the webcam) are uploading huge amounts of data. Technically I'm acting as a server, and therefore violating the TOS, so does this mean I can no longer do video uploading or webcam video chatting?
I already suggested that idea, and my brother's response was:
"How much will it cost?"
"About $25."
He rejected the idea and said he'd just use the computer with 1/2 gigabyte of RAM. Oh well. Not my machine. I don't have to deal with the snail-like pace.
The TV channels 52 to 83 were ALREADY in private hands (assigned to local television stations) for the least fifty years.
The actual ownership of that EM spectrum is by "the people" (us).
The FCC administers how it is used.
The FCC decided to remove 52-83 from local stations,
and reassign it to a new market (highest bidder).
You worry too much (IMHO). The rural communities are always last to get new technologies, but they DO get it eventually:
- The rural homes were last to get cable tv (I got it in the mid-90s).
- The rural homes were last to get their phone lines upgraded from analog to digital (thus enabling 56k).
- The rural homes will be last to get Digital Television (low-power stations switch-over in 2010 or 11).
- Likewise rural homes don't currently have DSL or Cable internet, but they will eventually get it.
Technology slowly moves outward: First the highly-populated areas (cities) and then it gradually drops in cost & filters out to the rural communities. It just takes a little bit of time.
Be patient.
Does this also mean I'm not allowed to "serve" my family photos to my website, or "serve" my latest DV video to youtube.com, or "serve" my webcam for chatting online every night with my friends (a major bandwidth hog)?
Hmmm.
I don't know the answer, but if it is "no" then it's a stupid policy. Also: Where's the justification for Comcast to block access to Itunes.com? That doesn't violate any terms of service, so why's it blocked for some Comcast customers?
I don't think it's unreasonable to compare the Whole United States to the Whole of the European Union. We have similar levels of technology & lifestyle & culture. We have a similar system of government (federalism). We are more alike than different.
It's comparing apples to apples.
Vice-versa: To compare the whole continent-stradling U.S. or Canada to a single small state* (example: Netherlands) is comparing apples and oranges. It's an invalid comparison. Like comparing farmland to city.
* (Before you object to me calling Netherlands a state, you will note on the European Union website that "state" is its official designation.)
Every survey will have different results. It depends upon HOW they gather their data. HOWEVER this article does confirm what I was saying (that the U.S. is not that horrible) (that it's a myth U.S. is a third world country in terms of broadband speeds).
Why?
Because the European Union average is only 3.1 Megabit/s..... which makes it the fifth fastest region after Japan, Korea, Canada (7.6), and the United States (4.8 Mbps). We Americans are no worse off than our European brethern.
Comcast makes no distinction between small files and large files.
It is ALL blocked.
So no more Linux downloads if Comcast has its way. (Also your Usenet solution won't work, if Comcast decides to block that as well.) (And let's not forget how they locked Itunes.com because heaven forbid people watch tv on ipods, instead of on Comcast.)