Comment Re:B-b-b-ut you forget hopenchange (Score 1) 156
So STFU and start paying your great-great-great grandkids taxes!
ITYM, "...start spending your great-great-great grandkids taxes!"
HTH. HAND.
So STFU and start paying your great-great-great grandkids taxes!
ITYM, "...start spending your great-great-great grandkids taxes!"
HTH. HAND.
Be that software, video or music -- why should I be prevented from sharing it with world ?
Because you aren't sharing profits with the people who make the laws.
So seriously, can anyone tell me what is so hard about automating a paper process that has ticks in boxes?
The problem is not that making an automatic voting machine is difficult. It is not. Making one that is accurate, reliable, and secure is a problem. Even that, however, is not the biggest problem. Getting the voting public to accept the machines as accurate, reliable and secure is the real issue. Take the
One solution to the perception problem would be for Diebold (or others) to open their engine to public scrutiny. Any weaknesses, short cuts or plain old fsck ups would be revealed and the systems could be modified and demonstrated to be secure. This would lead to warm, fuzzy feelings amongst the cognoscenti and they, in turn, would help spread the "these are trustworthy" word of faith among the great unwashed. Problem solved.
However, if you are Diebold and you open your engine for everyone to see, you have essentially given your competition an engraved invitation to eat your lunch. They point out all your flaws, provide an alternative that doesn't have them, everyone flocks to WeMakeVotingMachinesRight and now you, Mr. President and CEO of Diebold, are out of work because EBIT went down the tubes due to lack of confidence in your product. The BoD might say, "Yeah, that public comment about delivering the vote in Ohio for Bush? We can let that slide as long as you are delivering dividends and an ever increasing share price for us." Do something that causes earnings to slide, though, and you are toast.
So, in short, there is no technical reason the problem cannot be solved. There are, however, serious commercial interests preventing such a solution. By "serious commercial interests," of course, I really mean, "people interested primarily in protecting their positions and salaries." NTTAWWT.
EDIT: entire article content yanked due to some math flaws and CO2 vs SO2 number problems. I'm going to recalculate and repost when I can find the corrected data. Sorry for the confusion and stay tuned
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!