What evidence do you have that areas with minorities are less likely to have electronic voting? Around here the election authority is at the county level so that would mean an entire county would have to be minority in order to fit your assumption. Is that likely? But is this really an issue because as far as I'm concerned you're better off with the paper ballot. My county still uses the paper fill in the oval ballot and I'm very happy with that. So if you're right then minorities have the voting advantage others don't.

Exactly! but your wasting you keystrokes here on Slashdot as its now overrun with liberals too young to have even voted in 2008. Let alone having any connection to reality while being brainwashed in high school and college. It's completely baffling to so many young folks why Hillary was so despised because the media willfully ignored her past while trying to roast Trump with anything they could find. Just wait...the Clinton corruption investigations are not over. There's still that little matter of the scam called the Clinton Foundation. It's absolutely amazing to me that the Clinton's actual actions and wrong doings are overlooked while Trumps words are seen as evidence that he might do something wrong.

Why should we care to listen to any group then? They're all getting tiresome to listen to. If anything, this election was about being tired of being minimized because you don't fall into any of the chosen groups for the last decade.

Since I cut the cord a decade ago my only TV news media is the main networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX...and also PBS. These outlets SHOULD be the last beacon of unbiased, fact based reporting, but that ship sailed long ago. They're mainstream simply because there are no other TV choices on the "free" antennae networks. The news on these channels are primarily local news stations and they are all massively absent of any depth of reporting on any topic, local or national. It's especially sad when they frequently use facebook and twitter as sources for their reporting?! They're basically TV versions of news aggregators with the cheap product being zero depth reporting of others opinions. That means by proxy I'm getting the junk being produced by New York Times, Huff Po, WashPo, AP, etc, and occasionally the local newspapers who are also sourcing their news from the previously mentioned. This is a massive problem because you only need to poison one or two source outlets for the poison to be dutifully spread by the local news products - which don't necessarily align politically with their national counterparts.

So what I got to see on election night were these 5 primary outlets bringing in their "A" team from there national news products. FOX was simply boring with Sheppard Smith talking about map math and for some reason the picture had a yellowish hue to it...I didn't spend much time there - probably 10 minutes total. I watched ABC for most of the night, switching over to CBS and NBC occasionally with a quick stop by PBS. What I found is those 4 were absolutely losing their collective minds that Trump could win. They couldn't find a positive thing to say about Trump or anyone that possibly supported Trump. All night long "Trump is winning with uneducated white male voters" which continued to be expressed with intensity throughout the night as a rally call to divide us. At one point they showed a stat that had Trump with 30% of the Hispanic/minority vote compared to Romney's 19% and McCain's 18% and one of the commentators said "do they know what they were voting for?" Basically ABC, CBS, NBC could do nothing more all night long than look dumb founded and spew the very hate they pretend to be above. They couldn't come up with any reason why Hillary was loosing other than the country must be full of dumb white male bigots and sexist. There certainly was not "we go high" happening on election night from these outlets. Interesting that you think I'm a Trump supporter simply by my calling out blatantly obvious media bias were one should expect a more neutral, fact based position. This issue should be concerning ALL of us from BOTH sides...and too bad we have to call it sides in the first place. No longer are we uniting on issues...only behind people and parties as if we're picking our favorite football or baseball teams.

I won't go into details about where I find my news...I'm struggling like most that really want to find details to make educated decisions so I'm basically out there scraping and aggregating my own experiences with online research and once in a while relatively benign podcasts from the likes of John Batchelor that at least give me ideas of what to look into; especially on world issues. I realized long ago that these networks and talk radio are just poison. The broadcast TV propaganda is not limited to their news and talk products either as they're also inserting their views in the nightly drama's and sitcoms. When I visit my folks (retired boomers) who watch MSNBC and FOXNEWS all day and its very apparent that their only view of the world and what to care about are whatever these outlets were talking about and it didn't matter if the latest opinion foisted upon them was a complete 180 from the life they've lead and the opinions and friends they've had for decades.

So, by all means, offer suggestions for where to find unbiased in-depth reporting. Where do you get your news?

I guess none of the moderators clicked on your 3 links because none of them are even remotely equivalent to what is happening right now. A verbal protest at a college and chair hanging in a tree? Really, you see that as the same as what is happening now? Link some video news stories from 2008 or 2012 of the mainstream media pushing for a riot like I'm seeing tonight on ABC, etc. The MSM meltdown live on election night should be evidence enough that we are being manipulated by their propaganda.

Well, according to this article http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... California is already at 1:1 in terms of return on federal taxes while Nebraska is at 0.5:1, meaning they only get half back of what they put in. Additional farming states like Oklahoma, Ohio, Kansas, and Illinois are also getting less back. So your taxes ARE supporting your state and apparently no farmers elsewhere.

Well according to this http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... California is nearly 1:1 - so not much of a taker or a contributor. Some solid red states like Kansas and Nebraska get much less back than they put in though. Oregon, at solid blue, is second from the top for the highest pull on food stamps as percent of population. South Carolina gets the greatest return at nearly 8:1 while "meth capitols" like Missouri and Illinois are at the bottom with roughly 1:1 and 0.5:1 respectively. You can't simply equate percent of population on food stamps with the amount returned though since federal dollars enter back in to states for all sorts of reasons beyond safety net. High percentage food stamp states like Oregon rank in the middle at about 1.25:1 in terms of states that get back more than they put in. My armchair view is that there seems to be little to do with red vs blue and more to do with the "pork" influence of the representatives elected by the states.

There's plenty of voter fraud and it's been going on under reported and under prosecuted for decades. Just google voter fraud in St. Louis for plenty of recent stories like this one http://www.stltoday.com/news/l... In my opinion early voting is a massive problem nationwide and should be restricted instead of expanded.

I thought Tzar Obama only weighs around 180 pounds with a maximum deficit yield of around 19 trillion dollars.

Insightful? Apparently Slashdot "human editors" are no better at calling bullshit than a facebook algorithm.

This earned me a Troll rating! Slashdot has become a bunch of puss ass mom boy pansies who can't handle a debate that doesn't meet their personal agenda. No wonder the once informative comments section is no longer useful unless your just looking for confirmation of your personal beliefs. Troll this, fuckers! There...earned it!

but...we're happy put those "local effects" in parts of the world, US included, where there's little incentive or too small of a population to have a voice to do something about it. Not sure if it was intended in your spill example but the very body charged with regulating pollution in our rich nation (EPA) actually created a toxic river spill a year ago - http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/...

There's no such thing as clean energy...it's all just pollution in a different form. The global warming agenda, at least it's zealots, seem to only target smokestacks and tailpipes while ignoring the massive pollution needed to create, distribute and store any form of energy.

Companies must pay for FIPS-140-2 certification and any updates or improvements to the encryption or surrounding application must be recertified. My main concern with this, and general lack of understanding of the process, is what happens when said previously certified code is found to be flawed? In other words, military grade FIPS-140-2 only defines a point in time and not so much as the "best currently available". At least that's how I'm interpreting it. I dealt with FIPS140-2 with IpSwitch's MoveITDMZ sftp server - you're pretty much stuck on old code if you enable FIPS.

Yes, I realize "effort" is subjective, but dang, the path we're on right now is what has us voting for the worst possible people to hold office. The only effort I'm suggesting is showing up on election day...presumably only those that care enough would make the sacrifice. It would also severely limit the ability to vote harvest over weeks - and by that I mean individuals or groups that round up what can only be called "useful idiots" to cast votes in return for whatever - food, money, a ride, something to do, nothing, etc.