Why is it that the consequences of making and/or tampering with electronic voting machines are non-existent while the consequences for putting unauthorized software on a Las Vegas slot machine are harsh? Is grandma's right to slowly lose money more important than the integrity of our elections?

Assume for a moment that PJ is a fictional character created by IBM for the purpose of an anti-SCO astroturfing campaign. How would this fact have any relevance to the SCO vs IBM case? Astroturfing is no more illegal than a lawyer giving a press conference to talk up his side of the case. Trying to imagine what LEGAL justification SCO is using for this supoena boggles the mind. Are SCO accusing Growlaw of leaking sealed documents? That is about the only valid justification I can imagine for SCO to supoena PJ. BTW, didn't some zealous MS/SCO shill get slammed last year for publishing PJ's personal information (e.g. address and/or telephone number? That would suggest that PJ is a real person ...