Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (7852)	12/19/2003 8:53:09 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Kerry is not in the running, only he doesn't know it. Dean in south is going to have problems..

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (7852)	12/19/2003 12:31:29 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

POLITICAL COMPASS DOES THE CANDIDATES: Glenn, I was cruising through Political Compass after a hiatus and discovered something new and interesting. They have a distinct page on the "2003 Presidential Candidates". I find it informative that Howard Dean is ranked as both more authoritarian and to the Right of John Kerry, in contradistinction to the disinformation that one of our illustrious thread contributors continues to spread like manure here and across SI. politicalcompass.org It seems as though I need to switch allegiances if I'm to vote on principle: "AL SHARPTON: YOU BE DA MAN!"

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (7852)	12/20/2003 12:47:05 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 10965

VOTESCAM 2004: Diebold, again...... Why no audit trail in one business line alone? A page of links about electronic voting machine scandal independent-media.tv This story is especially telling..... Now here's the really interesting part. Forgetting for a moment Diebold's voting machines, let's look at the other equipment they make. Diebold makes a lot of ATM machines. They make machines that sell tickets for trains and subways. They make store checkout scanners, including self-service scanners. They make machines that allow access to buildings for people with magnetic cards. They make machines that use magnetic cards for payment in closed systems like university dining rooms. All of these are machines that involve data input that results in a transaction, just like a voting machine. But unlike a voting machine, every one of these other kinds of Diebold machines -- EVERY ONE -- creates a paper trail and can be audited. Would Citibank have it any other way? Would Home Depot? Would the CIA? Of course not. These machines affect the livelihood of their owners. If they can't be audited they can't be trusted. If they can't be trusted they won't be used. Now back to those voting machines. If EVERY OTHER kind of machine you make includes an auditable paper trail, wouldn't it seem logical to include such a capability in the voting machines, too? Given that what you are doing is adapting existing technology to a new purpose, wouldn't it be logical to carry over to voting machines this capability that is so important in every other kind of transaction device? This confuses me. I'd love to know who said to leave the feature out and why? independent-media.tv.