NationStates Jolt Archive

If that is so, why, then, is Linux and other open source programs FAR more secure than Microsoft?

It's not. It's just that everyone uses Windows, so that's what people write crap for.

Do you really have to ask? I'd suggest you visit some LINUX websites and check there. They will tell you that M$ weakness is primarily because it is on over 90% of machines. Why write a linux hack that has less than a 10% chance of ever getting on a Linux machine?

Now, if you KNOW the machine you are trying to crack is a Linux the task of authoring a cracking program is considerably easier...

Luckily most crackers don't want to expend the effort of writing code, they just download other peoples work. The vast majority of them are really not code-monkeys anyway.


Umm, here is a thread more suitable for someone of your maturity;
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423755
touche

...then ill be labelled a terrorist. That sucksthey can label me a terrorist all they want...its not like I care about the Bushites opinion

If that is so, why, then, is Linux and other open source programs FAR more secure than Microsoft?

1) No one hates Linux. It is free and I own it as much as you do. If the hackers are so 1337 that they sees a vulnerabilities they can fix it their own damn selves and post the solution.

2) Not as common as Windows. Waste of time I guess for the more determined jerk.

3) Windows is built using a lot of buggy core technology and the code on top of that is affected, usually resulting in program crashes that should not be happening.

4) Bill Gates thinks file sharing is communism when in fact it is anarchism. Thus, he is a moron what should stick to writing shitty code.

I miss anything?

If you're just a member, continue as you are doing.

If you are the executive in charge of Finnish Amnesty, you have a choice to make:

a) announce that Finnish Amnesty is not apolitical

OR

b) stop donating to politicians or political parties

or you can do whatever is legally allowed...and tell these whining bushites to stick their heads a little deeper into Dubya's *ss

I'll write another open source thingy for you if you steer this thread back to discussing AI.

I'll write another open source thingy for you if you steer this thread back to discussing AI.
Why would we want to do that? The AI thing is so done already. :D

Why would we want to do that? The AI thing is so done already. :D
You bastard(s)!

Dont be a tard, *snip*

Enlitenment comes from knowing you are an idiot ;)

I just wanted to see what you were reading.

In the case of the Diebold guy, he deserved all the abuse he received.

You are supplying the voting machines and you say something stupid as to guarantee the ohio vote.

Sorry that is completely different the AI ceo. Hmmm voting machines vs human rights evaluation.

Over all this whole debate is nothing more then a political trick. Try to taint the claims with bias instead of refuting the claims.

Disprove the report and it only adds weight to the claim of bias.

Saying their biased? Well you have that right but it really doesn't disprove the report.

The Black Forrest;
Please don't snip me within your quotes, particularly when the quoted post is brief and the snip changes or obfuscates the meaning and intent of the original post. I cannot reply until you comply.

or you can do whatever is legally allowed...and tell these whining bushites to stick their heads a little deeper into Dubya's *ss
Just like Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?

Just like Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?
It's not "just like" and you damn well know it. Do I have to go through the difference between advocating for a candidate and being able to physically affect the outcome of an election again? The biggest reason I want to get the issue of who's making election machines out of the private sector and into the public sphere is so that people like the ones you named above can advocate all the fuck they want without being accused of trying to rig elections.

The fact is that they could--and I emphasize the could--have enormous influence on how votes get counted. How much do they have? We'll never really know, because they won't open up their software to independent inspection, but until they do, then it's my opinion that they deserve what criticism they get.

The Black Forrest;
Please don't snip me within your quotes, particularly when the quoted post is brief and the snip changes or obfuscates the meaning and intent of the original post. I cannot reply until you comply.

Snipping is just a way to reduct the size of the post. I only left the bit as a marker for the original.

Fact remains: Mr. Diebold deserved his abuse. He was stupid to say he would hand over Ohio to the republicans when he was supplying the voting machines.

The AI execs claim of bias is nothing more then an attempt to taint the report. If the report is shown to be false then the claim of bias is all the more powerful.

Just like Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?


Ok I did some more searching and found the rest of your guys.

Sorry Bozzy but you are high if you think these two situations are the same.

AI exec gives a couple grand to Kerry. The act can be argued no doubt.

Now your list provides all aspects of the voting machines. Let's see. Organization that researches human rights abuse vs companies that provide the voting devices for the elections.

Now if the AI exec was sending out letters to the AI supporters saying vote kerry, then you do have an argument.

Sorry but of the two organizations the voting people should be "neutral" about their stance as it begs the question to the integrity of the voting results.

Do you hear pricewaterhouse giving opinions?

It's not "just like" and you damn well know it. Do I have to go through the difference between advocating for a candidate and being able to physically affect the outcome of an election again? The biggest reason I want to get the issue of who's making election machines out of the private sector and into the public sphere is so that people like the ones you named above can advocate all the fuck they want without being accused of trying to rig elections.

The fact is that they could--and I emphasize the could--have enormous influence on how votes get counted. How much do they have? We'll never really know, because they won't open up their software to independent inspection, but until they do, then it's my opinion that they deserve what criticism they get.


The fact is, that you have no evidence they DID or even COULD affect the outcome of the election - all they did was make the software and machines that counted votes - which illustrates nothing. (see M$ accounting software example in prior post).

All you do know is that some of the executives openly supported conservative causes, just as AI execs openly support liberal causes - and there is no law against doing so. Some would wish for them to pretend to be impartial, but there is no law requiring it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you call one unethical then the other is also. Getting all cranky and scream all you want, it does not reduce your hypocracy - but it does make you look silly.

The fact is, that you have no evidence they DID or even COULD affect the outcome of the election - all they did was make the software and machines that counted votes - which illustrates nothing. (see M$ accounting software example in prior post).

All you do know is that some of the executives openly supported conservative causes, just as AI execs openly support liberal causes - and there is no law against doing so. Some would wish for them to pretend to be impartial, but there is no law requiring it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you call one unethical then the other is also. Getting all cranky and scream all you want, it does not reduce your hypocracy - but it does make you look silly.
I have no evidence that they DID, nor do I believe they did, but they certainly COULD have an effect on it. And yet I'm not even all that concerned with who they support--my issue is more with the very nature of the machines they make, and I thought I made that clear earlier.

But what about my long-neglected other point--should the people elected to run elections in a state be allowed to serve on the campaigns of people running for office in their state, as Katherine Harris did in Florida 2000 or Kenneth Blackwell did in Ohio 2004? (I'm sure there are other examples, including Democrats, but those are the ones I know of.)

I thought the point which was drifted from was wether AI execs were wrong in showing support for a political party...

The best part is that after making all those accusations, Amnesty International now "isn't sure" and "doesn't know" if the things they accuse the US of doing at Guantanamo actually happened or not.

From Reuters:

Jun 5, 1:14 PM (ET)

By Lori Santos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite highly publicized charges of U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, the head of the Amnesty International USA said on Sunday the group doesn't "know for sure" that the military is running a "gulag."

Executive Director William Schulz said Amnesty, often cited worldwide for documenting human rights abuses, also did not know whether Secretary Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved severe torture methods such as beatings and starvation.

Schulz recently dubbed Rumsfeld an "apparent high-level architect of torture" in asserting he approved interrogation methods that violated international law.

"It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea," Schulz told "Fox News Sunday."

A dispute has raged since Amnesty last month compared the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the vast, brutal Soviet gulag system of forced labor camps in which millions of prisoners died.

A leading Democratic U.S. senator on Sunday repeated his call for a full investigation and said the detention center should be closed.

"The end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners. Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don't, let go," Sen. Joseph Biden of Delware told ABC's "This Week."

There have been a number of accusations of American mistreatment of the detainees and of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, at the base.

The U.S. military on Friday released details about five cases top officials said were among only 10 reported over the course of more than 28,000 prisoner interrogations.

Schulz said, "We don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate."

He also said he had "absolutely no idea" whether the International Red Cross had been given access to all prisoners and said the group feared others were being held at secret facilities or locations.

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and, most recently, Rumsfeld have repudiated the Amnesty report.

The United States holds about 520 men at Guantanamo, where they are denied rights accorded under international law to prisoners of war. Many have been held without charge for more than three years.

Schulz noted that it was Amnesty's headquarters in London that issued the annual report on global human rights, which said Guantanamo Bay "has become the gulag of our times."

Asked about the comparison, Schulz said, "Clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy."

"... But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared ... And in some cases, at least, we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed."

"And whether the Americans like it or not, it does reflect how the more than 2 million Amnesty members in a hundred countries around the world and indeed the vast majority of those countries feel about the United States' detention policy," he said.

Biden added: "More Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no (Guantanamo)."

The best part is that after making all those accusations, Amnesty International now "isn't sure" and "doesn't know" if the things they accuse the US of doing at Guantanamo actually happened or not.

*snip*

Schulz said, "We don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate."

Um. What Mr. Schulz said and what you attribute to AI aren't quite the same.

You've never actually read AI's report, have you?

Also, did you note the explanation of the "gulag" comment?

Schulz noted that it was Amnesty's headquarters in London that issued the annual report on global human rights, which said Guantanamo Bay "has become the gulag of our times."

Asked about the comparison, Schulz said, "Clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy."

"... But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared ... And in some cases, at least, we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed."

"And whether the Americans like it or not, it does reflect how the more than 2 million Amnesty members in a hundred countries around the world and indeed the vast majority of those countries feel about the United States' detention policy," he said.

Schulz said, "We don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate."

Schulz is hard-up for evidence, and he knows it. What he wants is licence for a "fishing expedition" for anything he doesn't like.

This is something for which he has no mandate whatsoever. Outside the US Government (and agencies thereof), the only people who have a legal right to demand access to enemy prisoners is the Red Cross, which already inspects it.

Cat, Schulz has just admitted that he doesn't have any proof - only allegations.

I can make allegations, too, and demand investigation. But it doesn't mean that there's any truth to my allegations, nor does it mean that we should engage in fishing expeditions, nor does it mean that there is a legal leg to stand on to make those fishing expeditions.

And as far as the community of AI members having an opinion about the US detention policy, that's an opinion. It doesn't make it the law.

I would also add that the explanation of the gulag comment makes it even more lame. Let's compare the allegations of a secret network of detention centers, for which there is absolutely no proof, to the proven camps of the North Koreans, which hold more than half a million people.

The AI claims are just that - claims. They have as much legal and factual value as the inane rants the North Koreans make about the US on their NKPA website.

I have no evidence that they DID, nor do I believe they did, but they certainly COULD have an effect on it. And yet I'm not even all that concerned with who they support--my issue is more with the very nature of the machines they make, and I thought I made that clear earlier.

We can agree to disagree here. My position stands that the voting machines are no more subject to fraud than Excel or M$ Money since the data is loaded into the machine after they are loaded with the accounting software - by a variety of techs many of whom do not work for the machine manufacturer. It would take a conspiracy mroe vast than the one that led to Monica's messy blue dress.


But what about my long-neglected other point--should the people elected to run elections in a state be allowed to serve on the campaigns of people running for office in their state, as Katherine Harris did in Florida 2000 or Kenneth Blackwell did in Ohio 2004? (I'm sure there are other examples, including Democrats, but those are the ones I know of.)

On this I am rusty, maybe you can provide a link since you brought it up first. It is my recollection that Kathy H. served on the campaign to get Jeb elected governor years before, not W's presidential. Kenny B I can't say I have a foundation on. Please provide more. I am eager to fill in the blanks. Do us both a favor and try to use general media - not some biased hack-site. Not that I expect you to, I'd just like to right upfront avoid this turning into a discussion on the merits of a media source instead of the topic at hand.

Thanks

Just like Michael McCarthy, Wally O'Dell, W.H. Timken, Admiral Bill Owens, and Robert Gates.

It is hypocracy to defend AI execs from the same accusations of bias as many of these same people accused these gentlemen of doing.

So who wants to be the pot and who wants to be the kettle?I never whined about the AI employee or about these bushites...I dont even know what they did...

but the Bushites keep whinning about the AI man...

I never whined about the AI employee or about these bushites...I dont even know what they did...

but the Bushites keep whinning about the AI man...


I'm glad that you have that level of maturity. If you google any of the names I listed you will see that there are still plenty who lack your sophistication.

... Though your use of the term 'Bushites' does give me pause when assigning the terms 'sophistication' and 'maturity' to you.

I'm glad that you have that level of maturity. If you google any of the names I listed you will see that there are still plenty who lack your sophistication.If someone starts a whining thread about those "names"...I might take the time to Google it...

but this (19 pages long) thread was started by someone whining about the AI man...several bushites have joined in the whining...for 19 pages...it is this thread thats got my attention.(anything with more than 10 pages is going to get my attention)

...and until someone else whines about your "names"...until then I don't see why I should care...

Maybe you can provide a link since you brought it up first. It is my recollection that Kathy H. served on the campaign to get Jeb elected governor years before, not W's presidential. Kenny B I can't say I have a foundation on. Please provide more. I am eager to fill in the blanks. Do us both a favor and try to use general media - not some biased hack-site. Not that I expect you to, I'd just like to right upfront avoid this turning into a discussion on the merits of a media source instead of the topic at hand.

Thanks
I'm finding all sorts of places where Blackwell is referred to as the Bush campaign co-chair, but they're largely partisan sites--sites accusing him of wrongdoing and sites defending him, so he's getting it from both sides (more from the left, admittedly). The google news searches I've done have come up with a lot from the Columbus Free Press, but it too looks like it's a bit, well, unobjective in spots. Here's one link. (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1284) Now mind you, I'm not suggesting that Blackwell did anything illegal--just that it looks really shady to be even an honorary co-chair (if that's what he was) for a candidate you're supposed to be administering the election for.

I'll admit I'm having trouble with finding relevant news stories about Katherine Harris's position in the Bush campaign--the stories seem to have vanished behind archive walls. Wikipedia refers to her as being prominent in the Bush campaign, but doesn't call her chair or co-chair. But now that I check wikipedia, it does refer to Blackwell as co-chair of the Bush campaign in Ohio 2004.

Can you tell this is taking me a while?

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm sure there are Democrats doing the same thing during these elections--if you're SecState and you want to be governor, what better way to hang with the big contributors and power brokers in your state? It's still crap, though, and it ought to be outlawed, in my opinion. Elections are too important.

The Nazz

NP re: the time. This is the fun of political forums - when you have to back your asertations from a credible source. I've learned the most digging around the net looking for info - that is the fun part, but definatly not the easy part.

Take your time. I'm curious what you find. Te biased sites sometimes references souces (which often are each other, but sometimes not) You may find a lead there.

As for me, my house restoration got knocked back another three weeks due to windows, so I'm not likely to get broadband until August. :mad:

I'm finding all sorts of places where Blackwell is referred to as the Bush campaign co-chair, but they're largely partisan sites--sites accusing him of wrongdoing and sites defending him, so he's getting it from both sides (more from the left, admittedly). The google news searches I've done have come up with a lot from the Columbus Free Press, but it too looks like it's a bit, well, unobjective in spots. Here's one link. (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1284) Now mind you, I'm not suggesting that Blackwell did anything illegal--just that it looks really shady to be even an honorary co-chair (if that's what he was) for a candidate you're supposed to be administering the election for.

I'm not sure how you two got off on this tangent, I thought I'd help out re the facts.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/blackwellfundraisingltr.pdf
(fundraising letter by Blackwell, as SofS, trumpeting that he was a co-chair of Bush/Cheney '04)

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041214-045356-8328r.htm
(emphasis added)

Bush received 2,859,727 votes, 50.82 percent, and Kerry had 2,739,952 votes, 48.7 percent, according to the official result certified Dec. 6 by Blackwell, a co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in Ohio.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20050518&Category=NEWS24&ArtNo=505180461&SectionCat=&Template=printart

They questioned Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's involvement as honorary co-chairman of Mr. Bush's campaign while simultaneously overseeing the election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62645-2004Oct25.html
(emphasis added)

In an interview, J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state, acknowledged that the state may experience "a few hiccups" in the next eight days, but he dismissed notions of widespread trouble on Nov. 2. "You manage against systemic choking," said Blackwell, whom Democrats have criticized for his dual role as co-chairman of Bush's reelection campaign in Ohio. "I don't think we'll have systemic choking. I don't anticipate the kind of confusion we saw in Florida."

I'll admit I'm having trouble with finding relevant news stories about Katherine Harris's position in the Bush campaign--the stories seem to have vanished behind archive walls. Wikipedia refers to her as being prominent in the Bush campaign, but doesn't call her chair or co-chair. But now that I check wikipedia, it does refer to Blackwell as co-chair of the Bush campaign in Ohio 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/08/08/politics/main305435.shtml
(emphasis added)

Government computers in the office of Florida's top elections official contained documents endorsing George W. Bush's candidacy for president, an initial review of computer files showed.

Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who also served as co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign, had said repeatedly that she had erected "a firewall" during the election between her state office and the Republican Party.

...

One of the documents was titled "George W. Bush Talking Points." It was dated March 14, 2000, and endorsed Mr. Bush's nomination for president, saying he had "proven in Texas that he can manage like an executive, govern across party lines and lead with inclusiveness."

Another document, written for Harris, urged Republicans to support Mr. Bush and "send the loudest possible message that we are ready to lead!" The speech was written following the New Hampshire primary, which Mr. Bush lost to Arizona Sen. John McCain.

"I am a bit biased. I co-chair the campaign effort of George W. Bush … I hope it will be 'W,'" the document read. Harris was supposed to deliver the speech in Orlando.

....

Kerry Stillman, an official with the state Commission on Ethics, could not comment on individual cases, but said using state equipment and time for political activity falls under the state law governing misuse of public position.

In a statement released by her office, Harris said no records were destroyed and "no partisan political activity transpired in my office during the recount period."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-fl-ushouse-harris_x.htm

Many Democrats still are bitter about the dual role Harris played in the 2000 recount that gave Republican George W. Bush the state by 537 votes, putting him in the White House. Harris then also was state co-chairwoman of Bush's campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/CNN25.tan.harris/

In 2000, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris was a lightning rod in her state's bitterly contested presidential vote count. Today, she is a second-term Republican congresswoman from Florida's 13th district.

Harris -- who was co-chairwoman of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign in Florida -- oversaw her state's election tally, eventually certifying the GOP candidate as the winner by 537 votes over Vice President Al Gore.

Blackwell's role in the Bush/Cheney campaign was honorary, but not entirely inactive. It drew criticism in large part because he was particularly aggressive in changing voting rules and balloting stations prior to the election in ways that many saw as blatantly favoring Republicans. That, combined with his role in the campaign itself, seemed to be more than an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Whether or not it effected the outcome, Harris's conflict was open and aggressive. She was a co-chair in reality and actively worked for the Bush campaign. As noted above, it has been shown she did so using her SoS office resources. When the whole recount fiasco went on, she closely coordinated her activities with thoses of the Bush legal & political teams. Again, this may not have meant anything to the outcome. But it created not just the appearance, but the reality of impropriety.

Now, let us be clear. The Secretary of State is an elected positions in most states. The occupants of that position are therefore usually partisan -- to at least some degree. I would be suprised if Democrats have not held dual roles before.

But there has been some bi-partisan and non-partisan concern that this has been taken to new levels in the last few elections and that changes need to be made. I think this would be common sense.

TCT - You get overtime pay tonight!

Woot! That must've taken a while. Sadly, I don't have the time to read all of the links right now, but I look forward to it.

Just wanted to post a note saying thanks - I can see that it took some effort and I wanted to let you know right away that it is appreciated.

Now, it is time to watch a movie w' the kids...

Hope this does not seem like gravedigging, but I've been away. Great work TCT for finding the info. I agree with the premise that a person in the capacity of counting votes has not busines serving on a campaign.

In Florida I do know that elections commisioners are elected and they run on partisian tickets.


I think partisianship and bias is impossible to remove from anyone, but that reasonable checks and balances should keep that in check. I really don't have to energy now to look into the ckechs and balance system for elections. I do believe that the standards for accepting a ballot are FAR too loose. It is harder to cash a check than it is to cast a ballot! (and there's STILL tons of check fraud!)

Closely contested elections, such as Flrorida, Wisconsin, Iowa and Washington will always be fraught with difficulties. Anytime you count something by the millions there is bound to be some troubles (ever balance a cash drawer?) There is no perfect system.

There is an old saying 'close enough for government work..."

The fact is, that you have no evidence they DID or even COULD affect the outcome of the election - all they did was make the software and machines that counted votes - which illustrates nothing. (see M$ accounting software example in prior post).

All you do know is that some of the executives openly supported conservative causes, just as AI execs openly support liberal causes - and there is no law against doing so. Some would wish for them to pretend to be impartial, but there is no law requiring it.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you call one unethical then the other is also. Getting all cranky and scream all you want, it does not reduce your hypocracy - but it does make you look silly.

Whether or not they did effect the outcome is questionable. Whether or not they could isn't.

Back to Amnesty International.
The Red Cross isn't exactly thrilled with the treatment of the US prisoners either. So AI isn't alone in this. They've done good work around the world and have had complaints about the US before, even in democratic administrations.

Some vey interesting links, Cat. Though I had already read some of the info, it was in my very partisan Texas Observer.

I was just wondering, are there any prisons where AI or the Red Cross/Crescent have come out and said "Hey! Now this ismore like it! We like this place!"

Just curious..

I was just wondering, are there any prisons where AI or the Red Cross/Crescent have come out and said "Hey! Now this ismore like it! We like this place!"

Just curious..
I believe the public challenge by ICRC of the United States government's categorisation of the illegal detainees at Guantanamo Bay as "unlawful combatants" was the first time the ICRC has publically challenged a government.

This action demonstrates the seriousness of the actions occuring at Guantanamo Bay. The ICRC is a very highly respected body.

Amnesty is overly critical of Cuba and Korea aswell as the Rebels in Nepal and Colombia. The first good thing they have done is criticized the illegal camp at Guantanamo Bay.