Researchers at Princeton six months ago demonstrated that Diebold machines can be broken into either through copied keys or simple lock picking. After breaking into the machine, a virus can then be inserted which will rig the vote - and due to the lack of a paper trail no evidence is left.
In another impressive feat of stupidity, Diebold have now put images of the keys up on their website, which as shown below can be used to create working keys:
To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist
Date: Saturday, February 2, 2008
Re: v
If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats. She is the hands-on leader that America needs as we slip into a worsening economic crisis. Her ability to be both a strong commander-in-chief and steward of the economy are what make her the favorite against Sen. McCain.
Sen. Obama has been telling voters that he is the one to beat Sen. McCain because he gave a speech against the war in 2002 and because he is currently attracting independent voters. But those arguments don’t hold up to current polling, to history or to what is likely to happen in a general election.
First, there is no support to Sen. Obama’s assertion that his 2002 speech makes him a stronger choice in a general election. Recent history shows that voters look to who they believe can end a war and protect us against future wars. No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war. In fact, Hillary is backed by prominent anti-war leaders because they believe she is uniquely able to end the war responsibly.
Based on recent polls, there is nothing to support Sen. Obama's arguments about his prospective performance against Sen. McCain – both Sen. Obama and Hillary start off within the margin of error against Sen. McCain.Yesterday's Fox poll showed both in a statistical tie with Sen. McCain And Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Sen. Obama because he is – by his own admission - not as well known.
Sen. Obama’s support among independents comes from Democratic-leaning independents, voters who are likely to back the eventual Democratic nominee. He has no overall advantage in the polls against Sen. McCain. But such voters have very little information about Sen. Obama. And once the Republican machine begins to methodically attack him, he will lose independent support.
So in a head to head against Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama has no advantage with swing voters.
The 2004 election was determined by two key groups – women concerned about security and Latinos – and against Sen. McCain those groups could again prove decisive. President Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004 and Sen. McCain, unlike other Republicans, has been supportive of immigration reform. These are two groups that enthusiastically support Hillary.
As voters look to the future, they will be looking at who can put the country on the right path and who can defend it against future threats. While Hillary is seen as strong on defense and has served on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Obama has no record on these national security issues that would again be front and center.
So if Sen. McCain is the nominee, Hillary is the one well-positioned to beat him. Already well vetted, she is ready to stand up to Sen. McCain on national security and put together a winning coalition of voters that will take back the White House.
It is all too easy to become a lost soul in New Orleans. The annual meeting of the American Economic Association this month was part of a huge gathering of social scientists sprawled across the city. Each venue itself was a warren of meeting rooms. Take a wrong turning and a delegate seeking an earnest symposium on minimum wages might innocently end up in the conference session devoted to the market for paid sex.
The star attraction there was Steven Levitt, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of “Freakonomics”, a best-selling book. Mr Levitt presented preliminary findings* from a study conducted with Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist at Columbia University. Their research on the economics of street prostitution combines official arrest records with data on 2,200 “tricks” (transactions), collected by Mr Venkatesh in co-operation with sex workers in three Chicago districts.
The results are fascinating. Almost half of the city's arrests for prostitution take place in just 0.3% of its street corners. The industry is concentrated in so few locations because prostitutes and their clients need to be able to find each other. Earnings are high compared with other jobs. Sex workers receive $25-30 per hour, roughly four times what they could expect outside prostitution. Yet this wage premium seems paltry considering the stigma and inherent risks. Sex without a condom is the norm, so the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is high. Mr Levitt reckons that sex workers can expect to be violently assaulted once a month. The risk of legal action is low. Prostitutes are more likely to have sex with a police officer than to be arrested by one.
The Federal Reserve on Tuesday moved to ease fears of a US recession by slashing interest rates by 75 basis points for the first time in more than 20 years.
In a statement, the Fed said: ”The Federal Open Market Committee took this action in view of a weakening of the economic outlook and increasing downside risks to growth.“While strains in short-term funding markets have eased somewhat, broader financial market conditions have continued to deteriorate and credit has tightened further for some businesses and households.
“Moreover, incoming information indicates a deepening of the housing contraction as well as some softening in labour markets.”It is the was biggest US rate cut since October 1984, when rates came down by 175 basis points. The Fed holds its January meeting next week and the market expects a further cut of at least 25 points and possibly 50 points.
The aggressive move represents an urgent effort by the Fed to get on top of the deteriorating economic situation, and a recognition that it had fallen behind the curve in monetary policy.
Officials were planning a big shfit in policy at their January 30 policy meeting, but evidently felt they could not hold on for that scheduled event in light of the sharp deterioration in financial markets.
The wobbly economy is overtaking Iraq as the issue weighing most heavily on the minds of America's voters. And Washington has noticed. The White House and Congress are almost certain to enact some kind of stimulus package. But like all such temporary, feel-good measures, it will generate a quick blip in growth that will quickly evaporate. In reality only one player has the power to do anything swift and decisive: the Federal Reserve. And its chairman, Ben Bernanke, has already made his intentions abundantly clear. Unfortunately, the cure he's prescribing may be worse than the disease.
Just how low will the economy go? There are conflicting signals. It's clear that the economy is losing steam. The plummeting value of America's houses is chilling consumer spending, layoffs are mounting, and banks and other creditors burned by the subprime crisis are far more reluctant to lend to everyone from small-business owners to private equity firms. But GDP increased by 4.9% in the third quarter, and economists estimate that GDP was still growing in the fourth quarter. Exports are strong, thanks to the weak dollar. The Fed did a brilliant job last summer by flooding the banks with money to prevent a full-scale credit crunch. Credit is far more expensive today, but it's also becoming more plentiful, as demonstrated by the falling rates on everything from LIBOR - the rate at which international banks lend to each other - to junk bonds. So while a recession is a real possibility, it's not inevitable - even the Fed is not forecasting one this year. And if we do get one, it may be brief and shallow, like the one we had in 2001 - with economic growth falling by perhaps half a percentage point for a couple of quarters, and unemployment rising from its current 5% to 5.5% or 6%.
Politics
