Voting Drops 83 Percent In All-Digital Election 156
For the first time ever, Oahu residents had to use their phones or computers to vote with some surprising results. 7,300 people voted this year, compared to 44,000 people the previous year, a drop of about 83 percent. "It is disappointing, compared to two years ago. This is the first time there is no paper ballot to speak of. So again, this is a huge change and I know that, and given the budget, this is a best that we could do," said Joan Manke of the city Neighborhood Commission. She added that voters obviously did not know about or did not embrace the changes.
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in the case of many Doctors... they have much more important things to focus their attention on.... like learning about medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
At least 50% of them still suck at that.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
the vast majority of people (yes even old folk!) know how to fucking using a computer these days. it isnt 1988
But many otherwise very intelligent people find that they cannot understand them. Sometimes it's just that they have no confidence with computers or believe that they cannot use them. In other cases perhaps the need or the interest has never been there. Most people, even very intelligent people, have a 'blind spot' - a subject or activity they find difficult or even mind-numbingly overwhelming.
Eg. I can read and write in ancient Hebrew and Greek, was described as 'brilliant' while studying and am often asked for help in various areas due to my ability to just pick things up on the run and teach/explain/do whatever is required. When I started my own business however I ran into my nemesis. Accounting. It took me over a month to get my head around the basics. Longer still to start to understand my accounting software. Don't know if I'll ever get past the basics with it cos I seriously find it hard to understand.
So I don't give people who don't understand computers a hard time. Most people can send emails and write a text document. Surfing the web is also pretty common. Internet banking is a bonus. If that is all they need, that is all that most people will ever learn and that is ok. When they need something else, they ring me and pay me $60 an hour as a tech. I don't mind at all!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might not get past the basics - but at least you learned the basics. The thing with 'the basics' is that anybody who is smart can learn 'the basics' in pretty much any field.
With IT though there is this weird thing where people seem to think it is perfectly OK to simply claim "I'm not very good with computers", and not even bother to try and get any further.
I don't think that's a blind spot. Nobody is asking them to write a perl regex to validate an email address.
I agree with you (and I actually think t
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point there. I think it is due to the huge support infrastructure that was built up in corporations as IT expanded.
The copy machine, the fax, and the phones (those can be crazy complex) don't have near the amount of support (lackey ready to run to help someone on a whim)... people learned to deal with them and now only need repair support for those devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it comes back to being well-informed.
Without the web, you've got TV and newspapers. Papers are slowly dying, and it's difficult to find unbiased TV outside of The Daily Show.
However, on the Internet, you're almost automatically better informed. Anything you don't know, Google does, or Wikipedia does.
Re: (Score:2)
However, on the Internet, you're almost automatically better informed. Anything you don't know, Google does, or Wikipedia does.
I know this is true. I read it on the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, perl regex to validate an email is your example of a challenge?
Turn in your geek card.
Re: (Score:2)
It's harder than you'd think [regular-expressions.info].
Granted, you could just copy/paste from that page, or find a library to do it for you. But validating it with a regex, in a meaningful way, is non-trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/26/159249 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Resistant to change? How about lack of opportunity and justification?
I know people who were never rich enough to buy a computer and grew up in a time when then didn't need one. I also know these same people who don't have a justification for spending $5-600 or even thousands of dollars for a computer that they obviously don't need. Would you call these people resistant to change or just practical and prudent with their finances?
Just because you have a use for one doesn't mean everyone does or will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In before Rick Astley becomes President of Oahu. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The advantage voting machines and paper ballots have isn't that they can't be rigged, it's that they are easier to audit. Auditing an electronic vote requires that the audit trail was built in in the first place, and that the auditors are tech people of skill equal to or greater than the people who created the system in the first place.
Auditing a paper ballot can be done by anyone who managed to pass math through middle school. (Assuming the ballot wasn't designed by idiots. And even then it only takes a
Re: (Score:2)
Or at worst case fair enough so it's only a few hundred protesting/rioting on the streets rather than tens of thousands.
With paper voting done right, the various parties can actually have representatives present at the counting. They can keep watch over the ballot boxes - so that they aren't swapped or removed/added.
The big trouble so far is with postal ballots. But that will be a problem with digital systems as well.
People ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did my master's work on e-voting in 1999, and followed it since.
You're right, but nailed only half of the issue (audit).
The other half is that we expect our elections to employ secret ballots. With paper, you can physically watch the ballots, even though you've dissociated voters from votes. The voter can see that the paper is marked as the voter intended, but not with anything that identifies the voter, and deposit it in a ballot box. The voter can further have confidence that, as you say, many intere
Re: (Score:2)
He was referring to the rigged 2000 election, where the office was stolen from President-Elect Gore.
So, are you saying that the Democrats in Florida rigged the election so that George W Bush would win?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I get it, so they only rig the elections that upset the whiners. Gotcha. Very clever, these rascals, very clever.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust people who are not intelligent enough to use a computer to be informed enough to vote in my jurisdiction.
Not to mention the candidates. However, it poses one significant abuse vector: you can't predict the number of votes by counting the people who show up anymore.
How do we know there weren't more votes for the losing candidate?
Intelligence has nothing to do with it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I (and you, apparently) am fortunate enough to have both phone and Internet access, but there are many citizens who don't. Homeless people have the right to vote, too, without having to seek out some technological proxy.
If this ever hits my area, I'll look forward to writing off my Internet access and computer costs when I do my taxes.
Finally, if you're "intelligent" enough to hang around
Re: (Score:2)
We need more all-digital elections. I don't trust people who are not intelligent enough to use a computer to be informed enough to vote in my jurisdiction.
This should be modded insightful; not funny.
Re: (Score:2)
If YOU were smart enough to know your history you would know about the multiple intelligence tests that certain southern gentleman used to keep blacks from voting.
Whats more, intelligence is not helpful in democracy. There is no way you can make the right decision by voting on it. Democracy is about FRANCHISING people - giving them power, not about ma
Re: (Score:2)
If you were using NSA level encryption devices on both ends of the line the NSA would get suspicious. They don't have those backrooms at the telephone company for nothing.
You're Doing It Wrong (Score:5, Funny)
7,300 people voted this year, compared to 44,000 people the previous year, a drop of about 83 percent.
If all you're concerned about is number of votes, put each candidate on prime time television belting out the worst songs they can think of. Then instruct viewers to vote with their cell phones. Don't forget to charge them 99 cents a call and limit them to 10 votes ... the populace seems to love that.
Granted, they might not be the best candidate for the position, there will be 10 million votes and you'll have a $9.9 million surplus to decide what to do with. On top of that, your elected official will be able to sing "Oops, I Did It Again" by Britney Spears whenever they screw anything up.
Re: (Score:2)
If all you're concerned about is number of votes, put each candidate on prime time television belting out the worst songs they can think of.
I'm trying to find something wrong with your suggestion, and not succeeding. Gentlemen, if there is such thing as a perfect plan, this is it. Please moderate him insightful.
Don't feel too bad. (Score:2)
Not a real big loss. After all, democracy doesn't really work anyway, just like all those other systems of government.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, democracy doesn't really work anyway...
Democracy is a fine system, for beginners.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
What's that old saying? Stalin made the trains run on time, the only problem is that no one wanted to take the trains after that.
No faith (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(I'm the one vote you -1 flamebait -- sorry, was an accident, slipped on the mouse. Hope me posting in this thread will erase the vote...)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or they had just heard about how abysmally inaccurate previous all-digital elections had been and figured, "why bother?"
Nah. Dis stay Hawai'i brah, no ones know bout all da kine kapakai. We's jus wen to da beach an forgot about da kine.
Re: (Score:2)
That, or there actually was an error in the results... maybe 83% of the votes were thrown away?
Unlikely, but I'm just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
What were the reasons? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Electronic voting makes voting more easy, which is useful in that it brings the possibility of direct democracy.
Two groups oppose this: The first is selfish and wants to keep power concentrated (for either good or bad purposes). The second recognizes the prevalence of the first and knows that direct democracy leads to voting "the weak" off the island (caught up in an above pop TV refence)(with either good or bad results).
These two groups are constan
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'm not a US citizen but have been living there since 2001. I'm still allowed to vote for a few of my home country elections. To do so I either vote by mail/internet or go to the consulate in San Francisco, drive 1-2hs, wait in line 2hs and risk being turned away because I don't have the proper document with me.
For the presidential elections (not the US ones) they actually opened voting booths all over the bay area and I only had to drive 5 miles to vote. There was a huge turnaround, and people in
Age demographics? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right. This return isn't enough to even assume a minimal participation.
Its seems unreasonable for the powers that be to certify the results of any election with this kind of participation drop.
In this day and age anyone in the 18-75 age group has probably had enough experience with Either computers OR phones to be able to vote. The fact that virtually no one did so suggests massive mistrust or stunningly poor public preparation.
I'm betting they sent out the notices via spam, and dinner hour automa
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd chalk it up to "they changed the system" and "where do I find such and such?"
I'm consistently amazed at how difficult it is to find something as simple as my local polling place online. For instance, in Texas, the Secretary of State is supposed to manage the elections; their website tells you to check the newspaper, or they defer you over to the contact information for your county official.
And each state does it differently. It's a nightmare.
I don't know how good or bad Hawaii is about dissemi
Re: (Score:2)
Vote411 seemed like it would be good...but it's down. And honestly, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when the people in charge of the elections aren't forthcoming with information about them.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience, limited as it may be, suggests that Hawaii is almost, but not quite, thoroughly unlike Texas.
That being said, my County (in Washington state) votes by mail. My ballot finds me. I don't have to find it. Return Postage pre-paid. Sign the outer envelope, secret ballot in the machine open-able inner envelope.
Can this be gamed? Probably, if someone wanted to add the Federal offense of mail theft to the (apparently ignored) crime of Election Fraud, but to do so on any massive scale would be pret
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds convenient, but I like being able to personally see my ballot drop into the urn with no identifying information. Perhaps that is paranoia, though.
(This is also why I don't like electronic ballots. Once the process is digital, there are many more security factors to watch out for in the way of secrecy, integrity and reliability. Crypto would allow for a more or less fool-resistant approach, but nobody ever seems to implement it properly.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The experience of postal voting in England says it can be gamed.
You get party officials going round retirement homes to "help" people complete their ballots.
You have 15 people living in a 1 bed apartment all registering to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
That is Not a significant problem here (as far as anyone knows).
Voter registration is a function of State Government.
The ballots are sent and counted by the County Government.
There are reasonable (but not foolproof) checks on the number they of people that can be registered at a given address at the State level.
Also, you might be confusing the problem of fraudulent voter registration with the problem of vote counting.
They are related problems, for sure, but not quite the same thing. If the voter registratio
Money means nothing... (Score:2)
... when your Democracy has no physical accountability.
7300 votes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother when you know its hacked? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the feeling is that any election taking place over the net or the phone system is so easily hackable as to become laughable.
There is no changeable paper trail for this, contrary to the trend nationally to require same.
How long till botnets on the island (or elsewhere) start selling election stealing services?
Ok, now expect the defenders telling us this is all impossible and calling me a Luddite in 3, 2, 1...
Re: (Score:2)
oops, I mean challengeable paper trail.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> no clear way to capitalize on this without being traced.
You presume a level of diligence that does not exist. We can't even get botnets shut down in this country when we know exactly which computers have been compromised, let along be able to trace the problem to the source.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't kill botnets because of privacy law. We could very easily write a botnet hunter that could propagate through vulnerabilities in infected systems. It would, however, be illegal. The problem is, the intersection of "black hat hackers", "moral hackers", and "fearless hackers" is very small. We don't have anti-botnet hunter-killers for the same reason we don't have caped crusaders in every city.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ACORN is a red herring. The people out gathering voter registrations are payed per name. Federal regulations require ACORN to submit every single name they gather; they are not allowed to strike obvious forgeries before handing them to the government. It is the government's responsibility--because they've demanded the sole power--to strike invalid voters from the rolls. Moreover, you have to prove your identity when you vote. If there's a problem with people showing up with forged ID to prove they're someon
digital ballot stuffing (Score:4, Funny)
Give them a couple of years and the digital ballot stuffing software will get better. The voter numbers should be waaaay up.
Who cooked up this scheme? (Score:3, Insightful)
The city cut its expenses in half by using computers and phone technology by Everyone Counts.
"This is the future for presidential elections, general elections, primary elections, all the way," Everyone Counts consultant Bob Watada said.
Watada is the former Campaign Spending Commission director.
Whoa! Conflict of interest much?
1) Con city into using Company A
2) Sign fat contract with Company A
3) Hold election (sweep massive FAIL under rug)
4) Profit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1) Con city into using Company A
2) Sign fat contract with Company A
3) Hold election (sweep massive FAIL under rug)
4) ????
5) Profit
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot a step.
1) Con city into using Company A
2) Sign fat contract with Company A
3) Hold election (sweep massive FAIL under rug)
4) ????
5) Profit
Step four is:
Sign ACORN up to assist in "organising" your election.
Something was lost. (Score:2)
83% fewer votes were counted.
That might means 83% fewer voters, which is a significant loss of confidence, or it could mean 83% of the votes were lost.
Either way, I'd say the system is a failure.
Engagement (Score:5, Insightful)
Why vote electronically? (Score:2)
Insecure and I miss the fun of showing up. In my state for the primary we did a caucus which was load and disorganized. I loved it. Not choreographed or controlled. Total chaos. As true democracy should be.
No paper trail... (Score:2)
This is the first time there is no paper ballot to speak of.
Then what makes them so certain that there were only 7,300 people who voted?
A paper trail is SUPPOSED to have a certain level of inconvenience. That's part of its value. Generally speaking, the more automation a voting system has, the higher the potential for fraud.
Way of the future - Get used to it (Score:2)
An Internet based vote is way more cost-effective and easy to setup and conduct than a paper one.
This kind of technology will become the norm.
It will permit consultation of populations on a much more frequent basis.
The security issues are solvable through use of open-source standards, and clever
encryption schemes, that can be verified by thousands of independent
programmers and mathematicians.
Admittedly we don't have the level of techno-scrutiny we need on these things yet,
but it will come.
The bigger problem
Misspoke (or did I) (Score:2)
or we could fight AGAINST the stupidity and apathy I suppose. :-)
The nefarious forces of entrenched hierarchy fighting to increase the general level of stupidity and apathy
need no assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi,
Please see also my comment above:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1249937&cid=28147257 [slashdot.org]
It's not really clear that "the level of techno-scrutiny we need" is even theoretically possible. Many smart people have been thinking carefully about this problem for over a decade, and their conclusions on all-electronic systems are generally "don't do it." (Incidentally this is the same conclusion I reached while doing my master's work on the subject in 1999.) Paper ballots (printing them from electron
Re: (Score:2)
1. If you are concerned about a single e-voting system corrupting the data, you could have the data passed in parallel to multiple independently developed open-source systems for recording and tallying the votes.
2. Why should we trust the electronic financial systems that manage our bank accounts, and billions of local and international financial transactions every day,
yet not trust e-voting systems? Clearly there is just as much incentive to syphon off a billion or two dollars here or there as there is to
Re: (Score:2)
1. If you are concerned about a single e-voting system corrupting the data, you could have the data passed in parallel to multiple independently developed open-source systems for recording and tallying the votes.
It's not a question of scale. It's also not a question of whether the software used is open-source. It's a question of whether a purely electronic system can do a good job of simultaneously preserving both a secret ballot and an audit trail.
2. Why should we trust the electronic financial systems that manage our bank accounts, and billions of local and international financial transactions every day,
yet not trust e-voting systems? Clearly there is just as much incentive to syphon off a billion or two dollars here or there as there is to sway an election.
What property is it of the electronic financial systems that enable us to, in general, trust them (despite a few occasional fraud cases)?
Why could we not build that property in to our way of conducting computerized elections?
The audit trail in finance systems connects you with your transaction.
Notably, efforts towards "electronic cash" have gone nowhere. The security challenges involved are much the same as those for e-voting. If I hand you a bill, there's proof that you have more money,
Use of PKI (Score:2)
I believe that a PKI-based ballot receipt kept in escrow may an adequate solution. In other words, at the simplest level, the e-voter receives a receipt, which does not contain the information on how they voted, but can be supplied to the system at a later date, where it will allow them to check their ballot. There is also a mathematical way to verify that that ballot contributed one vote's worth to the result, through hashing technology.
Of course, receipts are a problem as long as we have unequal power rel
Re: (Score:2)
Hi,
I understand that you believe that.
I refer you to a post I made about 9 years ago, here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6507&cid=940549 [slashdot.org]
(Note that I followed up with a correction to a researcher's name -- Cramer => Cohen.)
As you point out, receipts that allow you to verify a vote tend to provide a way to prove how you voted, and if they come in electronic form there are many large-scale exploits.
How many wonks could verify the result? Can they be trusted to cooperate but not to collude? There
Not Necessarily Attributable to New System (Score:2, Interesting)
I recall reading an article in the local paper that voter turnout dropped hugely in the most recent California elections. I also recall reading a similar article the next day in the LA Times how voter turnout in LA County also dropped hugely. The whole voter turnout decreasing trend seems to be fairly common throughout the United States these days. Couple that with the ever-popular 'tea party protests' that we have recently seen in the country in which numerous voters are conglomerating and denouncing the g
By coincidence (Score:2)
look, morons: (Score:5, Insightful)
paper voting: cheap
electronic voting: expensive
paper voting: 10x attack vectors to corrupt it
electronic voting: 1,000x attack vectors to corrupt it
the richest, most advanced, technophilic nation and the poorest most backwards nation should all vote the same way: paper ballot
anything else is simply paying more $ just for more ways to corrupt the vote. a democracy is based on legitimacy of the vote. if you cast doubt on that legitimacy, if there is any taint in the process of voting, and electronic voting allows for myriad more ways to do just that, then you destroy people's faith in their own government
this is not a joke, please stop with the electronic voting. its downright dangerous as it threatens the legitimacy of elected officials in the eyes of the people due to its black box nature: votes go in, leader comes out, who the fuck knows what kind of sausage is in the middle
yes, you can still fuck around with stacks of paper with checkmarks on them and mess with the vote thataways. but in a lot less ways, and a lot less opaquely, and you need a lot of cooperation and hard work. one well-placed hacker can change millions of votes in untraceable ways in milliseconds with electronic voting
in the case of close elections, you have ballots to fall back on that many human eyes can see and hold in their hands and tally for themselves. what do you have with electronic voting? a bunch of bits of doubtful provenance on a hard disk and some easily corruptible bureaucrat saying "trust me". fuck that. i'd rather a close vote take 3 months to tally on paper than a 3 second tally of votes of a black box nature
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The for small, local elections it may not matter that much other than standardization.
The real problem is speedy results. People in the US think of elections as a some kind of a race. A race with a winner and a loser where the results are available at the end of the race. In the case where results aren't available immediately, the TV News people are going to make up results based on exit polls and other information. This was done when Gore was announced around midnight in 2000. Of course, these were no
so OCR it (Score:2)
if that doesn't satisfy them, then fuck them. they have to wait. a little patience for a valid election is obviously better than immediate shoddy results
besides, all those "obama wins!" 9 pm announcements on voting day are projections, not hard returns. so nothing changes
dont look at me (Score:3, Insightful)
look at any budget for any electronic voting system in the world
now compare it to the voting process budget for swaziland
the more secure paper ballot voting process for swaziland
too many people are embracing a less secure more expensive way to vote out of nothing more than technophilia, rather than a coherent understanding of the requirements for the voting system, and how paper satisfies those requirements better, more cheaply, more securely
OCR the shit if you want your results fast. but you better have th
you're seriously deluded (Score:2)
"1. Everyone already has a voter registration number, make sure they know it."
didja happen to notice the hoopla over a national id card over the last few years? no one's going to oppose a new national id system, naaah
"2. Decentralize the vote. Each "polling station" creates a flat file that has the voter id and what they voted for. Make it available for anyone to download."
oh ok, so now i can see who my neighbor voted for? oh, i can't, it hides identity? ok then, where's the protection against dirty tricks
The worst news . . . (Score:5, Funny)
I live on Oahu (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the first I've heard of this election. I had no idea this was happening. My guess is that too few people knew about the election in the first place, and that it was just a failure to advertise it properly.
That would make sense except that this election happens every year. Are you saying that the people who voted in this election last year didn't know they were going to have it this year?
this just in (Score:2)
the other 36700 did vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, what respectable electronic voting system for Oahu (population 900,000) would not register at least 1,200,000 votes ?
That's funny. (Score:2)
Another Possibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Listening to the stories of Hawaii, It sounds like most of the local population is barely making a living.
Hawaii is an expensive place to live and computers haven't quite supplanted the Television. One could argue that TV still isn't ubiquitous in the US, however I would wager that there are far more households with televisions than there are with computers.
So another possible reason is that people may not have the means to vote electronically.
I am perfectly fine to pay for the gas and take the time to go vote.
If I have to goto an internet cafe and pay to do it once I get there, I might be less inclined.
Sure there is the library but I don't think that a couple of terminals at the public library are really going to pick up the slack.
Not saying this is why there were fewer votes, a simple look at the demographics of who voted would go quite far in helping to answer the question though.
Dumbest journalist ever? (Score:2)
So...
a) what was the election FOR?
b) how can you compare the voter turnout for a year with ZERO federal representation ballots against the damn 2008 election!??!?!
These seem like awfully rudimentary questions to ask if you're writing this story.
ballot stuffers not getting with times? (Score:2)
One possibility being that rampant paper-ballot-stuffing was curtailed and that the vote count now is closer to real?
"Did not bother" != "Feared Retribution" (Score:2)
I personally would abstain from such an election on principle alone. It is impossible to _guarantee_ that your vote will be kept anonymous.
[The only way to guarantee such a thing would be to require people to pick up single use digital keys printed on paper from a physical location and use these as login credentials. Even then, you'd have to vote using a digital proxy or from an internet cafe, all of which undermines the so called "convenience" of an all digital election].
Who knows what kind of unprovable
Perhaps last year was not a typical election year (Score:2)
Not that I don't believe the mechanism they used hurt their
It's the election Stupid (Score:2)
Lets see, presidential election with Obama on the ticket, vs election with the mayor on the ticket. Hmmm hard choice, nobody really cares about a mayor. We have 44k registered voters here and 67% voted last year for the president, and this year's city council elections only 2% voted.
You're doing it wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree.
Its really GOOD for the deplorable propagation of inappropriate and insecure voting technology. It should nip it in the bud!
Compared to this scheme, Diebold was an example of bullet proof security. Hacking Diebold for the most part still required physical access to the machines or their memory. Cracking internet voting can be done from the safety for some Russian bot net master's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part of TFA that provided Telephone Voting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Gathering Place?
Re: (Score:2)
How about the guy who cuts spending AND cuts taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
People want to change things by voting in national elections and ignoring local elections. That is not the way Democracy works. You can change things a lot by voting in local elections. You can't change things much by voting in national elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and those of you who are analogy-impaired still don't get what he successfully and accurately communicated to the general public, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey,
Have you ever heard of disappearing ink?
Re: (Score:2)
Also,
you do know that paper is flammable, I presume. In the country of my great repeatedly elected
supreme leader, we know this very well.
Re: (Score:2)
With money, I don't go in for all this debit-card, credit card, bank account nonsense.
Complete hocus-pocus.
In fact, I don't even hold with paper notes.
If it isn't solid metal weighing and clanking in my pocket,
I don't trust it.