Angry

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:U4wsf.681823$xm3.5087@attbi_s21...

You mean like our illustrious Governor Vilsack, who with the wave of his
magic wand gave the vote to convicted felons in Iowa?

Do you think he did the math, and determined which way most felons vote?


Undoubtedly. Democrats oppose voter ID for the same reason Republicans
support it; the fraudulent vote goes overwhelmingly to Democrats.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

Yes, they have. I'm not suggesting that fraud is a new thing, nor that
any political party is immune. There are no clean hands in politics.

What I =am= suggesting, is that secret software running on voting
machines makes it trivial for wholesale undetectable vote rigging.

It would be interesting to apply the same scrutiny and oversight that
slot machines have (imagine someone trying to rig one to scam the
....er...um... respectable businessman running casinos).

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"lynn" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tien,

A little lesson in Americanism.

"Lynn",

You can stop your pedantic antics. No previous super-power leader should be
so humiliated as Clinton and by his own people least of all.

The White House is NOT his private workplace. The White House belongs
to the People.

Really? It "belongs" to the "people" as much as the Constitution, the Senate
and the House? I guess you can just drop in any time for a cup of tea since
it really "belongs" to you? )) The guy's the world's leader. He can do
whatever he wants in that office!! Yah, so he lied about a blow job. Big
deal? All lies great and small are equally impeachable? You guys think it
is as important a lie as covering up for breaking into Watergate?

OBTW Iraq is NOT another Vietnam. Repeating a DNC mantra does not make it
true.

Really? How observant. I guess I am the only "conservative" who sees the
similarities between the two wars, and how difficult it will be to get out,
lose the peace and lose face, again. Then the public will really hesitate
to get into another war like the post-Vietnam era when a strong America is
really what the world needs at this time.

Americans have done more to damage to your own standing in the public
opinion of the world by these acts of political naiveté than any outside
threat. The world just doesn`t know where america stands on many issues
because your public opinion polls control policy. If you are going to give
Bush the chance to make it right in the fight against terrorism, don't bind
the guy's hands splitting legal hairs about spying and not spying for
Christ's sake. It is a ****ing war, don't you get it?? You want to wait
until a plane or nuke or chemical bomb drops into your backyard before you
sit up and smell the **** that is going on all over the world or are you so
isolated in your ivory tower with loads of free time to spare to criticize
and belittle your leaders? Yah, I have DNC written all over me right?

Tien

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Firefox is consumer grade. If it sort of works, that's good enough. I
would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

A voting machine with software that's not open source can still be vetted.
It's just that the people with specific authority to inspect it need some
sort of NDA. All that open source does is remove the minimal requirement of
non-disclosure.

People act like if something is open source, there are millions of
programmers out there poring over the code looking for flaws. That's just
not the case, even for desktop applications never mind something like a
voting machine. It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a
voting machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the
appropriate agreements for non-disclosure. There aren't going to be that
many people actually looking at it.

And I did not say it would be flawless, just that it would be
significantly easier to detect flaws with open source than with secret
software, such as proposed by Diebold.

The primary difficulty is not providing the code to the inspectors. It's
the inspectors being able to validate the code. The hard part is actually
looking at the code, not getting access to it.

Open source does make access even easier, but it's by no means required for
the purpose of providing sufficient inspection. I definitely disagree with
the claim of "significantly easier to detect flaws". Open source isn't more
readable, it's not less obfuscated, it's not easier to validate. It's just
publicly available. That's all.

Open source doesn't really help with the technical aspect of inspection.
What it does help with is public trust. That's at least as important, IMHO,
but it's not relevant to the question of actually detecting flaws.

Pete

I would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

Because too much depends on it. If word processing software fails, you
have to retype your Christmas letter. If voting machine software fails,
we end up going to war in Iraq. It's like the difference between myself
and a friend in the navy. When I launch a rocket, it comes back to
earth on a colorful plastic parachute, ready for re-use. When my friend
launches a rocket, it blows up Moscow.

It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a
voting machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the
appropriate agreements for non-disclosure.

There's no point in that - it just keeps the secret if there is one.
Democracy should not be based on secrets. It is important, for freedom
and democracy, that the workings of the machinery that protects our
freedoms be public.

People act like if something is open source, there are millions of
programmers out there poring over the code looking for flaws.

It doesn't take "millions of programmers". It just takes one, and
you'll usually find that one in the opponent's camp.

Open source isn't more readable, it's not less obfuscated,
it's not easier to validate. It's just publicly available.

.... which makes it possible to validate to outsiders. I don't care if
it's validated to insiders; that's the fox and the henhouse.

Shrodinger's cat knows whether it's dead or alive, even if we don't. If
you put us in a box and we open the cat box, we will find out. But
nobody outside =our= box will know. It's the people outside the box
that matter.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
John wrote:

And there is also the minor detail that the crime was not the BJ, but
swearing in a court of law that it did not happen.

I agree that what he did was wrong, but spending over 40+ million
dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ..

How much of that $40M was a result of stonewalling, and the "is" defense?

.and if I had to
'over-look' the wrong doings of our past and present presidents, I'd
sooner 'over-look' Slick's short comings. :^)

Uh, huh!! ...long as they bring home the bacon....

Recall the prevalence of sexual harassment cases, the hundreds of military
and business men that got whacked, that abounded up to the minute before the
WHBJ?

What a nation of whores!!1

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

Because too much depends on it.

How naive!!

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Because too much depends on it.

"Because too much depends on it" is not a reason. If it were, we wouldn't
even be having this discussion. But the truth is, there just aren't enough
people who care.

If it were true that "because too much depends on it" would lead to some
massive inspection program on the part of volunteers, then it would also be
true that "because too much depends on it" would lead to some massive push
for all politicians to make elections auditable.

The current situation is proof that your reason isn't a reason at all.

If word processing software fails, you have to retype your Christmas
letter. If voting machine software fails, we end up going to war in Iraq.
It's like the difference between myself and a friend in the navy. When I
launch a rocket, it comes back to earth on a colorful plastic parachute,
ready for re-use. When my friend launches a rocket, it blows up Moscow.

I've never heard of open source rocket guidance software.

It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a voting
machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the appropriate
agreements for non-disclosure.

There's no point in that - it just keeps the secret if there is one.

What part of "any inspector" are you having trouble understanding? How can
something be a secret if ANY INSPECTOR is granted access?

[...]
It doesn't take "millions of programmers". It just takes one, and you'll
usually find that one in the opponent's camp.

One single person could spend their entire life inspecting the code, and
still not validate the entire thing. You need millions of eyes, all looking
in different places, to have an effective survey.

Open source isn't more readable, it's not less obfuscated,
it's not easier to validate. It's just publicly available.

... which makes it possible to validate to outsiders. I don't care if
it's validated to insiders; that's the fox and the henhouse.

Who said anything about "outsiders" versus "insiders"? That's your straw
man, not mine.

Pete

Flyingmonk wrote:
Matt wrote:

He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

If you are so gullible as to believe this sort of "publication", then I
pity you.


Matt