Angry

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

Get off your high horse Matt, no need to pity me. I'm doing just fine.
It was just discussion. You can believe what you want to believe and
I'll respect your beliefs.

Peter Duniho wrote:
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.

you haven't been looking at much code, proprietary or open source if
you believe so; when you write code that you know is potentially going
to be scrutinized by the best mind out there -- whether it is going
to be the case or not, but you can be it will, by your next potential
employer -- if said potential employer is not a moron -- next time you
apply for a job and by people who matter in the field, the average
programmer tends to do things differently it seems than what is
done for code which is known to remain proprietary (who's going to look
at it? Pointy Haired Bosses?) and where being readable and unobfuscated
is a known bad carreer move (do you really want your code to be easily
taken over by the nice folks of the newly opened field office in
Bangalore?); I have seen good and bad code in either proprietary
or open sources, you bet, but by far, the worst piece of junk I
ever had to look at were proprietary, no contest.

--Sylvain

now this is of course completely off the topic, isn't it? :-)

Flyingmonk wrote:
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. ...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. :^)

BTW, what/where did the name Theune come from? Just curious.

The Monk

It's a old German name. My grandparents on both sides immigrated in the
late 20s with my parents as very young children to New York City. I'm a
first generation American and I found out not too long ago that I came
within 2 weeks of being a South African. My grandfather had applied to
both the US and South Africa for immigration and the US paper work came
back first. I have a number of distant cousins over there now.

John wrote:
It's a old German name. My grandparents on both sides immigrated in the
late 20s with my parents as very young children to New York City. I'm a
first generation American and I found out not too long ago that I came
within 2 weeks of being a South African. My grandfather had applied to
both the US and South Africa for immigration and the US paper work came
back first. I have a number of distant cousins over there now.

Kewl...

I was within three days of being an Auzzie myself. My father had
applied to both the US and Australia for immigration and the US paper
work came back first. :^)

The Monk

"Flyingmonk" wrote

spending over 40+ million
dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ...

I wish everyone would use the word "impeachment" correctly.

He WAS impeached. The next step of removing him from office did not occur.
--
Jim in NC

Jim wrote:
I wish everyone would use the word "impeachment" correctly.
He WAS impeached. The next step of removing him from office did not occur.

Oh, I didn't know that :^) Now I know... Next time I'll use it
correctly, promise :^) I thought that the impeachment process was
not complete until they could get him out of the office. :^)

The Monk

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
Jim wrote:
I wish everyone would use the word "impeachment" correctly.
He WAS impeached. The next step of removing him from office did not
occur.

Oh, I didn't know that :^) Now I know... Next time I'll use it
correctly, promise :^) I thought that the impeachment process was
not complete until they could get him out of the office. :^)

Nope. Impeachment is like a grand jury saying that there is enough evidence
to take him to trial.
--
Jim in NC

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
you haven't been looking at much code

lol...the fact that you would even say that simply shows how little you know
about me (and about the prevalence of maintainable code generally).

Suffice to say, the rest of your reply is way off base.

Recently, Jose posted:

Well, it's Democrats that don't want elections to be secure.

This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
to be counted came from Republicans presently in office.

That's the situation here in Ohio, where Diebold has made the process as
questionable as possible in their approach to voting machines while at the
same time pledging to do everything possible to elect Republicans. And,
it's the Republican administration here that thinks that's a good idea,
and buys their products. Hmmm.

Neil

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Jose" wrote in message
[...]
An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and
media is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would
have more confidence in such a machine.

I would not.
[...]
I do agree that an open source software voting machine is preferable.
But IMHO, the more important aspects are for the voting machine to
provide a paper record of the vote, and for the voting results to be
audited.

Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper
ballot very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect
the ballot to verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then,
some small percentage of voting machines should be selected
(randomly, of course) for their output votes to be compared to
manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should not
be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same time,
with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to the
registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify the
electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
discrepancy?

It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach that is
completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.

Neil