or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VOTE today - Page 17

post #241 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:50:29 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Which means if you are any sort of "secular humanist" - whether
>>>moderate of liberal - your enemies are all absolutist fundamentalists,
>>>and in particular Muslims and Christians. Why them? Because they
>>>have lots of adherents and lots of power and are a threat to you,
>>>because if you have not been "assimilated" into them, you are
>>>marginalized and expendable.

>>
>>... and paranoid!

>
>Wary, critical, defensive, and yes, a little paranoid. Hard to
>believe is took the electorate and general public so long to catch on,
>but what a relief that it finally did. Too bad my wife -a high school
>health teacher - retired this year. Once the Bush administration's
>Christian bias in funding is tossed out of the public schools for
>good, she could have actually taught her curriculum again.


"Christian bias in funding"???!!! LOL. Perhaps you can tell me where
Christianity is being taught in our public schools.

And if you and your wife were happy with the performance of the public
school system, it's probably a good thing she left. NCLB is far from
perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
post #242 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:

>Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 06:14:55 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Not directly related to that, but I'm reminded of what a
>>>partisan/dumbass you are and thought this might be informative to you
>>>who earlier said you're weren't aware of problems with electronic
>>>voting and that complaints about it weren't more than nutty conspiracy
>>>theories :
>>>
>>>http://www.forbes.com/home/security/...3security.html

>>
>> Did your mother teach you those manners, JT?
>>
>> And perhaps you can show me where I ever said anything remotely like
>> there weren't ANY problems with electronic voting? Of COURSE there
>> are "problems" with electronic voting (name one other electronic
>> device that's 100.000% reliable).

>
>Oh Mark, I can confidently state you have very little idea what you're
>talking about. I would be ecstatic if we held voting machines to the
>same piddling standards we hold less important similar machines (i.e.,
>electronic slot machines).


It's clear you haven't participated in the several threads on this
subject previously (JT seems doomed to repeat the same conversation
over and over and over again, ala 'Groundhog Day', but I'm going to
let him go solo).

>> The previous discussion I was involved in had to do with INTENTIONAL
>> alteration of the machine to corrupt the results, and so far no one's
>> shown where that's happened (nor did the article you reference above
>> imply).

>
>The whole point is that we will probably never know. There are *no*
>audit trails in most of these machines. Let me repeat that: there are
>*no* audit trails. How much should I chalk up to ignorance and
>incompetence and how much to malice? I believe it's mostly stupidity,
>but what if I'm wrong?


There are (cue scary music...) "no audit trails" because it's a VOTING
MACHINE. If the thing spits out a ticker tape of the votes as they're
made, it's a simple matter to determine who voted how, which is not
legal/ethical. We've had many interesting discussions about ways to
overcome this conundrum, but none that (IMHO) would work AND protect
voter's rights to privacy. If you have a better idea, feel free to
give it to Diebold - you'll be rich.

>> And of course, one would have to (try to...) totally ignore the fact
>> that the normal spoilage on alternative (paper) methods of voting are
>> many times higher than that of the electronic methods. I suspected
>> that everyone still remembered that from 2000, but I suppose not.

>
>Bahahaha! Properly designed paper ballots are many many times better
>than any of the current electronic crop of crap.


I mis-spoke when I said "many times higher" - but clearly the spoilage
rate is higher than for the electronic voting machines (on the order
of 2% for paper ballots, based on the research I've seen).

>And the fellow who wrote the article is Bruce Schneier. He's probably
>one of the foremost experts in computer security in the entire *world*.
>[1] He thinks all the current US voting machines are utter crap. Pretty
>much the entire rest of the reputable security and computer people in
>the US agree with him.
>
>[1] He literally wrote the main reference book on Cryptography. He's
>not a lightweight.


No one denies that it would be possible to tamper with the electronic
voting machines. But no reasonable person denies that it would be
much more difficult than tampering with paper ballots.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
post #243 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:51:53 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:

>"Christian bias in funding"???!!! LOL. Perhaps you can tell me where
>Christianity is being taught in our public schools.


"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God,
indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Not a formal class, but urging kids to recite this is a form of
teaching.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #244 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

On 13 Nov 2006 19:37:01 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Mr. Taylor:
>
>And you base your opinions of Muslims in general being so intolerant
>that they can not co-exist with others on what facts?


Are you frickin serious?

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Lebanon
Palestine
Sudan

etc.

If you take the religion to it's core, Islam doesn't co-exist with
ANYBODY, including itself (you've maybe heard about the Sunnis and the
Shias?).

What don't you get about religions which claim to have THE ONE TRUTH?
They have a built in justification to marginalize and obliterate
everything outside their purview.
post #245 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:09:08 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
wrote:

>I mis-spoke when I said "many times higher" - but clearly the spoilage
>rate is higher than for the electronic voting machines (on the order
>of 2% for paper ballots, based on the research I've seen).
>


What's this research? Will it be like the progress in Iraq you saw,
where rather than referring us to it, you do a Google search hoping to
find the first thing that fits your thesis, and then pass that along?

>
>No one denies that it would be possible to tamper with the electronic
>voting machines. But no reasonable person denies that it would be
>much more difficult than tampering with paper ballots.


The difference it that it's far easier to do widespread and systematic
tampering with electronic voting -- not faking a few ballots on paper
or slipping a few things into the system but doing it on a grand scale
that effects the election and is much more difficult to detect after
the fact.

Please, write more about this stuff and argue about it. I'm no expert
on it, but I've read a lot of expert work on it. You are talking out
your butt and it's amusing. So please, tell us more.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #246 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:48:53 -0700, Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I'd guess you have "issues" with Christianity for some reason (only
> >way to explain your rant).

>
> I have issues with any religion or ideology which claims to have a
> monopoly on truth. Christianity and Islam are among the worst
> offenders.


Heretic! You've obviously not been touched by his noodly appendage!

http://www.venganza.org/
post #247 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Mark Hickey wrote:

> I must have missed the command to "target infidels", which is strange
> 'cuz I've read through the Bible a lot of times. I do seem to
> remember "love your enemies".


Try Deuteronomy 13:5, that tells you to kill a prophet
of another faith. Then read 13:6-9, that says you must
kill members of your own family who encourage you to
worship other gods. OK, they don't quite say to start a
holy war against the entire tribe next door--but they're
lovely passages, aren't they.

> I'd guess you have "issues" with Christianity for some reason (only
> way to explain your rant). That's too bad, because it's a belief
> system that works quite well for a lot of people.


I'm not the person you're responding to, but a lot
of us certainly do have issues with Christianity.
Your Bible says I should be put to death for having
sex with men; I'm not keen on that passage and
all the hatred it has stirred up over the years.
The people who've committed crimes against me
and against my property just because I am gay
were moderate, after all; they didn't put me to
death as Leviticus 20:13 calls for.

Tom Ace
post #248 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Tom Ace wrote:

> Your Bible says I should be put to death for having
> sex with men; I'm not keen on that passage and
> all the hatred it has stirred up over the years.
> The people who've committed crimes against me
> and against my property just because I am gay
> were moderate, after all; they didn't put me to
> death as Leviticus 20:13 calls for.
>


How dare they offend God's chosen folk?!

See, this is how I explain it to the local holy rollers, and this being
Nashville, there's a lot of them: Pat Robertson and the rest of the
televangelists often blather on about the "Prosperity Gospel",
basically that money is awarded in some bizarre relationship to piety.
Fine, now explain why whenever gay couples move into the neighborhood,
mine is a perfect example, property values skyrocket. Could it be that
he caresses those men approvingly with His noodly appendages? Seems
quite obvious to me, and if you think I'm being silly, it's only really
the Abrahamic religions that *don't* see gayness as some sort of
special spiritual gift.

RAmen.
post #249 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today


>
> Mr. Coffee:
>
> Do you deny that Peter Chisholm (by implication) said those without
> military service are second class citizens [1]?
>
> [1] Not being allowed to run for higher office (President) certainly
> puts one group (those without military service) in a lower class.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


I'll talk for myself Tommie but yes, FIRST class CITIZENS do serve,
risk their life for the well being of other citizens, even you.
post #250 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

landotter wrote:
> Tom Ace wrote:
>
> > Your Bible says I should be put to death for having
> > sex with men; I'm not keen on that passage and
> > all the hatred it has stirred up over the years.
> > The people who've committed crimes against me
> > and against my property just because I am gay
> > were moderate, after all; they didn't put me to
> > death as Leviticus 20:13 calls for.
> >

>
> How dare they offend God's chosen folk?!
>
> See, this is how I explain it to the local holy rollers, and this being
> Nashville, there's a lot of them: Pat Robertson and the rest of the
> televangelists often blather on about the "Prosperity Gospel",
> basically that money is awarded in some bizarre relationship to piety.


Completely Calvinist in its approach. We receive rewards on earth in
proportion to our worthiness in God's eyes. (In a nutshell.)
Calvinists invented the phrase "God helps those who help themselves."
That's why Calvinists hate Welfare - they believe completely that it's
God's will that some people should be poor - and that it's the poors'
own fault that they are that way. They believe this even though
there's not one shred of Gospel evidence for that stance. In fact, the
Gospels say exactly the opposite.

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good self-serving
story, I always say.

E.P.
post #251 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
> Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And perhaps you can show me where I ever said anything remotely like
>>> there weren't ANY problems with electronic voting? Of COURSE there
>>> are "problems" with electronic voting (name one other electronic
>>> device that's 100.000% reliable).

>>
>>Oh Mark, I can confidently state you have very little idea what you're
>>talking about. I would be ecstatic if we held voting machines to the
>>same piddling standards we hold less important similar machines (i.e.,
>>electronic slot machines).

>
> It's clear you haven't participated in the several threads on this
> subject previously (JT seems doomed to repeat the same conversation
> over and over and over again, ala 'Groundhog Day', but I'm going to
> let him go solo).


No, I've discussed this on multiple computer technical fora instead.
I'm sorry, but I haven't felt much need to participate since only some
of you fellows are qualified to follow a technical discussion on the
subject. That doesn't mean however that you can't hold an *informed*
opinion about it of course.

>>> The previous discussion I was involved in had to do with INTENTIONAL
>>> alteration of the machine to corrupt the results, and so far no one's
>>> shown where that's happened (nor did the article you reference above
>>> imply).

>>
>>The whole point is that we will probably never know. There are *no*
>>audit trails in most of these machines. Let me repeat that: there are
>>*no* audit trails. How much should I chalk up to ignorance and
>>incompetence and how much to malice? I believe it's mostly stupidity,
>>but what if I'm wrong?

>
> There are (cue scary music...) "no audit trails" because it's a VOTING
> MACHINE.


Nonsense. There is more than one way to skin the cat.

> If the thing spits out a ticker tape of the votes as they're
> made, it's a simple matter to determine who voted how, which is not
> legal/ethical.


Okay, easy to solve, print out a human-readable copy of the ballot and
have the person drop it in a lock-box. Easy-peasy. If there's a need
to recount, it would be trivial to verify the totals.

> We've had many interesting discussions about ways to
> overcome this conundrum, but none that (IMHO) would work AND protect
> voter's rights to privacy. If you have a better idea, feel free to
> give it to Diebold - you'll be rich.


Diebold has shown again and again that they are neither interested in
accuracy, privacy, or security [1]. They are interested in producing
minimum bid results with zero transparency. They write crap software
and they know it.

If I had turned in their design for my Senior Design *undergraduate*
project, I would not have expected a very good grade.

>>> And of course, one would have to (try to...) totally ignore the fact
>>> that the normal spoilage on alternative (paper) methods of voting are
>>> many times higher than that of the electronic methods. I suspected
>>> that everyone still remembered that from 2000, but I suppose not.

>>
>>Bahahaha! Properly designed paper ballots are many many times better
>>than any of the current electronic crop of crap.

>
> I mis-spoke when I said "many times higher" - but clearly the spoilage
> rate is higher than for the electronic voting machines (on the order
> of 2% for paper ballots, based on the research I've seen).


Please cite. I know we have very low rate of spoilage issues in
Washington state. We use Scantron - fill in the circle - type
balloting. It's pretty hard to screw up. I'm sure some people do
though.

Here's a heartening story of electronic vote accuracy: 3% error
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?i...C-RSSFeeds0312

Poor programming and poor training cause other problems:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

>>And the fellow who wrote the article is Bruce Schneier. He's probably
>>one of the foremost experts in computer security in the entire *world*.
>>[1] He thinks all the current US voting machines are utter crap. Pretty
>>much the entire rest of the reputable security and computer people in
>>the US agree with him.
>>
>>[1] He literally wrote the main reference book on Cryptography. He's
>>not a lightweight.

>
> No one denies that it would be possible to tamper with the electronic
> voting machines. But no reasonable person denies that it would be
> much more difficult than tampering with paper ballots.


Everyone with any knowledge of the subject says it's *easier* than
tampering with paper ballots. Spoiling attacks are *ridiculously* easy.
All you have to do is mess up the 'tamper-tape' on a box and it's votes
are in doubt. How would you feel if someone went to a Republican heavy
polling district and did that? They would most likely have to throw out
a good percentage or all of the votes from that machine. How long would
it take? Five seconds - tops.

># Some localities have taken to securing the PCMCIA slot with security
>tape or plastic ties. The idea here is that a cut tie or torn tape will
>invalidate the results of that machine, because poll workers can't
>guarantee that it wasn't compromised. There are two things wrong with
>this scheme:


> 1. If you want to invalidate all the results stored in machines in a
>precinct that favors your opponent, just cut the tape or the ties on
>those machines. If the election supervisor sticks to the rules, then he
>or she will be forced to throw out all of those votes.


> 2. According to author, security researcher, and Maryland election
>judge Avi Rubin, one would almost have to have a CIA background to be
>able to tell if the security tape applied to the AccuVotes in the
>Maryland primary had been removed and reapplied.


From the same article:
"Finally, it's extremely important to note that, in the absence of a
meaningful audit trail, like that provided by voter-verified paper
receipts, it is *virtually impossible* to tell machine malfunction from
deliberate vandalism."

Also, how hard is to open a lock on the machine?

You need a hotel mini-bar key:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/178218

"In fact, the key in question is a utilitarian type used to open office
furniture, electronic equipment, jukeboxes, and the like. They might as
well hand them out like candy."

Please please please read up on this issue. This is not a partisan
issue. It's in every honest upstanding citizens interests to have good
and fair elections.

This is probably one of the most accessible articles on the subject:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ars

[1] They use Windows for Christ's sake. It wouldn't have cost much
extra to use a good solid proprietary embedded OS like QNX. Of course
Diebold's programmers are... not so good. I've worked with some of
them, I was not impressed.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts
you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get
them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer.
-- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
post #252 of 311

Re: OT: Rummy is going

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Tom Ace wrote:
> >
> > > Your Bible says I should be put to death for having
> > > sex with men; I'm not keen on that passage and
> > > all the hatred it has stirred up over the years.
> > > The people who've committed crimes against me
> > > and against my property just because I am gay
> > > were moderate, after all; they didn't put me to
> > > death as Leviticus 20:13 calls for.
> > >

> >
> > How dare they offend God's chosen folk?!
> >
> > See, this is how I explain it to the local holy rollers, and this being
> > Nashville, there's a lot of them: Pat Robertson and the rest of the
> > televangelists often blather on about the "Prosperity Gospel",
> > basically that money is awarded in some bizarre relationship to piety.

>
> Completely Calvinist in its approach. We receive rewards on earth in
> proportion to our worthiness in God's eyes. (In a nutshell.)
> Calvinists invented the phrase "God helps those who help themselves."
> That's why Calvinists hate Welfare - they believe completely that it's
> God's will that some people should be poor - and that it's the poors'
> own fault that they are that way. They believe this even though
> there's not one shred of Gospel evidence for that stance. In fact, the
> Gospels say exactly the opposite.
>
> But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good self-serving
> story, I always say.
>
> E.P.


Absolutely! Religion wouldn't be what it is today without some
yarn-spinnin'.

/me goes out to TP the local Calvinist's yard...
post #253 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:30:03 -0800, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
wrote:
[in response to Mark Hickey's defence of electronic voting as
currently implemented]

>This is not a partisan issue.


It is a partisan issue, because the people who first brought it to
Hickey's attention are more liberal/democratic-leaning (and though he
may not have known it at the time) the company that's big into
electronic voting (Deibold) has leadership that supports Republicans).
But that Deibold political leaning is just a bonus for him.

He *has* to favor electronic voting. Liberals are against it, so it
must be that way. The facts and best practice don't matter -- it's a
reactionary response.


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #254 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

Per Mark Hickey:
>There are (cue scary music...) "no audit trails" because it's a VOTING
>MACHINE. If the thing spits out a ticker tape of the votes as they're
>made, it's a simple matter to determine who voted how, which is not
>legal/ethical. We've had many interesting discussions about ways to
>overcome this conundrum, but none that (IMHO) would work AND protect
>voter's rights to privacy. If you have a better idea, feel free to
>give it to Diebold - you'll be rich.


This year our precinct used a compromise approach: You mark a ballot with a pen
or pencil - like the multiple choice items on a SAT test. Then you tear off a
numbered receipt that you keep and feed the marked-up ballot to a scanner. The
polling place keeps the ballot.

The tallies presumably come from the scanner's collection system, but the
hardcopy ballots remain for use in a recount.

Seems to me like the best of both extremes:
-----------------------------------
- Low cost, high speed, hopefully high accuracy

- Probably less prone to physical error. i.e. No hanging chads
and I'm guessing there's a liberal margin of error around the
little boxes that have to be marked.

- Auditable: There's paper backup for recounting.

- Robust: Immune to election day power failures and/or
computer problems.
-----------------------------------

I've done computer application and database development work
for most of my working life.

The notion of pure-computer voting is ludicrous to me.
Somebody flips a few bits after-the-fact, and there's no recourse.

I'm with whoever said they can't figure out whether the Diebold and similar
systems are the product of malice of just stupidity.

Personally I'd lean towards stupidity and misinformation.
--
PeteCresswell
post #255 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Now tell The Flogger that I plonked his weasel self (gentler term than
> "ass") many weeks ago and do not see his posts. Apparently he's still in
> denial about this.


They why reply? If you plonked him, it seems a bit silly to try and
carry on a conversation with him.

Childish even.

E.P.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today