Slashdot Mirror
Buggy Voting Machines
dkleinsc writes "The NYTimes is running an article arguing in layman's terms that voting machines are inherently buggier (Sperm sample required. Sorry ladies) than most software systems because they are not tested properly. A fun quote: "Extensive discussions are under way at sites like VerifiedVoting.org, CalVoter.org, and the "news for nerds" forum Slashdot.org about inexpensive, practical ways to make automated voting as reliable as, say, buying books online. Their recommendations make sense."" We makese sense? Wah?
Some poor old grandmother is going to read that, type in the url, and end up seeing goatse. Way to go!
stuff
That should have been the headline for this article.
==
no sig
"practical ways to make automated voting as reliable"
Is the winner preselected and 'voting' automated to make it happen?! Oh wait...
Something tells me that NYT reads /. with a +5 comment threshold, and deprecates "Funny".
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
George W. Bush have also recommended: James Buchanan, Ronald Reagan, Dad.
Sounds like a plan to me...
I think all slashdotters are probably smiling right now. I'm even about to cry. We're sharing a moment.
Zoeith
\/\/3 I\/I /\ |( E 5 3 I\I 5 3?
L337 |*0\/\/3R
~ Mooga
If you think ladies would have a problem providing a sperm sample, you REALLY don't get out enough.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Slashdotter
Since the New York Times started reporting it. Of course, these are the same folks who also brought us Jayson Blair, so it's not like it's much of an endorsement these days.
If we make sense, then I demand a retraction. Or a fish looking at a melted clock dial. This is not a |.
Sperm sample required. Sorry ladies
/. XX readers to /. Xy readers, I'd think that the remaining 'ladies' would have no problem... er coming up with a sperm sample.
Given the assumed ratio of
I heard that if you pressed UP-UP-DOWN-DOWN-LEFT-LEFT-RIGHT-RIGHT-A-B-A-B it takes you to a hidden screen that lets you put in how many times you want your vote to count
I bet the winner looks pretty funny when the election's over!
yeah well here in america actually GW won fair and square. i think we hold the most transparent election process in the world
We Americans are too busy watching out for boobies on TV that might offend our tender sensibilities, we don't have time to worry about things that don't matter like elections. God wanted Bush in office, and that's the way it's going to be.
stuff
I can't understand why places like the ukraine and the USA have made this process more difficult than it should be.
On purpose. If an evel candidate seems to be taking over a precinct, despite his evelness, the precinct official can adjust the voting machine to correct for the injustice done by the evel voters of the evel candidate. You can't do that with paper ballots.
Of course, the Soviet Russia solution was even better - they simply put only one candidate on the ballot. Just ONE. This way there was no way for any evel candidate to take the election, ever, because he simply wasn't on the ballot.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
No, they won't delete them. As the "bugmenot" plugin page points out, they don't want trash in their database any more than we enjoy putting it there. So having everyone who would normally create an account saying they are a 17 year old transgender grandmother who works in a sewage treatment plant use the same account cuts down on the crap.
(With apologies to any 17 year old transgender grandmothers I may have offended.)
Someone had to do it.
It may seem funny to you, but it looks like a troll to me. I'd vote for modding the parent down to flamebait, but there's no paper balloting so I can't trust you to count my vote.
Easy, I'll soon have a low ID#, and you'll have a godolithic one....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Apparently there's already proof of voting fraud in Ohio. Both of Ralph Nader's votes have been disqualified
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Noooo! A girl might read it and come here!! Won't someone think of the children!?
I like muppets.
By automated voting you mean, the candidate is selected for you, automatically, right? Hey, I call it like I see it.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Ok so you put voting machines in a buggy to harvest the Amish vote...
FOOLS! Amish won't use a MACHINE to vote!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Bush is a lying hyprocrite who doesn't mind sending our sons, daughters, fathers and mothers to their possible deaths, when he pulled every string in the book to avoid dangerous service.
But but but Bush is such a sweet Christian man! He saves our babies from abortion and gayness and taxation, so he can then send them into a war to save us from the terrorists! I just read all about it on the internets!
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Kerry got a record number of votes too. Frankly, Bush's support came primarily from the religious right and is therefore based on ignorant issues like opposition of gay marriage.
I saw many emails being circulated before the election, people urging the religious to gather up every religious person and drag them to the polls, in order to prevent the terrible evil that the democrats would bring.
Third-grade scare tactics. And if you look at the statistics of who votes, you can see that it's the ignorant (less schooling) and religious (christian only) who voted for Bush. Yay, the ignorant masses have grunted.