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?
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!
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
If you think ladies would have a problem providing a sperm sample, you REALLY don't get out enough.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Slashdotter
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!
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
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.