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?

Comments

Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know. Without the NY Times we'd have nothing to wrap fish in, and it would be a helluva lot harder to clean parakeet cages.

But who really wants the endorsment of an outfit that gave us Jayson Blair, and harped on Bush IIs National Guard "service" while completely ignoring the fact that Kerry never released all his records - and if you think Kerry did release all his records, answer me why Kerry's discharge that he did release is dated from the Jimmy Carter years - 1978 to be exact. One wonders why that could be... Of course, Kerry didn't release the records on that.

And that's not a story for the NY Times? Why not?

Re:One for the ladies

[System.out.println()]

(With apologies to any 17 year old transgender grandmothers I may have offended.)


Is that even physically possible? you'd have to have a child at 8, who would have to have a child at 8.... it's either impossible or very, very wrong....

Oh, and you have to fit a gender change in there somewhere.