It is unfortunate that an editorial that starts out taking an IT engineers view devolves so quickly to ranting.
The fair, equitable, passing of elected positions from one term to the next is critical to our way of life. It is a violation of our inalienable rights to leave elections up to attorneys, media personalities, or national political machinations.
I am in favor of auditable, verifiable elections that give Americans confidence in the transfer of power at any level. Conversely, I am adamantly opposed to anything to the contrary.
Having said that let's set some facts straight:
The government, Congress, does not buy voting machines nor pay any companies to develop them. Individual states, counties, and voting precincts are making those decisions.
Comparing all software projects to already completed and sold software is a ridiculous form of logic. Though I and everyone else agree that changes need to be made, the statistics you are matching are a non-fit.
There are already fixes required and underway. You need to research topics you express opinions on. California, Maryland, and Ohio all have changes they require to all electronic voting systems in their states. The changes are good, especially California's printout/audit trail requirement.
Electronic voting - engineered well, manned by trained staff, and managed well by counties and states - is the most efficient and logical application of technology for this time intensive and hotly contested job.
Let's keep debating the why, how and who of it but don't fill up the air with uninformed noise.
There is too much of it already.
How does the very recent acceptance of "zero point energy" fit in with what science know about the beginning and the end?
It has been my observation that this is still hotly debated in academia along with serveral other foundational concepts of matter and time. So how can anyone claim they "know"?
Weren't we here before just before Einstein?
How about a response from IBM to all this SCO mud slinging?
And if the Linux source is open why does SCO need non-disclosure? It's not like the source code could be changed in all the million plus copies of linux in the market place?
Slashdot Mirror
It is unfortunate that an editorial that starts out taking an IT engineers view devolves so quickly to ranting. The fair, equitable, passing of elected positions from one term to the next is critical to our way of life. It is a violation of our inalienable rights to leave elections up to attorneys, media personalities, or national political machinations. I am in favor of auditable, verifiable elections that give Americans confidence in the transfer of power at any level. Conversely, I am adamantly opposed to anything to the contrary. Having said that let's set some facts straight: The government, Congress, does not buy voting machines nor pay any companies to develop them. Individual states, counties, and voting precincts are making those decisions. Comparing all software projects to already completed and sold software is a ridiculous form of logic. Though I and everyone else agree that changes need to be made, the statistics you are matching are a non-fit. There are already fixes required and underway. You need to research topics you express opinions on. California, Maryland, and Ohio all have changes they require to all electronic voting systems in their states. The changes are good, especially California's printout/audit trail requirement. Electronic voting - engineered well, manned by trained staff, and managed well by counties and states - is the most efficient and logical application of technology for this time intensive and hotly contested job. Let's keep debating the why, how and who of it but don't fill up the air with uninformed noise. There is too much of it already.
How does the very recent acceptance of "zero point energy" fit in with what science know about the beginning and the end? It has been my observation that this is still hotly debated in academia along with serveral other foundational concepts of matter and time. So how can anyone claim they "know"? Weren't we here before just before Einstein?
How about a response from IBM to all this SCO mud slinging? And if the Linux source is open why does SCO need non-disclosure? It's not like the source code could be changed in all the million plus copies of linux in the market place?