You make some good points. It's scary that people assume a computer count
is more accurate. Everyone talks about recounts and recounts, but in
Miami-Dade the only recount was done by a 1960s era system that spit out
10,000 ballots. (This happened all over the country also, by the way.)
OK, back to your regularly-scheduled study hour. ;-) Thanks for responding.
Priscilla
At 08:59 PM 11/30/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>Less buggy systems? What, and put us all out of work? ;->
>
>Technology is like the tax code.... The more perfect you try to make it, the
>more work it creates for those whose job it is to guide people through it.
>
>Uh uh. I say throw out the machines and go back to quill pen and parchment.
>I mean, consider that with such primitive tools were written the Magna
>Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the English
>Bill of rights, the Gettysburg Address.
>
>Take a look around your local Walden Books to see the output of our current
>technology. I mean, is there anyone who will argue that Isaac Asimov's
>writing improved after he started using word processors instead of
>typewriters?
>
>By the way, do you all realize that in the very first presidential election
>in this country, in a nation of nine million people, voters could choose
>among George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin
>Franklin, John Jay, John Adams.
>
>Today, in a nation of a quarter of a billion, we get to choose among Gore,
>Bush, Nader, and Buchanan. This of course proves that Darwin was wrong.
> old joke, but works even better than it did 30 years ago ;-> )
>
>As for what we do - routers make the internet happen, the internet in turn
>supposedly makes it possible for us to communicate better, and we still have
>people on this list asking how many questions are on the test and what's the
>passing score.
>
>So much for the "information" age.
>
>Guess I should go back to my studying. Curmudgeons need not apply.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:14 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: O/T ballots-per-second musings
>
>Has anyone figured out the ballots-per-second (bps) transmission rate for
>the ballots that travelled in a Ryder truck from Palm Beach County to
>Tallahassee? &;-)
>
>Seriously, do we recognize how ridiculous this situation is? With current
>technology, the data should have arrived in seconds. We seem to have
>scraped by the year 2000 without any major disasters caused by Y2K bugs.
>However, the year 2000 election is a victim of ancient, buggy punch-card
>readers. I call this the E2K problem.
>
>The punch card readers in Miami-Dade County were unable to detect a vote
>for president on 10,000 ballots. That's outrageous! Regardless of any
>political wrangling about the significance of this problem, as computer
>professionals, we should be asking ourselves, how could this happen?
>
>We now have two kinds of proof (Y2K and E2K) that we need to take a more
>active role in working with our users to dump ancient systems and upgrade
>to newer and less buggy solutions. That's not an easy task, of course.
>Finances, office politics, and risk aversion are just some of the many
>reasons that users don't upgrade. But what are we doing to be more
>proactive? Are we monitoring our systems to determine their fragility? Are
>we taking action when we recognize potential problems? Are we designing
>reliable systems that can adapt to changes? Or are we hiding behind our
>21-inch monitors and praying that nothing bad will happen on our shift?
>
>I'd like to see the computer industry get serious about developing less
>buggy systems and upgrading legacy systems that are failure-prone. I'd
>welcome a technical (non-political) discussion on this topic. Thanks for
>listening to my ravings. &;-)
>
>Priscilla
>
>________________________
>
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>http://www.priscilla.com
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
