RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
It depends on if Chad is driving the truck. :) 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? Bits travel around alot at high speed and there have been sightings of swinging bits, hanging bits, pregnant bits and dimpled bits on occasion. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
Title: RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings I saw something on www.vote.com, I believe, that asked people their feelings about voting via computer over the Internet. I took a tour years ago through the San Francisco mint and was shown a huge scale that they used to weigh gold, coins, etc. It was a weight-counterweight type - not electronic, although they had access to electronic ones - and was the preferred type to use because it couldn't be easily mishandled or misconfigured. I think the voting method is similar to this. Look at all the accusations (well deserved, IMNSHO) flying after the hand recounts. People have an interest in who wins; machines don't. And if we were to move toward some method of electronic voting, how can we secure that so that there is no question - ever! - of tampering? I don't think it can be done. Someone would have to program the ballots, and who's to say s/he wouldn't use political bias to throw in some code that accidently dropped every third vote from the opposing party? Also, circuits certainly aren't tamper-proof. A few years with Pacific Bell taught me that Joe Farmer can backhoe an OC circuit in nothin'-flat, knocking out entire communities. I agree that the current mess sucks, but I don't think we networking professionals will be called in to fix it until we can produce a magic box that is completely tamper-proof and transmits over quarks. Until then, just mail all your ballots to me and I'll fill 'em out right for you. =) - Don -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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]
Re: O/T ballots-per-second musings
Priscilla for President '04! ;-) (Of course, you'll be running against Hillary... ;-) - Original Message - From: Priscilla Oppenheimer To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:14 PM 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] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
I am sorry, but can you please take this off line? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Larrieu Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:00 PM To: Priscilla Oppenheimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings 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] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
I see your point, my apologies to all -Original Message- From: Donald B Johnson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 10:57 AM To: William Gragido; 'Chuck Larrieu'; 'Priscilla Oppenheimer'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: O/T ballots-per-second musings I disagree with you william, an off topic discussion is a welcome change from the routine questions on testing software, books, where do I find?... and I think that was a good question anyway what IS the bps, well it was connection oriented trasmission, ton of overhead, and some latency for refueling, but i heard on NPR they were above the cir doing about 75 in a 70 mile/h zone. That said, I have been on this site for about 4 months and enjoy all the different personalities. If we were all at a party and just hanging out we wouldn't want to listen to the same questions. I think the technical term for that is dribble. I know what you are going to say, this is a site dedicated to cisco certification and support and that is correct, but we are all different people with different personalities, and since we all come here every day shouldn't the regulars get to know each other. Another line of reasoning is, all three of the names in this send (you, chuck, pris) have contributed much lucent and accurate information on various topics, I feel that gives some topic freedom. It is not the ranting of a guy who wants to know what is a good book for CCNA studies. There was a question the other day on "Is there anything after CCIE comparable to achieve". What are your goals, maybe seeing a movie, taking a bowling lesson, sanding wood, collecting seashells, I swear I could open a clinic for CED (certification egress disorder) and make a fortune. have a little sylvan prometric in the back, just to play both ends while you are recovering. :) Disclaimer: This is not a comprehensive list of accurate and lucent regulars, so if you aren't mentioned please don't take offense, you know who you are. Duck - Original Message - From: William Gragido [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Chuck Larrieu' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Priscilla Oppenheimer' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 6:05 AM Subject: RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings I am sorry, but can you please take this off line? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Larrieu Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:00 PM To: Priscilla Oppenheimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings 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 polit
Re: O/T ballots-per-second musings
I disagree with you william, an off topic discussion is a welcome change from the routine questions on testing software, books, where do I find?... and I think that was a good question anyway what IS the bps, well it was connection oriented trasmission, ton of overhead, and some latency for refueling, but i heard on NPR they were above the cir doing about 75 in a 70 mile/h zone. That said, I have been on this site for about 4 months and enjoy all the different personalities. If we were all at a party and just hanging out we wouldn't want to listen to the same questions. I think the technical term for that is dribble. I know what you are going to say, this is a site dedicated to cisco certification and support and that is correct, but we are all different people with different personalities, and since we all come here every day shouldn't the regulars get to know each other. Another line of reasoning is, all three of the names in this send (you, chuck, pris) have contributed much lucent and accurate information on various topics, I feel that gives some topic freedom. It is not the ranting of a guy who wants to know what is a good book for CCNA studies. There was a question the other day on "Is there anything after CCIE comparable to achieve". What are your goals, maybe seeing a movie, taking a bowling lesson, sanding wood, collecting seashells, I swear I could open a clinic for CED (certification egress disorder) and make a fortune. have a little sylvan prometric in the back, just to play both ends while you are recovering. :) Disclaimer: This is not a comprehensive list of accurate and lucent regulars, so if you aren't mentioned please don't take offense, you know who you are. Duck - Original Message - From: William Gragido [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Chuck Larrieu' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Priscilla Oppenheimer' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 6:05 AM Subject: RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings I am sorry, but can you please take this off line? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chuck Larrieu Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:00 PM To: Priscilla Oppenheimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings 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
RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
Our Head Voter Guy (Office of Registrar) said that it would cost San Diego County $10 million to equip the country with computers for election purposes. He estimated a cost of $4k/$5k per computer. I wonder which outfit is offering the 200% markup? I can't believe that computers still can not take a more active role in tabulation of votes, at the polls and after the election. -Original Message- From: Bradley J. Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 3:07 AM To: cisco Subject: Re: O/T ballots-per-second musings Priscilla for President '04! ;-) (Of course, you'll be running against Hillary... ;-) - Original Message - From: Priscilla Oppenheimer To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 10:14 PM 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] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
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]
RE: O/T ballots-per-second musings
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] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
