Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (60930)	11/12/2000 11:12:03 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev, This punch method:, is it a true punched out disc, like confetti or is it a burst type, where there exists the potential for the burst splayed out paper to refold back and partially mask the hole.? In the punch method as the punch wears it can leave a small bit of paper along one side so the punched out disc is on a hinge and can fold back and mask the hole?. In both of these scenarios an optical reader can make an error depending on the threshold, etc etc. Ideally the disk is solid black and the threshold is low so that even 5% punched would indicate a punched ballot(indicating 95% foldback?) Ideally the reader will have an air jet to open any splayed holes? but these might be machines made for the lowest quote. Perhaps a Floridian can make a comment on this. It certainly would need a visual inspection to determine the truth in these cases. The machine can rapidly screen the ballots for (A) no punches and(B) 2 or more punches, lightening the inspection load. I assume it is able to stream bad ballots one way and good ones the other. A spot check of a sample of good ballots would suffice, IMO. If the machine has no streamsmarts, manual is the only way. Bill

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (60930)	11/12/2000 11:20:03 AM
From: blake_paterson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

zeev: I was not aware that your ire was up. I certainly do not feel any anger towards you or any other poster here (well, except maybe scumb and blow, just a little..(g)). However, I will call it as I see it when I smell posturing or inconsistency coming from your end <g>. Sorry it bothers you so. Nobody is talking about "designers of ballots" here. The folks who were responsible for the ballots in that county are dems, and they followed the pre-election process in a rather incompetent fashion. But what is done is done. If we have humans with party affiliations trying to "interpret" these ballots (ex.: "is that tab still attached by a thread there? That must mean they DIDN'T vote for for this candidate!" etc etc etc)then we are descending into the netherworld of lawyers and scoundrels. Just what the billary's of the world would wish on our republic. Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers... re: <<The long term impact of those procedures brought the bar down on "high misdemeanors" to a level that can now allow any opposing party to disrupt the governance for presidential offense or perceived offenses that have nothing to do with carrying on the office's responsibilities. In essence the door has been opened to nuissance impeachment proceedings in the future.>> I couldn't disagree with you more, and will leave it at that. BP PS:, re: dubya's email address. As one of my teachers used to say: "look it up!" <g>