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 (60936)	11/12/2000 11:28:21 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 93625

Zeev, I am not going to interfere, just curious. I did not know the word for those hanging bits was 'chads', but I see the context and I assume that the earlier writer was referring to just those chads. As for strength of voters, I would hope the piercer had a sharp point and someone should place a magnet behind it so once you pierce the paper the magnet is electrified and pulls the piercer all the way through? A PM would work too and there would need to be some ejection method for a PM. There are also more expensive voting machines that make fewer errors. As always budgets rule. Here in Canada they use paid poll persons and marked paper ballots, lots of errors, double marks, wrong ticks (an X is the only legal way, but in a recount they accept ticks?? as long as both scrutineers agree the voter indicated the vote with clarity. Machines were a method to get away from the errors of paper and to speed the process. I guess they did not know the law of unintended consequences was in place. Bill

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (60936)	11/12/2000 11:33:59 AM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 93625

Zeev, An old problem. unilect.com Bill

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (60936)	11/12/2000 1:46:06 PM
From: multicollinearity	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev: <It could be that the fact they we get more democrats "recovery" in the manual count has to do with the fact that the elderly (more democrats?) did not have enough strength to break the chads away?> Zeev, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this statement by you. You can't be serious! We are not talking about removing a chad from a piece of granite! Being a scientist, you surely know that a minimal amount of strength is required for a punch card. Do you really think that this is a more plausible reason why the Democrats picked up additional votes than the fact that it was conducted in a heavily Democratic district? Please don't let politics compromise your usual objectivity and sense of fairness. I have a lot of respect for your opinions on Rambus, but when it comes to politics, you are out in left field. Multico

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (60936)	11/13/2000 12:13:49 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Zeev & Bill, Bill, you have it right, the media calls it "hanging chads" (?). Apparently, if you do not press the piercing element hard enough it does not detach completely the chad. It could be that the fact they we get more democrats "recovery" in the manual count has to do with the fact that the elderly (more democrats?) did not have enough strength to break the chads away? I do not remember that lack of physical strength was cause for losing voting rights. I have no idea, but what they are doing now is according to their voting law, and we should not interfere. Have you forgotten that the major issue is not that no vote was recorded, but that multiple votes were recorded. Apparently they had enough strength to punch twice, just not enough intelligence to know that you can't vote twice. Dave