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.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (87844)	11/11/2006 10:24:42 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362705

This is from teapeebubbles...... Date:11/11/2006 10:15:10 PM Post #of 223261 Make sure to watch to the end. To me, it represents conclusive evidence of vote fraud on Diebold machines in Florida 2000. For any programmers in the room, feel free to challenge this. But if they insert a hacked card into an unadulterated machine, and that machine says the card is zeroed when it's clearly not, and the votes are counted, and the result is a thrown election, it can only be fraud, IMO. Here's why. The machine must have read and then written back to the memory card. So either the machine reads the card at the outset, setting up wrong initial states and the machine then LIES about this, or the machine counts from zero and then adds the card's read values to its legitimate totals, which would also constitute fraud IMO since the cards are always supposed to be zero. The zero test is there to prove it each time the machine is used. If it is a bug, I can see no way such a machine could get through testing without detecting it. If you're writing code that tests the zero state, you have to test with something other than a zero state or it's as if you never tested. Now, admittedly the fraud could be _product_ fraud, whereby the "zero test" shows zero no matter what it's given (and that would be intentional). But that's still fraud, for certified election machines. But I have a hard time believing anyone could make that series of mistakes AND someone in Florida would guess the bug and exploit it, to the tune of -16000 votes for Mr. Gore. The -16000, btw, shows that the crooks messed up at least once. It would happen if they stoke 16k more votes than he got. No one could tell how many they stole without knowing how many he got. The totals for all candidates would always add up to the correct amount. It's very clever. Too clever to be a bug, IMO. I saw the video from start to end. It really makes you think, when the CEO of Diebold sends out a memo saying that he can deliver Ohio to Bush (which meant the entire election). And that by hacking the memory cards could in effect do such a thing without the knowledge of anyone. This is quite troubling. And yet, with all this evidence not a single person is being held accountable. There is, in my mind, a cover up. I mean you really have to think about it. A CEO of a corporation sending out a memo making such a claim, and later trying to down play it. Just doesn't wash with me. Any CEO knows that he's accountable for not only what he says publicly but what he writes in memos. And especially, publicly traded companies such as Diebold. Then to see that the CEO could actually live up to his word via hacked cards. What more do you need for proof? #board-2412 "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle