It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WooHoo! Diebold fixed, just in time for the 2006 elections.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Well it appears that the problems that plagued the last 2 federal elections have been solved by Diebold, 100%:

phx.corporate-ir.net...

Imagine that, 100%, GM isn't even giving that assurance.


100%. That means that not ONE vote will go awry. Hmm, looks at calender, 2006, must be an important election coming up. Could it have something to do with the stranglehold the Reps. have on the government? A little worried are they?

I, for one, am very comforted by their 100% success in their testing.


Personally, if I was an American I would be insulted by this turn of events. Fool me once.......




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Yay! Our voting system is saved! And just in time, too... Whew!



It's amazing how well the machines work when no one mucks with the counting doo-hickies or the software.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Diebold fixed, just in time for the 2006 elections.


I think 'fixed' may be the operative word.


[edit on 1-3-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
100%. That means that not ONE vote will go awry. Hmm, looks at calender, 2006, must be an important election coming up. Could it have something to do with the stranglehold the Reps. have on the government? A little worried are they?

I, for one, am very comforted by their 100% success in their testing.




Okey Honey I am ready to play


Aren't you jumping to conclusions? it did not say none broke down that is to be expected with devices like this. All it stated was they were 100% accurate.

Whens the last time your computer Crashed or When will it Crash? No one knows, but it will happen at sometime (unless of course you buy a new one before it does) and even a new one is no guarantee the new one will not crash or will not have problems.


When is the last time you bought a game for your computer that worked 100% right out of the box? Yes it does happen at times, but most are issued patches within weeks of the first release.

When is the last time you bought a new car that was perfect right from the factory? I have bought several and not one of them were perfect, but I can say none of mine had major flaws and only required minor repairs. Even had one or two recalled for modifications though.

As I stated in the other thread even your computer operating system if you are running windoz is full of security leaks yet we all use them on a daily basis don't we



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Before the 2004 elections, the Diebold machines were supposed to be FULLY functional... so what makes you think that they are more functional than they were back then? As long as the management, operation and maintenance of eVoting machines is in the hands of private businesses during the elections, there's still as much room for cheating and vote stealing than before!



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Well it appears that the problems that plagued the last 2 federal elections have been solved by Diebold, 100%:

Wow, they fixed it to 100%? Thats an intersting accomplishment, since they were saying that there were 0 problems with it in the first place!

"Fool me once, well shame on ya, fool me agin, well, heh heh, ahmm, fool me twice, er, ahm, ah fergit it!"



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
"Fool me once, well shame on ya, fool me agin, well, heh heh, ahmm, fool me twice, er, ahm, ah fergit it!"


Keep that in mind when you buy your next windoz computer. Bill Gates has claimed for years they fixed the flaws in the OS and they still keep finding more don't they?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
But apple isn't as customizable as windozzz!



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Very happy about this. Better to use our cheating machines rather than their cheating machines. America is for Americans and not for the globalists and socialists I say.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Okey Honey I am ready to play


Aren't you jumping to conclusions? it did not say none broke down that is to be expected with devices like this. All it stated was they were 100% accurate.


I have a problem with ANYTHING that say 100%. Doesn't that sound like either propaganda or a sales pitch?


Whens the last time your computer Crashed or When will it Crash? No one knows, but it will happen at sometime (unless of course you buy a new one before it does) and even a new one is no guarantee the new one will not crash or will not have problems.


When is the last time you bought a game for your computer that worked 100% right out of the box? Yes it does happen at times, but most are issued patches within weeks of the first release.


These products are used continually. DB machines on the other hand are used minimally. Don't you think that they would work one day out of the year?


When is the last time you bought a new car that was perfect right from the factory? I have bought several and not one of them were perfect, but I can say none of mine had major flaws and only required minor repairs. Even had one or two recalled for modifications though.


Hey, stop making my point for me, I can do that on my own. BTW, the last time I looked my car, computer or video games were not instumental in dictating world issues.


As I stated in the other thread even your computer operating system if you are running windoz is full of security leaks yet we all use them on a daily basis don't we




Stop it man, let me make my own points. You're right, we use those things every day, not once a year. With them having so much downtime, don't you think that they could have been fixed much earlier than this? Or was the problem that they WERE fixed?

OK, I also did a little research and if I got the right info, there were 8,000,000 voters in the 2005 California election. They did a sample test of 11,000. That's what .12% of the vote. Is that enough for accuracy?

Another question, did they know what machines were going to be tested? As you can see my faith in the system is in need of repair. I bet that takes more than 4 years too.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But apple isn't as customizable as windozzz!


Good Point! I love my Mac too; but I use that strictly for graphics and financial records simply because up until this point their OS has not been prone to hacking by people. I do think that will/might change now that they have released the new Intel MACS.

My guess is because of its customizing features that we may just find that once again Apple/MACs will rule. Lets just hope the are unable to hack them, but again I doubt it, because some fool some where will find a way, they always do



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I have a problem with ANYTHING that say 100%. Doesn't that sound like either propaganda or a sales pitch?


Well lets see if I test lets say a sample of x number of machines and each of them gives me the same answer that is 100% accuracy, which is all they claimed. No foul there at all.


These products are used continually. DB machines on the other hand are used minimally. Don't you think that they would work one day out of the year?


One day a year
What about state, local elections and primaries, they use them too at least where I live they do.



Hey, stop making my point for me, I can do that on my own.



Your Point
How can it be your point when I used or made that point first?



Stop it man, let me make my own points. You're right, we use those things every day, not once a year.


tsk tsk I have already proven that wrong see above
And I am not making your points I used them first, you are trying to steal them from me, shame on you.




OK, I also did a little research and if I got the right info, there were 8,000,000 voters in the 2005 California election. They did a sample test of 11,000. That's what .12% of the vote. Is that enough for accuracy?

Another question, did they know what machines were going to be tested? As you can see my faith in the system is in need of repair. I bet that takes more than 4 years too.


Both good questions and I wish I knew the answers. I would assume though that 12% would be fairly accurate. Hell I doubt if any industry tests that percentage of their products when they come off the assembly line. Yes I know there are some exceptions when safety issues are involved I.E., Jaws of life they are tested 100% off the line, before shipped. Yet even though they test them, still does ot mean they will not break the first or second time used.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
They fixed `em and fixed real `em good. No use fighting it. Its not who votes that counts but who counts the votes. Diebold decides the American president not Americans.

Anyone know who ownes and controls Diebold?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I'm so relieved.


Yeah, this is still a farce. There's a big difference between the security expectations I have regarding my home computer, versus the security expectations I have regarding the national elections. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way.


That really should go without saying, but partisanship is like cataracts with some folks.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

from shots Whens the last time your computer Crashed or When will it Crash? No one knows, but it will happen at sometime (unless of course you buy a new one before it does) and even a new one is no guarantee the new one will not crash or will not have problems.

You forgot to mention that the likelihood of the crash increases exponentially with the criticality of the currently running process.


Remember, folks, they said 100% accurate, not 99.999% uptime. Big difference.

I found the article interesting in that the tests were conducted with voter-verifiable paper audit trail printers. This has always been a bone of contention with previous systems.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Well lets see if I test lets say a sample of x number of machines and each of them gives me the same answer that is 100% accuracy, which is all they claimed. No foul there at all.


Nothing is perfect but these guys are implying that the system is. Haven't we been down this road before?


One day a year
What about state, local elections and primaries, they use them too at least where I live they do.


OK, 7 days out of the year then. Still not the use you get out of your computer.



Your Point
How can it be your point when I used or made that point first?

tsk tsk I have already proven that wrong see above
And I am not making your points I used them first, you are trying to steal them from me, shame on you.


Um, no. You are proving my own contention. Thanks but I don't need the help.


quote by intrepid
OK, I also did a little research and if I got the right info, there were 8,000,000 voters in the 2005 California election. They did a sample test of 11,000. That's what .12% of the vote. Is that enough for accuracy?

Another question, did they know what machines were going to be tested? As you can see my faith in the system is in need of repair. I bet that takes more than 4 years too.



Both good questions and I wish I knew the answers. I would assume though that 12% would be fairly accurate. Hell I doubt if any industry tests that percentage of their products when they come off the assembly line. Yes I know there are some exceptions when safety issues are involved I.E., Jaws of life they are tested 100% off the line, before shipped. Yet even though they test them, still does ot mean they will not break the first or second time used.



Nope, 0.12% not 12%. The Jaws of Life don't concern me, not even close to the topic but the question I bolded in my last quote does concern me.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Nothing is perfect but these guys are implying that the system is. Haven't we been down this road before?


No they are not claiming it is perfect what they are claiming it is accurate nothing more.


OK, 7 days out of the year then. Still not the use you get out of your computer.


hmmmm I am willing to bet you have many things in your home or at work that you only use once or twice a year if that. In some cases you might not use them for two years, but that will not change the fact even those items can break at any time you might use them even if it is only on occasion that is the point I was making.



Um, no. You are proving my own contention. Thanks but I don't need the help.


If that is the case why then did you accuse me of making your point. I said it first therefore it is my point not yours. Stop stealing mine by claiming they are your contentions they can't be since I used them first.



Nope, 0.12% not 12%. The Jaws of Life don't concern me, not even close to the topic but the question I bolded in my last quote does concern me.


Just what part of I wish I knew the answer Do you not understand.


Also kindly note above jsobeckey said "I found the article interesting in that the tests were conducted with voter-verifiable paper audit trail printers. This has always been a bone of contention with previous systems."

Thanks jsobecky you made my day


There you have it intrepid see they even left a paper trail meaning there is proof what they said is true. Kind of shoots your theory all to hell doesn't it? Kind of hard too contend the machines are faulty if they leave a paper trail wouldn't you say?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
hmmmm I am willing to bet you have many things in your home or at work that you only use once or twice a year if that. In some cases you might not use them for two years, but that will not change the fact even those items can break at any time you might use them even if it is only on occasion that is the point I was making.


Again. My household items do NOT dictate world policy.



Just what part of I wish I knew the answer Do you not understand.


There you have it intrepid see they even left a paper trail meaning there is proof what they said is true. Kind of shoots your theory all to hell doesn't it? Kind of hard too contend the machines are faulty if they leave a paper trail wouldn't you say?


It doesn't until you can answer with more than I wish I knew to my question, "Another question, did they know what machines were going to be tested?"

You are far too trusting of those that have screwed you in the past.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
It's also worth noting that the claim of 100% accuracy was based upon an actual live election in Calif., and the 11,000/100 machine figure was conducted in volume testing done during September of that year.

To the question of whether they knew beforehand which machines were to be tested:


The Parallel Monitoring testing procedure includes the random selection of touch-screen voting stations the morning of an election from various precincts within counties using the technology.

Emphasis mine, source from the original article.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
It doesn't until you can answer with more than I wish I knew to my question.



Now you are playing sore looser by nitpicking because I used your points before you could make them admit it.



"Another question, did they know what machines were going to be tested?"



The Parallel Monitoring testing procedure includes the random selection of touch-screen voting stations the morning of an election from various precincts within counties using the technology.

Emphasis mine, source from the original article.




You are far too trusting of those that have screwed you in the past.


No one has screwed me as you put it. Our state has always used paper ballots leaving a paper trail, even our new computer style leave a paper trail. Now let me guess you are going to tell me well someone some where comitted voting fraud arn't you? HELLO there always has and always will be some type of voting fraud






[edit on 3/2/2006 by shots]




top topics



 
0

log in

join