Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of insanity

[<bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You are better than the average poll worker, Ralph......no question.
;-)

But stuffing and stamping and labeling is NOT pulling out a piece of paper,
looking it over and recording up to a dozen (or more) different pieces of
information in the proper places.....
WORLD of difference, Ralph......
This year at the Clerk's, just about everyone (including
myself....once.....;-) made errors in sorting three different things
(ballots, receipts, envelopes) into piles of 25......
And these people are supposed to count over a million votes correctly?
(100K voters at 10 votes each......conservatively)
How likely is that?


So, to change the subject just a tad.......
What do you think of David Chaum's concept?
Probably not doable in the next couple weeks, but something to consider, eh?

Bo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Shnelvar" <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>; "Paul Tiger"
<Paul.Tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "William Crook"
<slayer@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of
insanity


> Dear Bo:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:01:24 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Ralph,
> >
> >I just fail to understand how you can possibly think that counting
100,000
> >votes (Boulder county ALONE) by HAND
>
> Bo, I have sent you, privately, an attachment of a picture of 1,000
> envelopes piled on the floor of my office.
>
> Those 1,000 fund raising letters were stuffed by _me_ during my run in the
> last election.
>
> If I can print, stuff, label, and stamp 1,000 envelopes in one day I can
> certainly count 1,000 votes in a day.
>
> Ten people could easily count 100,000 votes in ten days.
>
> Is that too much to ask to verify that the machines haven't been tampered
> with?
>
> > is going to provide an accurate count.
>
> You completely miss the point.  It isn't supposed to provide an accurate
> count; it's supposed to provide a baseline count against which machine
> counts can be measured.
>
> The only time accuracy is needed is in close elections at which point the
> hand counts can be slowly and carefully done with the appropriate
observers.
>
> >didn't you observe *anything* at the Clerks office this election???
>
> Yes.  I observed that there were several places where fraud could have
been
> injected.  The lack of controls nearly made me barf.
>
> >People couldn't even handle opening and sorting ballots correctly, let
alone
> >count the bloody things......
>
> Except that the hand counting would/could be measured against the machine
> counts.  There would be an incentive to be accurate because - assuming
that
> the machines are accurate - someone can measure how accurate the hand
count
> is.
>
> It's a fundamental check-and-balance.
>
> >
> >Instead of fighting the windmills, why can't you work *with* the system
to
> >provide something that *will* work.....
>
> I have provided an outline of what can and will work: A machine count
> followed by a hand count.  I have no idea why this is so hard to
understand.
>
> >It'll *never* be all Ralph's or Al's or even Linda's or Paul Danish's
> >way.....
> >COMPROMISE is the name of the game.
>
> COMPROMISE when it comes to fair elections is a recipe for losing your
> fundamental right to a fair election.
>
> COMPROMISE on any fundamental right is a recipe to losing that right.
>
> >You can stick to your guns all the way, without any give at all.....and
be
> >disappointed when they choose to ignore your rants.....
>
> Oh, they will be ignored.  They will be ignored because most people are
like
> you: "Let's compromise.  It's not worth making a fuss.  Let's work within
> the system to try to change it."
>
> Bah.
>
> >OR
> >You can work *with* the system to make it acceptable to everyone,
including
> >us, the voters.
>
> The voters already don't care.  When I tell people what is going on all I
> get is a bunch of blank stares.  "I don't want to get involved.  It's not
> worth it.  Someone else will take care of it."
>
> This little group of voters and activists should be ringing alarm bells.
> Instead, all I hear is "Let's compromise."  "Udall's a good man."  "What's
> this about banging pots?"
>
> There are times to work within the system and there are times to work
> outside of the system.  This is one of those times to work outside of the
> system because the system is seriously broken.
>
> I presume that 2239 didn't make it out of committee.
>
> >
> >Getting your ass thrown out of the Election process because you're so
> >strident does NO ONE any good.
>
> a) It wasn't _my_ ass that got thrown out.
> b) Sure it does.   It puts the powers that be on notice that there is one
> lonely man (Al Kolwicz) willing to stand up for the law as written.
>
> I admire Al.  He's been singing a lonely song for a very long time.  Al
> happens to be right and, Bo, you happen to be wrong.
>
> >
> >We'll get more flies with honey than we will with vinegar.
>
> If we're going to banter homilies, here's mine: You get a cleaner floor
with
> vinegar than you will with honey.
>
> [BTW, a spray of 3% hydrogen peroxide followed by a spray of white vinegar
> makes a great disinfectant. I wish cleaning up the electoral process was
as
> cheap and easy.]
>
> >
> >I look forward to the Commissioners meeting, and hope to have a Statement
> >from the LPBC on the voting system situation later this week.
>
> If I understand, the Commissioners are going to grant 10 minutes to this
> issue.
>
> Think about it: ten minutes and our political freedom and the way
elections
> in Boulder County are conducted hang in the balance.
>
> Yeah, Bo: work within the system.  Maybe you'll get one minute to present
> the LPBC statement.  Of course, you'll be grateful for that minute.
>
> I'm ready to barf.
>
> >
> >Bo
>
> Ralph Shnelvar
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ralph Shnelvar" <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
> >To: "LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>; "Paul Tiger"
> ><Paul.Tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "William Crook"
> ><slayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:52 PM
> >Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition
of
> >insanity
> >
> >
> >> Dear Bo:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:23:54 -0700, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ralph.....
> >> >
> >> >Is there no middle ground?
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> >Everything is black or white?
> >>
> >> Well, when it comes to voting it should be as close to black and white
as
> >> possible.  Isn't that the point?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'm not saying we should have Corporate control of voting software.
> >>
> >> Frankly, I don't care if the voting software is private or public, open
or
> >> closed.  If the result of the operation is a paper ballot that can -
> >> eventually - be hand counted then I really don't care any more than I
care
> >> if my Visa card is manufactured by company X or Y.
> >>
> >> What I care about is that the transactions - my vote and everyone
else's
> >> vote - is accurately counted, anonymous, and auditable.
> >>
> >> Any electronic counting system does not guarantee that.  If it goes in
as
> >> electrical signals then it can be programmatically manipulated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> True story: A few years ago, on a lark, I took a picture of my youngest
> >> daughter.  I electronically cut out the image of my daughter from the
> >> background, flipped the image left-for-right, changed the color of her
> >shirt
> >> from blue to red, and pasted the flipped picture back into another
portion
> >> of the picture.  It looked real cool.  There was my daughter and
standing
> >> next to her was a picture of her non-existant twin.
> >>
> >> I called her into my office and showed her the picture.  "Who is that
> >> standing next to you?"  "I don't know," she said.  "Isn't that you?"
> >"No."
> >> "Why do you say that?"  "Because I don't own a shirt that color."
> >>
> >> Honest.
> >>
> >> Anyway, the point is that I could make a picture of my daughter and her
> >> nonexistent twin and create that illusion electronically and easily.
> >>
> >> How hard do you think it would be to create phony images of ballots?
> >>
> >> No, Bo, I want something that can be touched and not easily altered.
> >>
> >> That doesn't mean that they can't be counted electronically.  It just
> >means
> >> that the hand count trumps.
> >>
> >> >I'm saying that it *is* possible to make technology work for us.
> >>
> >> Of course we can make technology work for us.  I am certainly not
opposed
> >to
> >> technology.  I make my living off of technology.
> >>
> >> Sitting on my desk are:
> >> 5 computers
> >> 3 monitors
> >> 1 hand calculator
> >> 1 notepad and pen
> >>
> >> I trust computers to some extent.  As a Republican president said:
Trust
> >but
> >> verify.
> >>
> >> Hell, I don't trust the code that I write until it goes through
extensive
> >> testing and even then bugs show up years after the code has been
running
> >on
> >> thousands of computers.
> >>
> >> That's me trusting my code.  How do you think I feel about other
people's
> >> code especially when it comes to something as ephemeral as an anonymous
> >> vote?
> >>
> >> >I agree that "secret" software is ridiculous. (I also think it's
mostly
> >> >secret because only a programmer can read it.....but that programmer
> >should
> >> >be one of "us" not one of "them".....;-)
> >> >
> >> >Having a Corporation in charge of *anything* to do with elections is
like
> >> >having the fox guard the henhouse, and that's not the issue here. This
is
> >> >about whether electronics can be trusted to count votes.
> >>
> >> The electronics can be trusted as far as a machine is more able to
repeat
> >an
> >> action over and over again.
> >>
> >> But as someone else has pointed out here: the machines do what they are
> >told
> >> to do.  At least some people have a conscience and so if there is a
> >massive
> >> conspiracy ...
> >>
> >> >(I'm having problems with the whole concept of "Corporate" rights and
> >> >privileges....but that's another story.)
> >>
> >> Love to talk to you about it some day.
> >>
> >> >I think there should be a way to place trusted (not sure how you can
be
> >> >satisfied of this, tho.......;-( individuals in charge of the process.
> >>
> >> Bo, that's the point.  No one can be trusted and so the system has to
be
> >set
> >> up so that there are multiple redundancies.
> >>
> >> There's an old rule in business security: the person who writes the
checks
> >> should not be the person who balances the checkbook.  To allow the same
> >> company/person to record the vote to be the same company/person that
> >counts
> >> the vote to be the same company that reports the vote is an invitation
to
> >> fraud and disaster.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't allow my bookkeeper to balance my checkbook no matter how
much
> >I
> >> trust them.
> >>
> >> The parents of a well-known Libertarian did exactly that: the
bookkeeper
> >> took in the money and balanced the checkbook.  The bookkeeper skimmed
> >> $100,000 off the top.  Bad, bad business practice.
> >>
> >> I don't want that happening to the voters of Boulder, Colorado, or the
> >> nation.
> >>
> >> >Like
> >> >the Clerk having a Programmer on the staff who deals with it. Do you
> >trust
> >> >the Clerk and their staff?
> >>
> >> I trust them no more nor less than I trust any random stranger.  Have
they
> >> earned my trust?
> >>
> >> >Never sure with humans.......think Terry Baker
> >> >and the SoS who died with all those registrations and papers in her
> >> >office....;-(
> >>
> >> Yes.  Imagine if Vicki Buckley had all of those ballot initiative
> >signatures
> >> (it was medical marijuana) on a computer disk instead of paper.  We
would
> >> have never known.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I believe firmly that electronics is the only way to count such a mass
ive
> >> >amount of *anything* with little error.
> >>
> >> Bo, it is an old bumper sticker joke: To err is human.  To really foul
> >> things up requires a computer.
> >>
> >> >(I'm not sure if I believe this can *ever* be accomplished perfectly
and
> >> >flawlessly.......nature of the Beast.)
> >> >But machines *are* impartial and incredibly more proficient at this
kind
> >of
> >> >task.
> >>
> >> THey are much more proficient at repetitive tasks.
> >>
> >> >We need to ensure the human interface is above reproach.......and
there's
> >> >the rub.
> >> >
> >> >Saying *all* electronic vote counting/sorting is bad, is throwing out
the
> >> >baby with the washwater.
> >> >HUMANS are the ones to worry about.......
> >> >HUMANS are the ones who have a motive for Fraud......
> >> >HUMANS are the only ones who will *commit* fraud.....
> >> >All the machine "cares" about, is doing it's job the best it
can.....an
> >> >admirable goal.
> >> >
> >> >If we find a way to remove the "human" factor, once the human's job
> >(voting)
> >> >is done, *then* we'll be able to have a truly confident election.
> >> >At least that's what *I* think.......
> >>
> >> You have identified the major glitch in computer voting: the human
factor
> >> when it comes to fraud.
> >>
> >> I like things spread out.
> >>
> >> If I were king of the voting world, the sequence of events would be:
> >>   1) User uses touch screen to create a paper ballot.
> >>   2) User validates paper ballot.
> >>   3) User deposits paper ballot in ballot box at polling place.
> >>   4) At end of day, paper ballots are scanned at polling place.
> >>   5) The precinct count is recorded, publicized, and transmitted to
> >>        county clerk's office
> >>   6) The ballots are transferred to the County Clerk's office.
> >>   7) The ballots are scanned again and matched against the values
> >>        recorded at each polling place.
> >>   8) The totals are recorded and publicized.
> >>   9) The ballots are then hand counted over the next several days/weeks
to
> >>        validate that the machines where not in error.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Today I had lunch with a new friend: Evan Ravitz.  Both Evan and Al
> >Kolwicz
> >> have proposed - in one way or another - that votes be centrally
counted.
> >I
> >> want that, but I also want the votes "disbursed counted".  The more
> >> redundancy we have and the more people we have doing the counting and
the
> >> more ways we have of doing counting, the happier I will be.
> >>
> >> Trust but verify, verify, verify.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Good thing it's a free country, eh?
> >> ><VBG>
> >>
> >> Freedom is not free.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Bo
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Ralph Shnelvar" <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >To: "LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >Cc: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>; "Paul Tiger"
> >> ><Paul.Tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "William Crook"
> >> ><slayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:49 AM
> >> >Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The
definition
> >of
> >> >insanity
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Dear Bo:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:47:44 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Evan,
> >> >> >Errors are errors.
> >> >> >Secret ones and conspiracies and all are a bit paranoid.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really?
> >> >>
> >> >> With the results of elections controlling billions of dollars (think
of
> >> >the
> >> >> recently defeated Proposition A), the more compelling it is to
control
> >> >those
> >> >> results.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Stop being a Luddite.
> >> >>
> >> >> He's not the Luddite.  I am.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's my background: I've been a computer programmer more-or-less
> >> >> continuously since 1964.  For 10 years I did complex econometric
> >modeling.
> >> >> After that I was a consultant to companies like Exxon doing
numerical
> >> >> optimization (so that they could keep down their costs when moving
oil
> >> >> around).  Fascinating stuff.
> >> >>
> >> >> Since the late 1980's I've had a company that has done nothing but
> >backup
> >> >> and disaster recovery software.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now that you know how much of a Luddite I am, you can understand
that I
> >> >have
> >> >> a technical understanding of both advanced statistics and computer
> >> >> programming as well as a fairly good grasp of econometrics.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I'm terrified of these machines.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Technology can give us the ability to be error free as well as
fraud
> >> >proof..
> >> >>
> >> >> No it can't.
> >> >>
> >> >> By what argument can you make such an assertion?
> >> >>
> >> >> >We have to mold it to our purposes, not let it take over our
process.
> >> >> >This *is* possible.
> >> >> >Just because something has been done for a long time is not a good
> >reason
> >> >to
> >> >> >continue it. In fact, it's probably a good reason to *not* continue
> >it.
> >> >This
> >> >> >is a dynamic world we live in and everything has to adapt. To not
> >change
> >> >is
> >> >> >to stagnate and die.
> >> >>
> >> >> My next door neighbor has been an election judge for many, many
years.
> >> >> Elaborate mechanisms were put into place in order to minimize
election
> >> >> fraud.
> >> >>
> >> >> Those are good mechanisms.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bo, just because something is new does not make it better.
Similarly,
> >just
> >> >> because something is new does not make it worse.
> >> >>
> >> >> Our freedoms hang in the balance.  To do something new with how our
> >votes
> >> >> are counted without proper and in-depth thought to the process can
and
> >> >will
> >> >> lead to someone hijacking the process.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you want to hear about low-tech hijacking of elections just
contact
> >> >Sunny
> >> >> Maynard of the Green Party.  She'll tell you some hair-raising
stories.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> One of the questions people sometimes ask me is: We use credit cards
> >and
> >> >> electronic transactions every day to move trillions of dollars
around.
> >Do
> >> >> you really want to go back to barter and hand-written bank drafts?
> >> >>
> >> >> The answer: The basic difference between Electronic Funds Transfers
> >(EFT)
> >> >> and electronic voting is that voting is anonymous.  When an EFT goes
> >> >astray,
> >> >> someone gets hurt and yells.  When a vote goes astray then NOBODY
> >KNOWS.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> With statistical sampling of the votes (a la HR2239) you can
> >dramatically
> >> >> reduce the probability of fraud.  But there are still problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Consider a close election.  Let's say that polling data shows that
your
> >> >side
> >> >> is losing by 6%.  Further, let us say that the stakes are really
very
> >> >high:
> >> >> billions of dollars.  If you get caught then you go to jail.  If you
> >don't
> >> >> get caught then you end up being millions of dollars richer.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are plenty of people willing to make a much less lucrative a
deal
> >> >with
> >> >> the devil.  Just ask your local pusher.
> >> >>
> >> >> So let's say that there are 300 polling places representing 30,000
> >votes
> >> >and
> >> >> that Company X controls the software.  If "your side" is low by 6%
then
> >> >the
> >> >> vote would be 14100/15900.  To win you've got to skew 2000 votes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Company X knows that 1.5% of the polling places (5 polling places
out
> >of
> >> >> 300) will be hand counted.
> >> >>
> >> >> If Company X knows which 5 places then manipulating the election is
> >> >trivial.
> >> >> I leave this as an exercise for the reader.
> >> >>
> >> >> If Company X does not know which 5 polling places will be hand
counted,
> >> >then
> >> >> things are a bit more difficult but not impossible.  All that need
be
> >done
> >> >> is that 30 polling places have their results heavily skewed.
Instead
> >of
> >> >> each polling place having a (average) of 47 yes v 53 no, you shift
it
> >to
> >> >80
> >> >> yes v 20 no for the 30 polling places that Company X is
manipulating.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now the total vote is 15090.  Voila!  You've won and the chances of
> >being
> >> >> caught are less than 1 in 5.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, Bo, hand counting is necessary to preserve the honesty of the
> >system.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Bo
> >> >>
> >> >> Ralph
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >> >From: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >To: "LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >Cc: "Paul Tiger" <Paul.Tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "BCV"
<bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >> >> >"William Crook" <slayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:25 AM
> >> >> >Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The
> >definition
> >> >of
> >> >> >insanity
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bo, Canada (20-something million people) and Britain both
hand-count
> >> >> >> ballots. It's been done for hundreds of years. The journey of
1000
> >> >> >> miles begins with a single step, counting a million starts with
one.
> >> >> >> It's "scalable". I'm sure it's more error prone than computer
> >> >> >> counting, but with the proper measures, those are honest errors
> >> >> >> instead of secret ones which can never be discovered now.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Evan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, LPBC Chairman wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Evan....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Hand counting???
> >> >> >> > a hundred thousand ballots???
> >> >> >> > (in Boulder County alone....)
> >> >> >> > And you think *that* would be more accurate???
> >> >> >> > Maybe someday you should volunteer at the Clerks office and see
> >what
> >> >it
> >> >> >> > takes to just open and sort ballots by hand......let alone
count
> >> >them.
> >> >> >You
> >> >> >> > would be amazed at the errors people make.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We need to come up with a way to make technology work.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Bo
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> >> > From: "Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> > To: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>;
> ><paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> > Cc: "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "William Crook"
<slayer@xxxxxxxxx>;
> >"Bo
> >> >> >> > Shaffer" <bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:46 PM
> >> >> >> > Subject: RE: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The
> >> >definition
> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> > insanity
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > No, Ben Franklin actually. Go do your homework.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> > > From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
> >> >> >> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:18 PM
> >> >> >> > > To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> > > Cc: BCV; William Crook; Bo Shaffer
> >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The
> >> >> >definition of
> >> >> >> > > insanity
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Paul Tiger wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and
> >over
> >> >> >and
> >> >> >> > > > expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Einstein, actually. State law mandates recounts by the same
> >method
> >> >as
> >> >> >> > > the original count. That's why I support hand-counting until
the
> >> >State
> >> >> >> > > law is changed; public-source software isn't as good as
> >> >hand-counting,
> >> >> >> > > but much better than secret software used over and over.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Evan
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > ----------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> > > Evan Ravitz     303 440 6838     evan@xxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> > > Vote for the National Initiative! www.vote.org
> >> >> >> > > Photo Adventures:          www.vote.org/photos
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Kucinich: the ONLY candidate to vote against the
> >> >> >> > > "Patriot" Act and the Iraq war:  www.kucinich.us
> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>