Re: Longmont: Decision next Tuesday night

It is a procedural issue more than does the computer work. Further, it is an issue that the vendor wishes to control, for their need of profit.

Now extrapolate and consider this. What new technology are you aware of that requires the oversight of humans, where the humans operate in parallel to the technology? I believe we call that BETA testing. That's what the vendor doesn't want shown, that these devices and systems were released as BROWN, not gold.

To do by hand in order to compare to the effectiveness of the given technology is not a function of post sales support. Audits are a part of testing, and they don't want to be tested. They think that the sale was graduation day and there will be no more testing.

Dick Feynman states at the start of his lectures on physics, that if a theory fails to compare favorably with experiment, then it is wrong. It doesn't matter how good it sounds, or who said it.

Unfortunately for the vendors, the method of favorable comparison is HAND COUNTing. That's like seeing how fast a car can go compared to a horse. They are selling speed.

The people that want fast over accurate are METH ADDICTS.

tiger

Bo wrote:

I would ask.....

Why is Coffman going to test the machines again and expect a different outcome???

How did they get certified the first time if they can't count the ballots correctly?

Seems like every time they test 'em, the outcome changes......

We're not talking counting votes.

We're talking about a machine counting pieces of paper.

Howcum all of a sudden, we can't even do that???

Maybe the machines at the banks are having the same problems???

Bo