Big Ol' Smitty

*sigh* Those were the good ol' days. Whatever happened to big Vito?

Meatwad's alright. The guy in his avatar always makes me grin.

Wait that was supposed to say loathe. I loathe all of you.

All of you.

Awfully fantastic.

Go crazy.

That's wonderful.

For Curbed Enthusiasm:

Okay sports that produce revenue.

NO DON'T DO IT, PLEASE! FOR THE GOOD OF THE LAND!

Gold.

Look, fuck who won the election. Here's the real problem: Expert testimony on quality of current voting machines [edit] Dr. Professor Avi Rubin Testimony of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin to U.S. Federal Election Assistance Commission, on Electronic Voting Systems, May 2004: (Witness credentials: Professor of Computer Science, Technical Director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, served on SERVE security peer review group for Dept. of Defense, member of National Committee on Voting Integrity, Secure Systems Research Department at AT&T (cryptography, computer and internet security) [65] (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/elections/schadevmd42204cmp.pdf), 2004 election judge in local county) There is no way for voters to verify that their votes were recorded correctly. There is no way to publicly count the votes. In the case of a controversial election, meaningful recounts are impossible. With respect to the Diebold Accuvote TS and TSx, we found gross design and programming errors, as outlined in our attached report. The current certification process resulted in these machines being approved for use and being used in elections. We do not know if the machines from other vendors are as bad as the Diebold ones because they have not made their systems available for analysis. "On the spectrum of terrible to very good, we are sitting at terrible. Not only have the vendors not implemented security safeguards that are possible, they have not even correctly implemented the ones that are easy. If I had more time I would debunk the myth of the security of the so-called triple redundancy in the Diebold machines. I would explain the limitations of logic and accuracy testing in an adversarial setting, I would explain how easy it would be for a malicious programmer to rig the election with today's DREs [voting machines], and I would describe the seriousness of the security flaws that we and others have found in the Diebold machines. These are all things that I could have done and would have been happy to do, before anybody started purchasing and using these DREs. But nobody asked." "Since our study came out, three other major studies ... all cited serious security vulnerabilities in DREs. RABA, which is closely allied with the National Security Agency, called for a "pervasive rewrite" of Diebold's code. Yet, the vendors, and many election officials ... continue to insist that the machines are perfectly secure. I cannot fathom the basis for their claims. I do not know of a single computer security expert who would testify that these machines are secure. I personally know dozens of computer security experts who would testify that they are not." (Source: [66] (http://avirubin.com/eac.pdf)) [edit] Dr. Professor Rebecca Mercuri [Dr. Rebecca Mercuri (Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Bryn Mawr College, referred to by some as "the leading independent expert on electronic voting technology") reports that: "No electronic voting system has been certified to even the lowest level of the U.S. government or international computer security standards such as the ISO Common Criteria, nor are they required to comply with such standards. Thus, no current electronic voting system is secure by the U.S. government's own standards.". "...any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result." There is "no known way" to ensure that this is not happening inside of a voting system. Summary [67] (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/INF307A.html) Dr Mercuri topical website [68] (http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html)

I haven't seen any proof of either. I haven't seen any circumstancial evidence that the exit polls were wrong. I have seen quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that there were problems with the vote.

Read a debunking of the CalTech study here.

Wait.. I think that i'm the only person on that panel who voted for Kerry. So yeah.. Who did Loss vote for?

I think Powerplay in on the tribunal, as well.

BTW, Ebert had the numbers wrong.

Let the judges decide.

Your going with ASSUMPTIONS. I'm going with cold-hard data. You STILL have nothing to refute it. ALL I said was "violent crime". I didn't say murder. I didn't say rape. I said "violent crime". -=Mike The two statistics are not comparable. They don't include the same crimes. Yes, they clearly are. You lost the bet. Don't inspire me to change your sig, avatar, et al. -=Mike But a major portion of the crimes in the Canada stat come from types of crime that aren't even included in the US stat. Plus, you had to have 3 sources.

Why appologize? Frankly, I've been a bit combative as of late, so I do think I need to tone it down. And point taken. I think you've been appropriately combative, considering the arguments that you've been debating. You don't just swear at and insult the people who you are arguing with--you try to pick apart their arguments with evidence and logic.

Your going with ASSUMPTIONS. I'm going with cold-hard data. You STILL have nothing to refute it. ALL I said was "violent crime". I didn't say murder. I didn't say rape. I said "violent crime". -=Mike The two statistics are not comparable. They don't include the same crimes.

I knew you Canucks were a simple, peace-loving people. The judges will decide if my debunking is valid.

Eureka! I've found the glitch in the system, I think. statcan includes ALL types of assault in its calculation of violent crime. The majority of the violent crimes on the statcan tally are assault--probably mostly minor assaults. The US statistics only include AGGRAVATED assault, which is the most serious kind. If all assaults were included the US rate would be much higher.

That seems conclusive to me. I said 3 sources but that's alright with me. The panel will rule and Mike shall punish me as he see fits. Or not, if he doesn't want to. If that data is correct, it's weird that all these other places said that Canada's violent crime rate is so much lower.

Okay, I've found a 2003 statistic for violent crime on the statcan site. I have yet to find any equivalent statistic for violent crime on the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics site. If anybody could locate this statistic--"2003 violent crime rate"--from the site it'd be great. All the stats only go to 2002 anyway.