Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early
This is an amazing but sadly almost to real video on Election 08'
Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
Posted by
Elijah Lynn
comments (0)
Open Source Voting: Accurate, Accountable, Ready by 2008 | Open Voting Consortium
Posted by
Elijah Lynn
comments (0)
Open Source Voting: Accurate, Accountable, Ready by 2008 | Open Voting Consortium
I love it! This actually looks like a voting system we can use! Now, it will be fun to get officials to comment on video on why they choose not to use this system! There system is based on Ubuntu Linux and doesn't actually count the votes. It prints off a ballot with the name and a bar code. Then they use video cameras to display the counting process.
I would love to see some video of the election in California of this!
All elections and votes should have archived video.
Question I always ask myself - How is it that we can send a man to the moon with pinpoint precision accuracy and timing but we cannot count numbers doing elections time?
Now is it that we can't? No of course not, we can count and we can count very very well. Now could it be that we "choose" not to? How can Americans be so naive and think there votes are counted properly. Shouldn't there be a audit available by anyone at anytime to count our votes?
No wonder America is Apathetic. Anyways, check out the link above, it seems like a good system. Let me know if you see any major flaws. Don't tell me that just switching to paper voting will fix it because we obviously saw that it won't after seeing what happened to New Hampshire's vote this year. That was paper voting and it was a mess. Citizens even paid over $50,000 for a recount (should we have to pay money for a re-count) and didn't even receive the ballots. Much more on youtube for that!
]Our voting system is flawed and why won't Diebold let people see the source code for their machines? This is wrong.
I love it! This actually looks like a voting system we can use! Now, it will be fun to get officials to comment on video on why they choose not to use this system! There system is based on Ubuntu Linux and doesn't actually count the votes. It prints off a ballot with the name and a bar code. Then they use video cameras to display the counting process.
I would love to see some video of the election in California of this!
All elections and votes should have archived video.
Question I always ask myself - How is it that we can send a man to the moon with pinpoint precision accuracy and timing but we cannot count numbers doing elections time?
Now is it that we can't? No of course not, we can count and we can count very very well. Now could it be that we "choose" not to? How can Americans be so naive and think there votes are counted properly. Shouldn't there be a audit available by anyone at anytime to count our votes?
No wonder America is Apathetic. Anyways, check out the link above, it seems like a good system. Let me know if you see any major flaws. Don't tell me that just switching to paper voting will fix it because we obviously saw that it won't after seeing what happened to New Hampshire's vote this year. That was paper voting and it was a mess. Citizens even paid over $50,000 for a recount (should we have to pay money for a re-count) and didn't even receive the ballots. Much more on youtube for that!
]Our voting system is flawed and why won't Diebold let people see the source code for their machines? This is wrong.
Judge Napolitano: Why The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional.
Posted by
Elijah Lynn
comments (0)
A very emotional speech that Judge Napolitano gives on the Patriot Act and how it got passed in the first place, what it really means and how it affects you.
Hint, Hint it is not Patriotic in any way :).
Wikipedia can no longer be trusted
Posted by
Elijah Lynn
comments (0)
I have been using Wikipedia for many years. I love Wikipedia. It appears to give me good information most of the time.
I tried to edit some stuff a while ago and found it quickly got changed because it did not adhere to there rules. That frustrated me a bit but I said hey, I guess that makes sense. I even heard that the Wikipedia founder was trying to build a open-source search engine and thought that was great as well.
I have just recently had my apathy cured by Ron Paul. I also learned about another individual Edward Griffin in the process. I was just getting to know about him and his ideas and still am.
So here comes the reason on why Wikipedia can no longer be trusted. Lets say you and a few of your admin buddies at Wikipedia want to delete an entry. You delete the page according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Now, whether they adhered or not lets just say you had the "power" and you knew how to work the "laws" or rules better than the average reader. Heck, most people don't even know you can edit a page.
We just deleted the page or entry. Lets say that the people with the power don't want it re-added because there stay at home job involves being a non-paid Wikipedia editor, at least not paid by Wikipedia. Ok, now I want to add it back because it should be documented information. But I can't. The admin's at Wikipedia have blocked it permanently from ever being added back again. What do you do? What happens when it happens with content on the page? You change it and the stay at homers change it back to suit their ideological beliefs. What can you do. They have more time than you.
This happened just days ago to an author and public speaker. http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=7174
Permanently deleted forever from Wikipedia.
Here is the cached page that Google has on store to prove it did once exist.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hqTsGNuzak8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin+edward+g+griffin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
So, what do you do? Be very very cautious of any info you get from Wikipedia because after all censorship has just been proven. Wikipedia is not immune to censorship. What a sad day in Wikipedia's history...
Update - Not sure how this happened but on February 29th it seems that someone rebuilt the article from scratch. This is good to see and I am sure it was because of the popularity of this guy. I am wondering about the smaller lesser known people who also get censored though.
Check out the revision history, beginning on February 29th, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._Edward_Griffin&offset=20080419083417&limit=500&action=history
This is good Wikipedia stepped up to the plate.
I tried to edit some stuff a while ago and found it quickly got changed because it did not adhere to there rules. That frustrated me a bit but I said hey, I guess that makes sense. I even heard that the Wikipedia founder was trying to build a open-source search engine and thought that was great as well.
I have just recently had my apathy cured by Ron Paul. I also learned about another individual Edward Griffin in the process. I was just getting to know about him and his ideas and still am.
So here comes the reason on why Wikipedia can no longer be trusted. Lets say you and a few of your admin buddies at Wikipedia want to delete an entry. You delete the page according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Now, whether they adhered or not lets just say you had the "power" and you knew how to work the "laws" or rules better than the average reader. Heck, most people don't even know you can edit a page.
We just deleted the page or entry. Lets say that the people with the power don't want it re-added because there stay at home job involves being a non-paid Wikipedia editor, at least not paid by Wikipedia. Ok, now I want to add it back because it should be documented information. But I can't. The admin's at Wikipedia have blocked it permanently from ever being added back again. What do you do? What happens when it happens with content on the page? You change it and the stay at homers change it back to suit their ideological beliefs. What can you do. They have more time than you.
This happened just days ago to an author and public speaker. http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=7174
Permanently deleted forever from Wikipedia.
Here is the cached page that Google has on store to prove it did once exist.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hqTsGNuzak8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin+edward+g+griffin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
So, what do you do? Be very very cautious of any info you get from Wikipedia because after all censorship has just been proven. Wikipedia is not immune to censorship. What a sad day in Wikipedia's history...
Update - Not sure how this happened but on February 29th it seems that someone rebuilt the article from scratch. This is good to see and I am sure it was because of the popularity of this guy. I am wondering about the smaller lesser known people who also get censored though.
Check out the revision history, beginning on February 29th, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._Edward_Griffin&offset=20080419083417&limit=500&action=history
This is good Wikipedia stepped up to the plate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
