Re: George W. Bush

[Gary S.]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:04:59 -0500, "Birdman42" >
wrote:

>"Mike Vandeman" > wrote in message
...
>> The saddest thing about this election is that so many Americans support a
>> "president" who (1) was not legitimately elected, (2) violates binding
>treaties,

Let me guess what Mikie actually did in this recent election:

" "

or in math terms, ~0

>You forgot the environment just got royally screwed...again.
>
Some of the people trashing the environment, believe that the world is
about to end, as forecast in the Book of Revelations.

If the world is about to end, there is no need to preserve it, because
the Battle of Armageddon will destroy it all anyway, then the true
believers go to heaven.

Some consider this fiction, others consider it next week's news.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

November 4, 2004

[ca.environment removed]

See how easy that is?

Jason wrote:

>Actually no he doesnt have the right to post whatever he wants where
>ever he want Thomas and neither does anyone else just read your ISP TOS.
>
>

And you have every right to broadcast your stupidity to the world by
proclaiming your inability to use a filter file. Use Firefox, it's got a
vastly improved filter manager.

>And no thank god I'm not an american.
>
>

Then why are you complaining to a US ISP rather than simply filtering a
poster who never changes his handle and never posts anonymously? I know,
you're a moronic driveling idiot, your ignorance is incurable, you have
an IQ of 50 and you live in Canada, a nation of climate change denyers
and scientific illiterates. It must be a North American problem, not
just a US problems. Hell, it looks like a global problem, but I admit,
bicycles are part of the solution..

Thus, you have every right to use your freedom of speech to protest
against the freedom of speech. ISPs are a dime a dozen, I'm sure there
will be many to replace the one he loses, and you apparently have
nothing better to do than spam ISPs with emails proclaiming your
dissasatifaction with your fundamental right to freedom of speech, since
you seem incapable of editing headers as well as managing a filter file.

Your usenet posting history isn't pristine either, shall we spam your
ISP too?

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3AJason+author%3A%3CJason%40spammers.suck .com%3E&btnG=Search

X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:

Go ahead everybody, spam this address with abuse complaints, it's your fundamental ... ability.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

[Gary S.]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:21:00 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:

>Despite that fact, Mike is talking about the Kyoto (did I spell it wrong
>earier?) treaty.
>
Kyoto is the correct spelling, after the city in Japan where they met
to write it.

Much easier to look things up with the correct spelling.

Complex issue, and approving it vs not approving it has more
ramifications than how much poluution there will be.

There is inconsistent treatment of different countries in there, based
more on politics than technology.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

[Jack Dingler]

It doesn't matter, the Kyoto treaty simply put's limits on how much CO2
is produced in a year. In the end, all of the CO2 we can produce, will
be produced. Kyoto addresses only the rate, not the final product. In
the end it makes no difference.

Jack Dingler

Gary S. wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:21:00 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Despite that fact, Mike is talking about the Kyoto (did I spell it wrong
>>earier?) treaty.
>>
>>
>>
>Kyoto is the correct spelling, after the city in Japan where they met
>to write it.
>
>Much easier to look things up with the correct spelling.
>
>Complex issue, and approving it vs not approving it has more
>ramifications than how much poluution there will be.
>
>There is inconsistent treatment of different countries in there, based
>more on politics than technology.
>
>Happy trails,
>Gary (net.yogi.bear)
>------------------------------------------------
>at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
>
>Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
>Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
>
>

[Rick]

....stuff deleted
>>
>
> Until Diebold opens their systems for third party review, you can't
> prove one word of this. Diebold says it's true and you accept that as a
> matter of faith. You can't prove and Diebold can't prove it.
>
> It is security through obfuscation and that is a bad thing in computer
> security.
>
> Jack Dingler
>

So right, Jack. A few years back (must have been the late 70's), a
systems programmer ripped Crocker Bank of about $8 million by skimming
all the partial cent of all interest calculations and transactions
handled by the bank in a day. The code he wrote was self-deleting and he
escaped without a trace. Though everyone knew he was guilty, there was
no proof.

Any system, anywhere, can be hacked. Those who develop the system also
developed the instrumentation (to verify that the software works) and
tools to do just that. The tools and the like are not destroyed once the
product reaches its eventual consumer location due to the fact that
these tools are needed to diagnose any problems that arise. Without
considerable oversight, it is fairly easy to alter data without
detection. When I was at Apple, we had a tool which altered the contents
of data packets, the end result was that those who developed the tool
snarfed out the "sender" in emails and replaced the origal sender's name
with that of the CEO. It was funny at the time and we made certain that
the tool did not end up in the wrong hands.

Networked systems, as anyone with a Win based system can attest, are
very easy to hack. These voting systems could easily have a snarfing
tool on the newtork to alter certain key votes in a percentage of the
packets transmitted. This would be shockingly easy to do and very
difficult to detect without a point-of-transaction record of the data
that actually went into the machine.

Rick

[Rick]

....stuff deleted
>
> But surely you can imagine a testing regime that would be absolutely
> indistinguishable from "the real thing"... (which is what I'd
> personally set up if I were testing a voting system). There are a lot
> of people doing a lot of testing out there - and it's apparent no one
> is finding any problems. Remember, these machines werern't passed out
> three weeks ago, but have been continually going into service for many
> years now... we're not talking about the potential for a "one-time
> event" that could have been planned for many years.
>
....stuff deleted

This was done with voter registration, not with the polls, by the way.
The morality of registering voters and then discarding, rather than
submitting those for the other party, is the same as setting up an
illegal booth. I won't state which party did this in the last election,
but you probably already know.

Since you cannot vote at any site but the approved site stated on your
registration materials, the odds of a false voting booth are low, though
not impossible.

Rick