Welcome to the Hall of Fame, mbpark.
You nailed it (as you usually do) on an important technical subject that *should* be of interest to all dwellars eligible to vote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbpark
I believe that Diebold didn't approach this project with the same discipline that they would an ATM machine, nor did they care to. They made something which was clearly not designed for the task work as a voting machine. .They made it appear to get past the government contracting officers by citing regulations which have nothing to do with the accuracy of the voting mechanism itself, and they built it on a horribly complex framework that has a ton of security holes, and is not designed for security.
|