Angry [Archive] - AviationBanter

Larry Dighera

December 22nd 05, 11:38 PM

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:59:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>Save the anger for things that
>matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
>exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

His days are numbered:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm
Bush stands firm over spying row

Bush refused to confirm or deny the allegations
President George W Bush insists he has not compromised civil
liberties, after it was alleged he authorized people in the US to
be bugged without a warrant.

A storm of protest erupted after the New York Times said the
National Security Agency (NSA) was allowed to eavesdrop on
hundreds of people.

Senators from both sides called for an explanation and
investigation.

Mr Bush refused to confirm or deny the claims, but said he always
upheld the law and protected civil liberties.

The president said he would not discuss ongoing intelligence
operations.

But he added: "I will make this point. That whatever I do to
protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so,
that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made
understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties
of the American people."

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order
following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA,
based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international
telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral
to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to
foreign embassies.

Critics have questioned whether wider surveillance in the US
crosses constitutional limits on legal searches.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before
intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

'Big brother'

Republican Senator John McCain called for an explanation.

Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and
another Republican, said "there is no doubt that this is
inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early
next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold
called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down
the spine of every senator and every American".

The allegations coincided with a setback for the Bush
administration, as the Senate rejected extensions to spying
provisions in the Patriot Act.

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb said it is a sign of
intense concern about infringements of civil liberties in the name
of security.

The White House is having a tough time convincing even its
Republican supporters that the things it does in the name of the
war on terrorism are always justified, he adds.

Echoes of Vietnam

Administration officials issued a robust defense of anti-terrorist
operations, saying they had prevented several attacks - including
one on targets in Britain.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping
in the US without a court order and without complying with the
procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both
illegal and unconstitutional".

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers
at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president
above the law," director Caroline Fredrickson said.

To opponents of the Bush administration, the alleged bugging
programme is reminiscent of the widespread abuse of power by the
security services during the Vietnam War when anti-war activists
were monitored illegally, our correspondent says.

That activity prompted tougher regulation of bugging.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Formed in 1952
Biggest US security agency, with 38,000 employees
NSA Nicknamed "No Such Agency"
Has a dozen listening posts around the world, tracking phone
calls, diplomatic traffic, emails, faxes
May record up to 500 million hours of traffic every day
On US soil, can only listen to "agents of a foreign power"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
The Washington Post: "The presiding judge of a secret court that
oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases
is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to
address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's
domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and
government sources.

"Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
said in interviews that they want to know why the administration
believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading
e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal.
Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that
information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may
have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their
court. . . .

"Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown
into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of
the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the
court."

What exactly is the government doing so secretly? And why was
judicial oversight -- even with the granting of retroactive
approval -- apparently too limiting? Different theories are
emerging. One is that the secret program is some sort of giant
high-tech fishing expedition.

Leonnig and Linzer write: "Bush administration officials believe
it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to
provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a
warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no
way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a
vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something
that sounds suspicious. . . .

"One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity,
said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process
demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on
it.

" 'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the
wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.' "

But Scott Shane writes in the New York Times that "officials who
have been granted anonymity in describing the program because it
is classified say the agency's recent domestic eavesdropping is
focused on a limited group of people. Americans come to the
program's attention only if they have received a call or e-mail
message from a person overseas who is already suspected to be a
member of certain terrorist groups or linked somehow to a member
of such groups. And the agency still gets a warrant to intercept
their calls or e-mail messages to other people in the United
States."

Shane adds some historical context: "For anyone familiar with the
agency's history, the revelations recalled the mid-1970's, when
the Senate's Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission
exposed the agency's abuse of Americans' privacy.

"Under one program, called Shamrock, the agency and its
predecessors for decades collected copies of all international
telegrams leaving or entering the United States from the major
telegraph companies. Another, code-named Minaret, kept watch lists
of Americans who caught the government's interest because of
activism against the Vietnam War or other political stances.
Information was kept on about 75,000 Americans from 1952, when
agency was created, to 1974, according to testimony."

Ron Hutcheson writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "By letting
government agents eavesdrop without court oversight, Bush joined a
long list of presidents who've tested the limits of their wartime
authority -- often to the detriment of their reputations. Most
over-reached. Legal scholars who disagree with Bush's approach say
he missed a vital history lesson."

Neil King Jr. writes in the Wall Street Journal: "President Bush's
claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens
without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his
party.

"On one side is the national-security camp, made even more
numerous by loyalty to a wartime president. On the other are the
small-government civil libertarians who have long held a
privileged place within the Republican Party but whose ranks have
ebbed since the 2001 terrorist attacks."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm
Bush stands firm over spying row

Bush refused to confirm or deny the allegations
President George W Bush insists he has not compromised civil
liberties, after it was alleged he authorized people in the US to
be bugged without a warrant.

A storm of protest erupted after the New York Times said the
National Security Agency (NSA) was allowed to eavesdrop on
hundreds of people.

Senators from both sides called for an explanation and
investigation.

Mr Bush refused to confirm or deny the claims, but said he always
upheld the law and protected civil liberties.

The president said he would not discuss ongoing intelligence
operations.

But he added: "I will make this point. That whatever I do to
protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so,
that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made
understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties
of the American people."

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order
following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA,
based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international
telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral
to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to
foreign embassies.

Critics have questioned whether wider surveillance in the US
crosses constitutional limits on legal searches.

American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before
intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil.

'Big brother'

Republican Senator John McCain called for an explanation.

Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and
another Republican, said "there is no doubt that this is
inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early
next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold
called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down
the spine of every senator and every American".

The allegations coincided with a setback for the Bush
administration, as the Senate rejected extensions to spying
provisions in the Patriot Act.

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb said it is a sign of
intense concern about infringements of civil liberties in the name
of security.

The White House is having a tough time convincing even its
Republican supporters that the things it does in the name of the
war on terrorism are always justified, he adds.

Echoes of Vietnam

Administration officials issued a robust defense of anti-terrorist
operations, saying they had prevented several attacks - including
one on targets in Britain.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping
in the US without a court order and without complying with the
procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both
illegal and unconstitutional".

"The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers
at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president
above the law," director Caroline Fredrickson said.

To opponents of the Bush administration, the alleged bugging
programme is reminiscent of the widespread abuse of power by the
security services during the Vietnam War when anti-war activists
were monitored illegally, our correspondent says.

That activity prompted tougher regulation of bugging.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
Formed in 1952
Biggest US security agency, with 38,000 employees
NSA Nicknamed "No Such Agency"
Has a dozen listening posts around the world, tracking phone
calls, diplomatic traffic, emails, faxes
May record up to 500 million hours of traffic every day
On US soil, can only listen to "agents of a foreign power"

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 12:04 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>Save the anger for things that
>>matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
>>exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).
>
> His days are numbered: [...]

I wish I could share your optimism. I think it's pretty clear that a
majority of Americans are quite willing to simply overlook criminal acts on
his part. The current scandals aren't any different than those that
preceded the most recent election, and we all saw how much effect *those*
had.

The stench of hypocrisy, since the last attempt to impeach a President, is
astounding. I see no end in sight.

Of course, the alternative explanation is that the election WAS rigged, and
that there really aren't so many people willing to overlook that sort of
thing after all. One hopes the recent Diebold scandals (illegal
certification, untraceable vote hacking, etc.) will produce some movement
toward resecuring the elections. Maybe once that's done, the results will
seem more rational.

I'm not holding my breath. To start with, it would require that those in
power acknowledge the flaws with electronic voting, and agree to address
those flaws. For some odd reason, they seem to think it's perfectly fine to
have unverifiable, easily hacked election results. You'd think that EVERY
SINGLE POLITICIAN would be jumping up and down demanding auditable
elections. But a majority of them are not. I wonder why. What do they
have to fear from it?

Either way, it's not clear that we're headed for an improved situation any
time soon.

Pete

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 12:19 AM

A belief that voting machines were rigged seems to be especially common
among alien abductees and those receiving secret messages from David
Letterman.

-Robert

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 12:23 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>A belief that voting machines were rigged seems to be especially common
> among alien abductees and those receiving secret messages from David
> Letterman.

Ahh, yes. Ad hominem. The other great tactic used by those without a real
argument.

In any case, the issue isn't whether they were or not. It's whether they
can be.

I take it you are quite happy with all of the lying and deception. Like I
said, for some reason, there seems to be a high correlation between those
who think the criminal acts are fine, and those who don't want the elections
to be secure. Odd. (Not).

Pete

LWG

December 23rd 05, 12:34 AM

Yeah, like 900 secret FBI files in the possession of a White House employee
whom no one could remember hiring. Or having a friendly commodity trader
"parking" five grand in your old lady's account, and then, presto, it's
$100,000.00. Or using the IRS to harass personal enemies. Or giving secret
manufactuing technology to the Chinese in exchange for bags of money. Or
having your former national security advisor stuff his pants full of secret
documents so the marginal notes pertaining to Able Danger would never see
the light of day. Or -- oh wait, wrong guy. And I was just getting
started.

What Bush did with surveillance was perfectly legal, moral and the proper
thing to do. The legal precedent is clear beyond question. This is a point
that Carter, Clinton, Reagan and Bush would all agree upon, since they had
exactly the same view, and did exactly the same thing. In fact,
Clinton-Gorelick took it further than Bush ever dreamed.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>Save the anger for things that
>>>matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
>>>exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).
>>
>> His days are numbered: [...]
>
> I wish I could share your optimism. I think it's pretty clear that a
> majority of Americans are quite willing to simply overlook criminal acts
> on his part. The current scandals aren't any different than those that
> preceded the most recent election, and we all saw how much effect *those*
> had.
>
> The stench of hypocrisy, since the last attempt to impeach a President, is
> astounding. I see no end in sight.
>
> Of course, the alternative explanation is that the election WAS rigged,
> and that there really aren't so many people willing to overlook that sort
> of thing after all. One hopes the recent Diebold scandals (illegal
> certification, untraceable vote hacking, etc.) will produce some movement
> toward resecuring the elections. Maybe once that's done, the results will
> seem more rational.
>
> I'm not holding my breath. To start with, it would require that those in
> power acknowledge the flaws with electronic voting, and agree to address
> those flaws. For some odd reason, they seem to think it's perfectly fine
> to have unverifiable, easily hacked election results. You'd think that
> EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN would be jumping up and down demanding auditable
> elections. But a majority of them are not. I wonder why. What do they
> have to fear from it?
>
> Either way, it's not clear that we're headed for an improved situation any
> time soon.
>
> Pete
>

Matt Whiting

December 23rd 05, 12:41 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:59:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>Save the anger for things that
>>matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
>>exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).
>
>
> His days are numbered:

Yes, they are, but I'm too tired to count the number of days left in
Bush's second term. :-)

Matt

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 01:02 AM

If you think the election was rigged, how many votes do you think Bush
got? If not 51%, then 50.5%, 49%?? Even 49% is still around 60,000,000
votes. Certainly someone voted for Bush. So, if you really think he's
so bad you either have to believe that 60 million people are just
totally stupid, or you must come to the understanding that other
intelligent people see things differently and your opinion is just
that, an opinion, not fact. Democrats will continue to lose elections
if they continue to not understand Republicans. If you choose to
believe Republicans vote out of stupidity, you've lost that vote.
Republicans, on the other hand, DO know why people vote liberal.
Liberals want the gov't to take responsibility of taking care of
everyone.

-Robert

Hilton

December 23rd 05, 01:42 AM

dave j wrote:
> Angry, I think because it is so senseless and needless. It's upseting
> to see people killing their families in stupid ways. I don't know what
> it is about the hills around gilroy, but they seem to be magnets for
> airplanes.

A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in similar
conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when they
tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading into the
valley).

> On the other hand, I might disagree with Hilton about whether the time
> and type/age of the AC made for unacceptable risk factors for family
> flying in and of themselves. If the pilot was skilled for IMC and the
> plane was properly equipped and maintained, I don't have a problem with
> it.

The database lists the owner with no IFR rating, only ASEL. Disclaimer:
Might not have been the owner flying, might have got his IR recently, etc
etc etc.

> There is, of course, the old single-engine-night-imc worry of
> engine failure, but I'd bet $0.50 that this plane augured in with
> cruise power. (that's purely speculation, of course, but I'd bet $0.50)

Reports of 'aerobatics' probably imply a spin, which in turn probably
implies disorientation, which probably implies a stupid VFR into IMC flight
at night. Obviously, yes, we'll have to wait for the final report, but
unfortunately with most accidents, just the names and faces change.

Hilton

Hilton

December 23rd 05, 01:51 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>> Angry, I think because it is so senseless and needless. It's upseting
>> to see people killing their families in stupid ways.
>
> What's the point in being angry?

There is no point in being angry. I'm not angry about this delibrately. It
makes me angry to hear about two kids who will never grow up to see their
teens, never go on a first date, never get married, etc, all because
(*probably*) of some stupid decision. As pilots, we bitch and moan that
people see 'little planes' as dangerous. Quite frankly, many pilots are
doing a great job at helping to propagate that belief and statistics. Those
kids were strapped in by an adult taking their lives in his hands. As a
father of two beautiful young girls... yes, it makes me angry.

[zip]
> Anger as an emotional response to an accident like this is draining,
> stressful, and misdirected. **** happens. Save the anger for things that
> matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
> exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

Using the same logic, I shouldn't feel any emotion when I transport a 2
year-old girl who has organ problems to hospital. Using the same logic, I
shouldn't feel any emotion when this girl runs up and gives me a big bear
hug and kisses me on the cheek. Using the same logic, I would be
emotionally dead and with all due respect Pete, I prefer having my eyes
swell up with tears of joy helping on an Angel Flight.

Hilton

Larry Dighera

December 23rd 05, 01:57 AM

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:04:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>Save the anger for things that
>>>matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
>>>exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).
>>
>> His days are numbered: [...]
>
>I wish I could share your optimism. I think it's pretty clear that a
>majority of Americans are quite willing to simply overlook criminal acts on
>his part. The current scandals aren't any different than those that
>preceded the most recent election, and we all saw how much effect *those*
>had.

I can't see how the American people can possibly overlook all the
current administration's transgressions:

Failure to jail Bush family friend Kenneth Lay for Enron scam
The Downing Street Memo: revealed Bush Iraq war plan lie ...
Outing CIA operative in retaliation for debunking Iraq yellow-cake
Creating DHS while failing to secure US southern border
Screening airline passengers but not cargo
Placing former Unocal oil consultant Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan
Secret overseas prisons for torturing ...
Holding prisoners without attorney representation
Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Criminal domestic wire-taps ...
...

>The stench of hypocrisy, since the last attempt to impeach a President, is
>astounding. I see no end in sight.

The last attempt resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but you must be
referring to Nixon's burglary of Democratic headquarters.

>Of course, the alternative explanation is that the election WAS rigged, and
>that there really aren't so many people willing to overlook that sort of
>thing after all. One hopes the recent Diebold scandals (illegal
>certification, untraceable vote hacking, etc.) will produce some movement
>toward resecuring the elections. Maybe once that's done, the results will
>seem more rational.

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20030723_eff_pr.php
Security researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Rice
University announced today that they have discovered numerous
serious security flaws in what they believe is one of the leading
e-voting systems in the country -- the Diebold Electron Systems'
e-voting terminal.

Among the security flaws discovered were several ways in which
individual voters could vote multiple times in a given election.
The researchers also uncovered methods permitting voters to
"trick" the e-voting machines into allowing them system
administrator privileges or even terminating an election before
tallying all legitimate votes.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/technology/24VOTE.html?ex=1135400400&en=4cd6128547852998&ei=5070
July 24, 2003
Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

The software that runs many high-tech voting machines contains
serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and
permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected,
computer security researchers said yesterday.

"We found some stunning, stunning flaws," said Aviel D. Rubin,
technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns
Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from
Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines
operating in the United States.

The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart
cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with
$100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a
co-author of the paper.

"With what we found, practically anyone in the country — from a
teenager on up — could produce these smart cards that could allow
someone to vote as many times as they like," Mr. Stubblefield
said.

The software was initially obtained by critics of electronic
voting, who discovered it on a Diebold Internet site in January.
This is the first review of the software by recognized computer
security experts.

A spokesman for Diebold, Joe Richardson, said the company could
not comment in detail until it had seen the full report. He said
that the software on the site was "about a year old" and that "if
there were problems with it, the code could have been rectified or
changed" since then. The company, he said, puts its software
through rigorous testing.

"We're constantly improving it so the technology we have 10 years
from now will be better than what we have today," Mr. Richardson
said. "We're always open to anything that can improve our
systems."

Another co-author of the paper, Tadayoshi Kohno, said it was
unlikely that the company had plugged all of the holes they
discovered.

"There is no easy fix," Mr. Kohno said.

The move to electronic voting — which intensified after the
troubled Florida presidential balloting in 2000 — has been a
source of controversy among security researchers. They argue that
the companies should open their software to public review to be
sure it operates properly.

Mr. Richardson of Diebold said the company's voting-machine source
code, the basis of its computer program, had been certified by an
independent testing group. Outsiders might want more access, he
said, but "we don't feel it's necessary to turn it over to
everyone who asks to see it, because it is proprietary."

Diebold is one of the most successful companies in this field.
Georgia and Maryland are among its clients, as are many counties
around the country. The Maryland contract, announced this month,
is worth $56 million.

Diebold, based in North Canton, Ohio, is best known as a maker of
automated teller machines. The company acquired Global Election
Systems last year and renamed it Diebold Election Systems. Last
year the election unit contributed more than $110 million in sales
to the company's $2 billion in revenue.

As an industry leader, Diebold has been the focus of much of the
controversy over high-tech voting. Some people, in comments widely
circulated on the Internet, contend that the company's software
has been designed to allow voter fraud. Mr. Rubin called such
assertions "ludicrous" and said the software's flaws showed the
hallmarks of poor design, not subterfuge.

The list of flaws in the Diebold software is long, according to
the paper, which is online at avirubin .com/vote.pdf. Among other
things, the researchers said, ballots could be altered by anyone
with access to a machine, so that a voter might think he is
casting a ballot for one candidate while the vote is recorded for
an opponent.

The kind of scrutiny that the researchers applied to the Diebold
software would turn up flaws in all but the most rigorously
produced software, Mr. Stubblefield said. But the standards must
be as high as the stakes, he said.

"This isn't the code for a vending machine," he said. "This is the
code that protects our democracy."

Still, things that seem troubling in coding may not be as big a
problem in the real world, Mr. Richardson said. For example,
counties restrict access to the voting machines before and after
elections, he said. While the researchers "are all experts at
writing code, they may not have a full understanding of how
elections are run," he said.

But Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science
at the University of Iowa, said he was shocked to discover flaws
cited in Mr. Rubin's paper that he had mentioned to the system's
developers about five years ago as a state elections official.

"To find that such flaws have not been corrected in half a decade
is awful," Professor Jones said.

Peter G. Neumann, an expert in computer security at SRI
International, said the Diebold code was "just the tip of the
iceberg" of problems with electronic voting systems.

"This is an iceberg that needs to be hacked at a good bit," Mr.
Neumann said, "so this is a step forward."

>I'm not holding my breath. To start with, it would require that those in
>power acknowledge the flaws with electronic voting, and agree to address
>those flaws. For some odd reason, they seem to think it's perfectly fine to
>have unverifiable, easily hacked election results. You'd think that EVERY
>SINGLE POLITICIAN would be jumping up and down demanding auditable
>elections. But a majority of them are not. I wonder why. What do they
>have to fear from it?
>
>Either way, it's not clear that we're headed for an improved situation any
>time soon.
>

After the populace endures sky high winter heating bills, they could
be in the mood to remove him. We can hope.

Omalley

December 23rd 05, 02:05 AM

Well put.

On 22 Dec 2005 17:02:13 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>If you think the election was rigged, how many votes do you think Bush
>got? If not 51%, then 50.5%, 49%?? Even 49% is still around 60,000,000
>votes. Certainly someone voted for Bush. So, if you really think he's
>so bad you either have to believe that 60 million people are just
>totally stupid, or you must come to the understanding that other
>intelligent people see things differently and your opinion is just
>that, an opinion, not fact. Democrats will continue to lose elections
>if they continue to not understand Republicans. If you choose to
>believe Republicans vote out of stupidity, you've lost that vote.
>Republicans, on the other hand, DO know why people vote liberal.
>Liberals want the gov't to take responsibility of taking care of
>everyone.
>
>-Robert

Peter R.

December 23rd 05, 02:29 AM

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> What's the point in being angry? Stupid or careless people kill their
> families every day. How is this any different, for example, from this
> highway accident:

I see your point, but to me every preventable (no, not the sit on your
couch or fly comparison here - I mean poor decision making) GA airplane
accident that kills especially children is yet another black mark against
"those small planes."

You discuss a logical response but the non-flying masses, those who read
the newspapers and watch their favorite talking heads, will most certainly
respond with emotion.

--
Peter

Orval Fairbairn

December 23rd 05, 03:06 AM

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Angry, I think because it is so senseless and needless. It's upseting
> to see people killing their families in stupid ways. I don't know what
> it is about the hills around gilroy, but they seem to be magnets for
> airplanes.

Gilroy is in a valley, with passes -- one way going to San Jose,
another to Watsonville, and another out to the San Joaquin Valley. Scud
running -- especially at night -- is too tempting for some folks and
they meet the cumulogranite.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

Morgans

December 23rd 05, 03:08 AM

cjcampbell

December 23rd 05, 03:30 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>Save the anger for things that
> matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
> exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

Give it a rest. Clinton has been out of office for years, now.

Morgans

December 23rd 05, 04:32 AM

"Peter R." > wrote

> I see your point, but to me every preventable (no, not the sit on your
> couch or fly comparison here - I mean poor decision making) GA airplane
> accident that kills especially children is yet another black mark against
> "those small planes."

So what if it was a mechanical problem, with an airplane that was well
maintained, well equipped, with a pilot that was well qualified to fly in
weather like the crash weather? What is the response then? Who is there to
get angry at, or to react towards?
--
Jim in NC

Dave Stadt

December 23rd 05, 04:46 AM

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> >Save the anger for things that
> > matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
> > exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).
>
> Give it a rest. Clinton has been out of office for years, now.

Yea but the other Clinton is still on the prowl. God help us.

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 05:08 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you think the election was rigged

Why can't you be bothered to read the posts to which you reply? Nowhere did
I say that I "think the election was rigged". This is, in fact, the second
time I've had to try to explain to you otherwise.

> [...] If you choose to
> believe Republicans vote out of stupidity, you've lost that vote.

Frankly, I did think it was a good sign that a sitting President *barely*
got reelected. Incumbents usually do better. Nevertheless, it's clear from
talking to all sorts of people that most people have decided a long time ago
which party they will vote for, and it really doesn't matter what the people
they are voting for have done or will do.

The vast majority of everyone votes out of stupidity. Republicans aren't
any less guilty of this than other folks.

> Republicans, on the other hand, DO know why people vote liberal.
> Liberals want the gov't to take responsibility of taking care of
> everyone.

Uh huh. Those Republicans are all over the whole Conservative thing. Odd
thing, "Conservative" used to be all about things like maintaining a
balanced budget and keeping the government out of private lives. Somehow,
that got twisted around to mean spending your kid's money and imposing your
confused interpretation of the Christian Bible on everyone else.

Pete

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 05:14 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The last attempt resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but you must be
> referring to Nixon's burglary of Democratic headquarters.

No, I mean the Clinton impeachment attempt. How people can get so worked up
over a blowjob, and yet turn a blind eye to repeatededly lying as part of
one's actual JOB, is beyond me. It is the height of hypocrisy.

Tom Conner

December 23rd 05, 05:28 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote
>
> > I see your point, but to me every preventable (no, not the sit on your
> > couch or fly comparison here - I mean poor decision making) GA airplane
> > accident that kills especially children is yet another black mark
against
> > "those small planes."
>
> So what if it was a mechanical problem, with an airplane that was well
> maintained, well equipped, with a pilot that was well qualified to fly in
> weather like the crash weather? What is the response then? Who is there
to
> get angry at, or to react towards?

The news was quoting relatives as saying he recently got his license, and it
was raining when he departed. The details will start to be clearer and more
accurate over the next few days.

Jay Honeck

December 23rd 05, 05:43 AM

> Uh huh. Those Republicans are all over the whole Conservative thing. Odd
> thing, "Conservative" used to be all about things like maintaining a
> balanced budget and keeping the government out of private lives. Somehow,
> that got twisted around to mean spending your kid's money and imposing
> your confused interpretation of the Christian Bible on everyone else.

Ohmigod. I find myself in complete agreement with Pete Duniho on a
political point.

Surely the world must be ending!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans

December 23rd 05, 06:22 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote

> No, I mean the Clinton impeachment attempt.

You should take a civics class again; the one you must have slept through.

Clinton WAS impeached.
--
Jim in NC

Jack

December 23rd 05, 06:49 AM

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I've flown with my wife and two kids at night in IMC many,
> many times. I certainly don't consider it stupid or dangerous.
> I wonder if he had engine problems.

and

> ...emotional civilians...think SE planes are intrinsicly [sic]
> dangerous and can't believe anyone would actually fly one of those
> machines at night or in the clouds. Maybe Hilton needs to stick with
> riding in the back of 737s.

We "emotional civilians" aren't all civilians, nor are we unaware of the
realities of night and/or IMC conditions, whether S/E or M/E. Maybe
someone who flys his "wife and two kids at night in IMC many, many
times" would do well to "wonder [what] if he had engine problems", and
"stick with riding in the back of 737s," himself.

S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous. Whether or not it's also stupid
depends on your reasons for doing so, how well prepared you are, and
your doing all you can to avoid unnecessary risk. Unfortunately, wives
rarely -- and children never -- are able to measure for themselves the
risks they face and the capability of hero-Dad and his airplane, and
then make their own informed decisions. Erring on the safe side rather
than pumping up his own ego is Dad's obligation.

Good luck,

Jack

Jack

December 23rd 05, 07:21 AM

Morgans wrote:

Q. > So what if it was a mechanical problem, with an airplane that was well
> maintained, well equipped, with a pilot that was well qualified to
fly in
> weather like the crash weather? Who is there to get angry at...?

A. The person who risked everything in his world for an insignificant
payoff, in a game widely understood to be especially designed to
snare the arrogant fool.

If he had lost the house and the car in Vegas, we'd be all for shuffling
him off to a 12-steps program for gamblers. But since attempted the same
thing that some of us do, we just convince ourselves that it was an act
of God, or use some other mechanism for diverting attention from
ourselves and our own foolishness.

The question to ask is not, "what are the odds of something going
wrong?, but, "what are the odds of things turning out well when it does
go wrong?" And it will go wrong. That kind of thinking is the difference
between the "civilians" and those who intend to do the thing, and keep
doing it, for 30 or 40 or 50 years. It's always a matter of "when?",
not, "if?" Things are equally likely to go to hell on your 10th flight
as on your 10,000th.

Just about every year, some fool puts his Piper or Cessna into Lake
Michigan, or even little Lake Erie, because they can't be bothered to
take a longer route or, at the very least, to climb high enough to
ensure a safe emergency landing "feet dry". Some of them even do it at
night in the winter. It's easy to say they deserve what they get, but
their passengers, and the families left behind, do not.

Jack

Morgans

December 23rd 05, 08:02 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Ohmigod. I find myself in complete agreement with Pete Duniho on a
> political point.
>
> Surely the world must be ending!

Try not to worry *too* much. The new year is about to start, then things
will be back to normal! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

December 23rd 05, 08:05 AM

"Tom Conner" > wrote

> The news was quoting relatives as saying he recently got his license, and
it
> was raining when he departed. The details will start to be clearer and
more
> accurate over the next few days.
The "news", huh? I'm inspired! <g>

I had not seen any reports of that kind. If true, that would shed a
"judgment" aspect to it, wouldn't it?

What is the saying? Single engine, crappy weather, and night; choose 2 of
3, but never all three.
--
Jim in NC

r. mutt

December 23rd 05, 10:23 AM

Well the article says the incident occurred at 8:20 a.m.

It always surprises me how often people take off into lousy weather
conditions. It's either bravado, lack of flight preparation or good old
optimism.

R.I.P

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> 1956 172, rainy/low cloud kinda weather, hills, 9pm at night, 2 kids on
> board...
>
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/22/MNGC9GC0ED8.DTL
>
>

Matt Whiting

December 23rd 05, 01:13 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The last attempt resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but you must be
>>referring to Nixon's burglary of Democratic headquarters.
>
>
> No, I mean the Clinton impeachment attempt. How people can get so worked up
> over a blowjob, and yet turn a blind eye to repeatededly lying as part of
> one's actual JOB, is beyond me. It is the height of hypocrisy.
>
>

What attempt? He WAS impeached.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

December 23rd 05, 01:30 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Frankly, I did think it was a good sign that a sitting President *barely*
> got reelected. Incumbents usually do better.
>

Well, this one did better than the two prior incumbents.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 23rd 05, 01:31 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I mean the Clinton impeachment attempt. How people can get so worked
> up over a blowjob, and yet turn a blind eye to repeatededly lying as part
> of one's actual JOB, is beyond me. It is the height of hypocrisy.

What repeated lying are you referring to?

RST Engineering

December 23rd 05, 04:21 PM

We are 100 miles due north of Gilroy, but in general, the weather patterns
are the same. That day was pretty much 200-500 overcast in light mist all
day long, and that night the accident happened we got 5 inches of rain
overnight.

Jim

> The news was quoting relatives as saying he recently got his license, and
> it
> was raining when he departed. The details will start to be clearer and
> more
> accurate over the next few days.
>
>

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 04:58 PM

>S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous

Tell that to an F-16 pilot.

>Erring on the safe side rather than pumping up his own ego is Dad's obligation

Opps, I thought you were posting something serious. I didn't realize
you were just being stupid.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 05:03 PM

> Frankly, I did think it was a good sign that a sitting President *barely* got reelected.

Let's see
Bush in 04 reelection 61%
Clinton in 96 reelection 49%

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 05:05 PM

I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
sexual relation with that woman..."

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 05:06 PM

> A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in similar
> conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
? Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when
they
> tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading into the
> valley).

Were they on an IFR clearance? Was this recent accident on an IFR
clearance? Sounds like you have more information about this situation
than the rest of us.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 05:09 PM

Opps, hit the wrong key...

Let's see
Bush in 04 reelection 51%
Clinton in 96 reelection 49%

Matt Whiting

December 23rd 05, 05:09 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>>S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous
>
>
> Tell that to an F-16 pilot.

Yes, but he has an ejection seat and chute!

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

December 23rd 05, 05:24 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in
>> similar
>> conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
>> ? Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when
>> they tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading
>> into the
>> valley).
>
> Were they on an IFR clearance?
>

Couldn't be on one at 500'.

beavis

December 23rd 05, 05:32 PM

In article om>,
Robert M. Gary > wrote:

> I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
> impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
> tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
> sexual relation with that woman..."

Well, Bush sat down, raised his hand, and said, "I do solemnly swear
that I will...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

He hasn't.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 23rd 05, 05:40 PM

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, Bush sat down, raised his hand, and said, "I do solemnly swear
> that I will...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
> United States."
>
> He hasn't.
>

Nor have any of his predecessors for quite some time.

Jim Macklin

December 23rd 05, 05:43 PM

Bush has been the best President since RWR. At least in my
opinion. Am I fully satisfied with his actions? No!
I think we need to have a tighter border, he should veto
some of the crap that comes out of the Congress and he
should politely "defend-attack" the decisions he has made
and those who call him a liar.

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"beavis" > wrote in message
...
| In article
om>,
| Robert M. Gary > wrote:
|
| > I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a
blowjob. He was
| > impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said
"I swear to
| > tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did
not have
| > sexual relation with that woman..."
|
| Well, Bush sat down, raised his hand, and said, "I do
solemnly swear
| that I will...preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the
| United States."
|
| He hasn't.

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 06:11 PM

Ejection seats don't necessarily guarantee safety. My father died after
ejection.

-Robert

Jose

December 23rd 05, 06:26 PM

> S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous.

So is flying. Anything.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 06:34 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Opps, hit the wrong key...
>
> Let's see
> Bush in 04 reelection 51%
> Clinton in 96 reelection 49%

So what?

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 06:42 PM

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> There is no point in being angry. I'm not angry about this delibrately.
> It makes me angry to hear about two kids who will never grow up to see
> their teens, never go on a first date, never get married, etc

So it's the hearing about it that makes you angry?

I still don't get it. News like this is all around us. Kids die every day,
usually as a result of far more heinous circumstances. A person getting
angry at the deaths, or of the news of the deaths (whichever) would have to
be angry every single day of their life.

> [...]
> Using the same logic, I shouldn't feel any emotion when I transport a 2
> year-old girl who has organ problems to hospital. Using the same logic, I
> shouldn't feel any emotion when this girl runs up and gives me a big bear
> hug and kisses me on the cheek.

Using the same logic? Uh...right. You should double-check your reference
on "logic".

I'm not talking about personal experiences. I'm not saying one should leave
emotion behind. I'm saying that it makes no sense to get all emotionally
entangled with events that have absolutely nothing to do with you, that are
simply a part of every day life, that occur on a regular basis.

To sign up for doing that, you leave no room for your own personal
experiences, nor your own personal happiness.

> Using the same logic, I would be emotionally dead and with all due respect
> Pete, I prefer having my eyes swell up with tears of joy helping on an
> Angel Flight.

Your "conclusion" doesn't use any logic, never mind "the same logic". The
two situations are entirely irrelevant of each other.

Anyway, I guess you've answered my question. I still don't comprehend being
angry about something like this (unless you're actually related to the
parties involved or something like that), but obviously each individual is
welcome to feel whatever they like. Sorry if my questioning seems like
pointless interference. I just didn't understand why the subject was
"Angry".

Pete

Hilton

December 23rd 05, 06:49 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in
>> similar
>> conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
> ? Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when
> they
>> tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading into
>> the
>> valley).
>
> Were they on an IFR clearance?

No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.

> Was this recent accident on an IFR clearance?

FAA records show that the pilot did not have an instrument rating - now
those records are a little old, so he may have. Prelim FAA data show that
the pilot did get a weather briefing, but it does not show him on an IFR
flight plan. (Again, this data is often wrong).

> Sounds like you have more information about this situation
> than the rest of us.

I followed the accident pretty closely. I was watching the weather
conditions the whole week. San Jose was completely 'socked in' for days -
Sacramento/Modesto etc area was clear though so I'm sure that was tempting.
I watched the radar plot immediately afterwards and they stayed really low,
followed Hwy 101 and then took a left at the reservoir. It was a typical
scud run for about 20 minutes or so. I saw the accident area several times,
it is right on the RHV to Harris Ranch run. The CFI made numerous claims
including that he wasn't monitoring the altitude, that the plane was on fire
prior to the accident, and that he was just a passenger and not the CFI at
the time. The NTSB (correctly IMHO) rejected those claims.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX03FA187&rpt=fi

Hilton

Tom Conner

December 23rd 05, 06:51 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
> impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
> tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
> sexual relation with that woman..."
>

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I have never understood this "lying"
argument that justified the impeachment. If I remember correctly, the judge
in the case where Clinton lied specifically ruled, that for the purpose of
the trial, sex was only considered to be intercourse.

While his answer was evasive, it was accurate in regard to the trial.

Robert M. Gary

December 23rd 05, 07:01 PM

The point is that we don't know if the recent accident occured on an
IFR clearance. Since we don't know that, I don't see how we can compare
the two. Skud running through the mountains at night is not the same
thing as being on an IFR clearance.

Peter Duniho

December 23rd 05, 07:15 PM

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Maybe I am wrong about this [...]

You are not wrong.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 23rd 05, 09:31 PM

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
> legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.
>

Doesn't sound like they were too concerned about legalities. Scud running
all the way from RHV along Hwy 101 below 500' would surely run afoul of FAR
91.119.

Jack

December 23rd 05, 10:27 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous

> Tell that to an F-16 pilot.

OK, show me one.

Jack

Don Tuite

December 23rd 05, 10:54 PM

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:31:05 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
>> legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.
>>
>
>Doesn't sound like they were too concerned about legalities. Scud running
>all the way from RHV along Hwy 101 below 500' would surely run afoul of FAR
>91.119.
>
I'm confused. Was that how they originally got to South County
Airport? (Q99)

Q99 was the departure point immediately before the crash, and the
crash scene (going by a map in the newspaper) was 2 miles away, into
rising terrain, more or less along a crosswind departure leg, assuming
a takeoff to the south. That'd be orthogonal to 101.

The accident report says the departure point was "Santa Clara," but
that's just part of Q99's full name.

I apologize if I'm trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs here.

Don

Matt Whiting

December 23rd 05, 11:13 PM

beavis wrote:

> In article om>,
> Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>
>>I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
>>impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
>>tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
>>sexual relation with that woman..."
>
>
> Well, Bush sat down, raised his hand, and said, "I do solemnly swear
> that I will...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
> United States."
>
> He hasn't.

He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?

Matt

Matt Whiting

December 23rd 05, 11:14 PM

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Ejection seats don't necessarily guarantee safety. My father died after
> ejection.

Didn't say they did. They do increase the odds of survival as compared
to an off-airport landing in a fighter.

Matt

Matt Whiting

December 23rd 05, 11:15 PM

Tom Conner wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>I don't recall Clinton being impeached because of a blowjob. He was
>>impeached because he sat down, raised his hand and said "I swear to
>>tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God....I did not have
>>sexual relation with that woman..."
>>
>
>
> Maybe I am wrong about this, but I have never understood this "lying"
> argument that justified the impeachment. If I remember correctly, the judge
> in the case where Clinton lied specifically ruled, that for the purpose of
> the trial, sex was only considered to be intercourse.
>
> While his answer was evasive, it was accurate in regard to the trial.
>
>

I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is, or what you
definition of evasive is and what your definition of accurate is.

Matt

Sylvain

December 23rd 05, 11:58 PM

Don Tuite wrote:
> I'm confused. Was that how they originally got to South County
> Airport? (Q99)

your charts aren't up to date!.. it is now called E16.

--Sylvain

Steven P. McNicoll

December 24th 05, 12:05 AM

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm confused. Was that how they originally got to South County
> Airport? (Q99)
>
> Q99 was the departure point immediately before the crash, and the
> crash scene (going by a map in the newspaper) was 2 miles away, into
> rising terrain, more or less along a crosswind departure leg, assuming
> a takeoff to the south. That'd be orthogonal to 101.
>
> The accident report says the departure point was "Santa Clara," but
> that's just part of Q99's full name.
>
> I apologize if I'm trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs here.
>

From Hilton's message:

"A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in
similar
conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when they
tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading into the
valley)."

Hilton

December 24th 05, 12:06 AM

Don Tuite wrote:
> I'm confused. Was that how they originally got to South County
> Airport? (Q99)
>
> Q99 was the departure point immediately before the crash, and the
> crash scene (going by a map in the newspaper) was 2 miles away, into
> rising terrain, more or less along a crosswind departure leg, assuming
> a takeoff to the south. That'd be orthogonal to 101.
>
> The accident report says the departure point was "Santa Clara," but
> that's just part of Q99's full name.

Don, the info I gave above pertained to a different accident that occured in
2003; aircraft departed RHV. The most-recent accident did depart Q99 (now
E16). Sorry for the confusion, but someone asked me for more info on the
2003 Commander accident.

Hilton

Hilton

December 24th 05, 12:09 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
>>
>> No, but were instrument rated and it was a Commander. It may have been a
>> legality issue (currency etc) that cause them to go VFR, I don't know.
>>
>
> Doesn't sound like they were too concerned about legalities. Scud
> running all the way from RHV along Hwy 101 below 500' would surely run
> afoul of FAR 91.119.

I'm still not sure why they felt scud-running all the way down 101 to the
reservoir, then flying into higher terrain was safer than a 30 second IFR
climb though the layer. The obvious options are:
1. Neither was current
2. Aircraft wasn't legal IFR
3. Major delay getting out of RHV (SJC traffic does cause a delay)

Note: This refers to the 2003 accident.

Hilton

Jack

December 24th 05, 01:05 AM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Ejection seats don't necessarily guarantee safety. My father died after
> ejection.

Sorry to hear that, Robert.

What type aircraft?

Jack

Jack

December 24th 05, 01:06 AM

Jose wrote:
>> S/E at night in IMC _is_ dangerous.
>
>
> So is flying. Anything.

Some more, some less.

Jack

Don Tuite

December 24th 05, 01:20 AM

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:05:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>From Hilton's message:
>
>"A couple of years ago, a CFI and Commercial student hit the hills in
>similar
>conditions although it was day time. Scud ran all the way from RHV along
>Hwy 101 below 500' in a Commander and then ran into the hills when they
>tried to get through next to the reservoir near Hollister (heading into the
>valley)."
>
Oh. Getting old. That's why I apologize in advance these days.

Don

Hilton

December 24th 05, 06:03 AM

r. mutt wrote:
> Well the article says the incident occurred at 8:20 a.m.

They found the wreckage at 8:20am. I believe the pilot made an 'emergency'
call to ATC at 9pm the previous night.

Hilton

Montblack

December 24th 05, 06:43 AM

("LWG" wrote)
[snip]
> Yeah, like 900 secret FBI files in the possession of a White House
> employee whom no one could remember hiring.

I absolutely loved his (Senate?) testimony. :-)

He had no answers for what exactly he did there - in the basement ...with
all those files, no recollection of who hired him to work in the White
House, no recollection about his interview for that White House job, etc,
etc, etc.

A democrat abruptly asks the Chairman for a lunch-break.

After "lunch" the guy comes back and say Vince Foster hired him. What a
sham!

Montblack

Hilton

December 25th 05, 06:17 AM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The point is that we don't know if the recent accident occured on an
> IFR clearance. Since we don't know that, I don't see how we can compare
> the two. Skud running through the mountains at night is not the same
> thing as being on an IFR clearance.

The pilot had (apparently) only had his Private certificate for one month.

Hilton

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 02:39 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I take it you are quite happy with all of the lying and deception. Like I
> said, for some reason, there seems to be a high correlation between those
> who think the criminal acts are fine, and those who don't want the
> elections to be secure. Odd. (Not).
>

Well, it's Democrats that don't want elections to be secure. Who thinks
what criminal acts are fine?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 02:41 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>

McCain-Feingold

Jose

December 28th 05, 02:43 AM

> Well, it's Democrats that don't want elections to be secure.

This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
to be counted came from Republicans presently in office.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting

December 28th 05, 03:02 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>>
>
>
> McCain-Feingold
>
>

What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?

Matt

Bob Noel

December 28th 05, 03:13 AM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Well, it's Democrats that don't want elections to be secure.
>
> This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
> secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
> after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
> to be counted came from Republicans presently in office.

You both would be wrong.

The inability of people to understand the problems with electronic
voting is found way too often in Democrats, Republicans, and every
other party.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 03:21 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?
>

The challenge was not to name an illegal act by Bush, it was to name an
example where he hasn't acted to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States.

sfb

December 28th 05, 03:44 AM

The only difference between the lever voting machine and the electronic
voting machine is the technology. In both the voter does something on
the front and the magic machine internals increments a counter.

Both parties have fingerprints all over the evolution from lever
machines to punch cards to electronic machines.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Well, it's Democrats that don't want elections to be secure.
>
> This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
> secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
> after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
> to be counted came from Republicans presently in office.
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 03:58 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
> secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
> after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought to
> be counted came from Republicans presently in office.
>

You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
eligible voters vote.

Jay Honeck

December 28th 05, 01:05 PM

> You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
> eligible voters vote.

You mean like our illustrious Governor Vilsack, who with the wave of his
magic wand gave the vote to convicted felons in Iowa?

Do you think he did the math, and determined which way most felons vote?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt Barrow

December 28th 05, 02:12 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>>>
>>
>>
>> McCain-Feingold
>
> What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?
>

Signed it into law!!!

Matt Whiting

December 28th 05, 02:47 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>McCain-Feingold
>>
>>What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?
>>
>
>
> Signed it into law!!!

That wasn't illegal. Stupid, but no illegal.

Matt

sfb

December 28th 05, 02:55 PM

Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.

The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
(Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
determine the constitutionally of the law.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> McCain-Feingold
>>
>> What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?
>>
>
> Signed it into law!!!
>
>
>

Matt Barrow

December 28th 05, 03:28 PM

"sfb" > wrote in message news:dHxsf.27020$x%2.1088@trnddc06...
> Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.
>

Signing into law that he knew (and stated as such) was unconstitutional....

If he'd premised that the law was valid, that'd be one thing; to say hefound
it unconstitutional and then to sign it anyway is MALFEASANCE.

Well, the USSC said it was okay, and we know how honorable that august body
is...

> The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
> (Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
> determine the constitutionally of the law.
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> McCain-Feingold
>>>
>>> What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?
>>>
>>
>> Signed it into law!!!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Dave Stadt

December 28th 05, 04:09 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
> > secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
> > after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
to
> > be counted came from Republicans presently in office.
> >
>
> You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
> eligible voters vote.

All the above summed up in 1960 by Mayor Daley. Count the votes (real and
imaginary), announce Kennedy wins big and 5 minutes later not a scrap of
evidence a vote ever took place.

Jose

December 28th 05, 04:19 PM

> The only difference between the lever voting machine and the electronic
> voting machine is the technology. In both the voter does something on
> the front and the magic machine internals increments a counter.

You mean both are voting machines?

The difference in the technology is 100% the issue. A manual lever
voting machine is mechanical, can be examined by anybody with even a
little bit of mechanical aptitude, and watched in progress to ensure
that the machine does what it says it will do. It is a fairly open
device. It would be hard to "rig" it undetectably. Whether these
machines are in fact examined before voting is not a function of the
machine, it is a function of the law.

An electronic voting machine works by software. There is nothing to
"examine" except the code, and if the code is secret and proprietary,
then there is no way to ensure that the machine actually does what it
says it does. No public official, indeed virtually nobody except the
programmer (and sometimes not even the programmer) really knows what
goes on inside the box. If the software were set up to move every
fiftieth vote into a different slot, but only on November 2, and only if
a few other conditions are met, nobody would ever find out. The machine
is inherently impenetrable.

An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and media
is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would have more
confidence in such a machine.

Now... what kind of voting machine is being foisted on us?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Duniho

December 28th 05, 06:22 PM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...]
> An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
> whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and media
> is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would have more
> confidence in such a machine.

I would not. One of the most widely used open source programs (Firefox)
still regularly is found to have defects in it. Open source software is
still software, and it takes a huge effort to inspect the code and detect
flaws.

I do agree that an open source software voting machine is preferable. But
IMHO, the more important aspects are for the voting machine to provide a
paper record of the vote, and for the voting results to be audited.

Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper ballot
very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect the ballot to
verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then, some small percentage
of voting machines should be selected (randomly, of course) for their output
votes to be compared to manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

This would not, of course, guarantee 100% accurate results. But it would
come pretty close. It would be FAR more reliable than what is being
proposed these days by companies like Diebold.

Pete

lynn

December 28th 05, 06:30 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:59:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Save the anger for things that
> >matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
> >exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).
>
> His days are numbered:
>
>

I could have sworn this was a recreational pilot Group? How about
canning the potitics? It's about FLYING!

More flight knowledge and common sense instead of potitics will keep
low time pilots alive.

Jose

December 28th 05, 07:05 PM

> One of the most widely used open source programs (Firefox)
> still regularly is found to have defects in it.

Firefox is consumer grade. If it sort of works, that's good enough. I
would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software. And I did
not say it would be flawless, just that it would be significantly easier
to detect flaws with open source than with secret software, such as
proposed by Diebold.

> Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper ballot
> very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect the ballot to
> verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then, some small percentage
> of voting machines should be selected (randomly, of course) for their output
> votes to be compared to manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

Yes, of course. In addition to the software being not secret.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

sfb

December 28th 05, 07:30 PM

People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> The only difference between the lever voting machine and the
>> electronic voting machine is the technology. In both the voter does
>> something on the front and the magic machine internals increments a
>> counter.
>
> You mean both are voting machines?
>
> The difference in the technology is 100% the issue. A manual lever
> voting machine is mechanical, can be examined by anybody with even a
> little bit of mechanical aptitude, and watched in progress to ensure
> that the machine does what it says it will do. It is a fairly open
> device. It would be hard to "rig" it undetectably. Whether these
> machines are in fact examined before voting is not a function of the
> machine, it is a function of the law.
>
> An electronic voting machine works by software. There is nothing to
> "examine" except the code, and if the code is secret and proprietary,
> then there is no way to ensure that the machine actually does what it
> says it does. No public official, indeed virtually nobody except the
> programmer (and sometimes not even the programmer) really knows what
> goes on inside the box. If the software were set up to move every
> fiftieth vote into a different slot, but only on November 2, and only
> if a few other conditions are met, nobody would ever find out. The
> machine is inherently impenetrable.
>
> An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
> whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and
> media is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would
> have more confidence in such a machine.
>
> Now... what kind of voting machine is being foisted on us?
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

December 28th 05, 07:52 PM

> People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

Yes, they have. I'm not suggesting that fraud is a new thing, nor that
any political party is immune. There are no clean hands in politics.

What I =am= suggesting, is that secret software running on voting
machines makes it trivial for wholesale undetectable vote rigging.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[email protected]

December 28th 05, 07:55 PM

lynn wrote:
>> I could have sworn this was a recreational pilot Group? How about
> canning the potitics? It's about FLYING!

You`re right.

If the most powerful man in all of human history can`t get a blow job
in the privacy of his workplace witout having his own citizens making a
big fuss about it, I just don`t get it. Impotent american caesar you
want? Instead, many americans thought it OK to vote back into power a
guy who at worse mislead the country into another "Vietnam war" and at
best grossly mishandled the post-war reconciliation, but their
sensitivities are blemished because he intercepted communication to
improve his intelligence gathering capabilities? You want a saint in
office to follow all laws when their are thousands of organized suicide
killers out there without any moral restrictions withholding them, all
planning to destroy you? If you are going to give the guy the benefit
of the doubt on starting the war, don`t you think you should give him
the benefit of the doubt to spy on your less desirables??

Tien

lynn

December 28th 05, 08:44 PM

Tien,

A little lesson in Americanism.

The White House is NOT his private workplace. The White House belongs
to the People.

OBTW Iraq is NOT another Vietnam. Repeating a DNC mantra does not make
it true.

John Theune

December 28th 05, 09:01 PM

lynn wrote:
> Tien,
>
> A little lesson in Americanism.
>
> The White House is NOT his private workplace. The White House belongs
> to the People.
>
> OBTW Iraq is NOT another Vietnam. Repeating a DNC mantra does not make
> it true.
>
And there is also the minor detail that the crime was not the BJ, but
swearing in a court of law that it did not happen.

Flyingmonk

December 28th 05, 10:01 PM

John wrote:

>And there is also the minor detail that the crime was not the BJ, but swearing in a court of law that it did not happen.

I agree that what he did was wrong, but spending over 40+ million
dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ...and if I had to
'over-look' the wrong doings of our past and present presidents, I'd
sooner 'over-look' Slick's short comings. :^)

BTW, what/where did the name Theune come from? Just curious.

The Monk

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 10:03 PM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> That wasn't illegal. Stupid, but no illegal.
>

How did the criteria jump from "I do solemnly swear that I will...preserve,
protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" to "illegal"?

Flyingmonk

December 28th 05, 10:11 PM

Matt wrote:
>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office
to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the
controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period
immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger
that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined
forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr
to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous
provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at
the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they
all confirm that the President of the United States called the
Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States
is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this
group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned
piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel,
wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It
doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It
doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our
differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the
defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in
the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of
office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls
the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says.
"We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The
Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution
is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over
the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define
marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress
have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from
repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a
loss of rights. "We can take away rights just as we can grant new
ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a
necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes
on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told
President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the
United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a
goddamned piece of paper."

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 10:12 PM

"sfb" > wrote in message news:dHxsf.27020$x%2.1088@trnddc06...
>
> Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.
>
> The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
> (Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
> determine the constitutionally of the law.
>

What branch does the Constitution give the power to pass laws abridging the
freedom of speech to?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 10:17 PM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I agree that what he did was wrong, but spending over 40+ million
> dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ...
>

How so?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 10:19 PM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
>
> Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
> By DOUG THOMPSON
> Dec 9, 2005, 07:53
>
> Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office
> to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the
> controversial USA Patriot Act.
>
> Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period
> immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger
> that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined
> forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr
> to oppose renewal.
>
> GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous
> provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at
> the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel
> Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
>
> "I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
> Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
>
> "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
> that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
>
> "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
> just a goddamned piece of paper!"
>
> I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they
> all confirm that the President of the United States called the
> Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
>
> And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States
> is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this
> group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned
> piece of paper" used to guarantee.
>
> Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel,
> wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
>
> Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It
> doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It
> doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our
> differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the
> defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in
> the end - if something is legal or right.
>
> Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of
> office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
> States."
>
> Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls
> the Constitution a "living document."
>
> ""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says.
> "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The
> Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."
>
> As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution
> is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."
>
> President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over
> the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define
> marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress
> have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from
> repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
>
> Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a
> loss of rights. "We can take away rights just as we can grant new
> ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."
>
> And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a
> necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes
> on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told
> President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the
> United States.
>
> But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a
> goddamned piece of paper."
>

At last, something Bush and the Democrats can agree on!

Steven P. McNicoll

December 28th 05, 10:36 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:U4wsf.681823$xm3.5087@attbi_s21...
>
> You mean like our illustrious Governor Vilsack, who with the wave of his
> magic wand gave the vote to convicted felons in Iowa?
>
> Do you think he did the math, and determined which way most felons vote?
>

Undoubtedly. Democrats oppose voter ID for the same reason Republicans
support it; the fraudulent vote goes overwhelmingly to Democrats.

Bob Noel

December 28th 05, 10:51 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.
>
> Yes, they have. I'm not suggesting that fraud is a new thing, nor that
> any political party is immune. There are no clean hands in politics.
>
> What I =am= suggesting, is that secret software running on voting
> machines makes it trivial for wholesale undetectable vote rigging.

It would be interesting to apply the same scrutiny and oversight that
slot machines have (imagine someone trying to rig one to scam the
....er...um... respectable businessman running casinos).

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Tien Dao

December 28th 05, 10:52 PM

"lynn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tien,
>
> A little lesson in Americanism.

"Lynn",

You can stop your pedantic antics. No previous super-power leader should be
so humiliated as Clinton and by his own people least of all.

> The White House is NOT his private workplace. The White House belongs
> to the People.

Really? It "belongs" to the "people" as much as the Constitution, the Senate
and the House? I guess you can just drop in any time for a cup of tea since
it really "belongs" to you? :))) The guy's the world's leader. He can do
whatever he wants in that office!! Yah, so he lied about a blow job. Big
deal? All lies great and small are equally impeachable? You guys think it
is as important a lie as covering up for breaking into Watergate?

> OBTW Iraq is NOT another Vietnam. Repeating a DNC mantra does not make it
true.

Really? How observant. I guess I am the only "conservative" who sees the
similarities between the two wars, and how difficult it will be to get out,
lose the peace and lose face, again. Then the public will really hesitate
to get into another war like the post-Vietnam era when a strong America is
really what the world needs at this time.

Americans have done more to damage to your own standing in the public
opinion of the world by these acts of political naiveté than any outside
threat. The world just doesn`t know where america stands on many issues
because your public opinion polls control policy. If you are going to give
Bush the chance to make it right in the fight against terrorism, don't bind
the guy's hands splitting legal hairs about spying and not spying for
Christ's sake. It is a ****ing war, don't you get it?? You want to wait
until a plane or nuke or chemical bomb drops into your backyard before you
sit up and smell the **** that is going on all over the world or are you so
isolated in your ivory tower with loads of free time to spare to criticize
and belittle your leaders? Yah, I have DNC written all over me right?

Tien

Peter Duniho

December 29th 05, 12:22 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> Firefox is consumer grade. If it sort of works, that's good enough. I
> would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.

Why?

A voting machine with software that's not open source can still be vetted.
It's just that the people with specific authority to inspect it need some
sort of NDA. All that open source does is remove the minimal requirement of
non-disclosure.

People act like if something is open source, there are millions of
programmers out there poring over the code looking for flaws. That's just
not the case, even for desktop applications never mind something like a
voting machine. It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a
voting machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the
appropriate agreements for non-disclosure. There aren't going to be that
many people actually looking at it.

> And I did not say it would be flawless, just that it would be
> significantly easier to detect flaws with open source than with secret
> software, such as proposed by Diebold.

The primary difficulty is not providing the code to the inspectors. It's
the inspectors being able to validate the code. The hard part is actually
looking at the code, not getting access to it.

Open source does make access even easier, but it's by no means required for
the purpose of providing sufficient inspection. I definitely disagree with
the claim of "significantly easier to detect flaws". Open source isn't more
readable, it's not less obfuscated, it's not easier to validate. It's just
publicly available. That's all.

Open source doesn't really help with the technical aspect of inspection.
What it does help with is public trust. That's at least as important, IMHO,
but it's not relevant to the question of actually detecting flaws.

Pete

Jose

December 29th 05, 12:36 AM

>>I would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.
>
> Why?

Because too much depends on it. If word processing software fails, you
have to retype your Christmas letter. If voting machine software fails,
we end up going to war in Iraq. It's like the difference between myself
and a friend in the navy. When I launch a rocket, it comes back to
earth on a colorful plastic parachute, ready for re-use. When my friend
launches a rocket, it blows up Moscow.

> It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a
> voting machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the
> appropriate agreements for non-disclosure.

There's no point in that - it just keeps the secret if there is one.
Democracy should not be based on secrets. It is important, for freedom
and democracy, that the workings of the machinery that protects our
freedoms be public.

> People act like if something is open source, there are millions of
> programmers out there poring over the code looking for flaws.

It doesn't take "millions of programmers". It just takes one, and
you'll usually find that one in the opponent's camp.

> Open source isn't more readable, it's not less obfuscated,
> it's not easier to validate. It's just publicly available.

.... which makes it possible to validate to outsiders. I don't care if
it's validated to insiders; that's the fox and the henhouse.

Shrodinger's cat knows whether it's dead or alive, even if we don't. If
you put us in a box and we open the cat box, we will find out. But
nobody outside =our= box will know. It's the people outside the box
that matter.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Barrow

December 29th 05, 12:46 AM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> John wrote:
>
>>And there is also the minor detail that the crime was not the BJ, but
>>swearing in a court of law that it did not happen.
>
> I agree that what he did was wrong, but spending over 40+ million
> dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ..

How much of that $40M was a result of stonewalling, and the "is" defense?

>.and if I had to
> 'over-look' the wrong doings of our past and present presidents, I'd
> sooner 'over-look' Slick's short comings. :^)

Uh, huh!! ...long as they bring home the bacon....

Recall the prevalence of sexual harassment cases, the hundreds of military
and business men that got whacked, that abounded up to the minute before the
WHBJ?

What a nation of whores!!1

Matt Barrow

December 29th 05, 12:47 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>>>I would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because too much depends on it.

How naive!!

Peter Duniho

December 29th 05, 12:57 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Because too much depends on it.

"Because too much depends on it" is not a reason. If it were, we wouldn't
even be having this discussion. But the truth is, there just aren't enough
people who care.

If it were true that "because too much depends on it" would lead to some
massive inspection program on the part of volunteers, then it would also be
true that "because too much depends on it" would lead to some massive push
for all politicians to make elections auditable.

The current situation is proof that your reason isn't a reason at all.

> If word processing software fails, you have to retype your Christmas
> letter. If voting machine software fails, we end up going to war in Iraq.
> It's like the difference between myself and a friend in the navy. When I
> launch a rocket, it comes back to earth on a colorful plastic parachute,
> ready for re-use. When my friend launches a rocket, it blows up Moscow.

I've never heard of open source rocket guidance software.

>> It would be trivial enough to simply require the code for a voting
>> machine to be provided to any inspector willing to sign the appropriate
>> agreements for non-disclosure.
>
> There's no point in that - it just keeps the secret if there is one.

What part of "any inspector" are you having trouble understanding? How can
something be a secret if ANY INSPECTOR is granted access?

> [...]
> It doesn't take "millions of programmers". It just takes one, and you'll
> usually find that one in the opponent's camp.

One single person could spend their entire life inspecting the code, and
still not validate the entire thing. You need millions of eyes, all looking
in different places, to have an effective survey.

>> Open source isn't more readable, it's not less obfuscated,
>> it's not easier to validate. It's just publicly available.
>
> ... which makes it possible to validate to outsiders. I don't care if
> it's validated to insiders; that's the fox and the henhouse.

Who said anything about "outsiders" versus "insiders"? That's your straw
man, not mine.

Pete

Hilton

December 29th 05, 01:29 AM

Matt Whiting

December 29th 05, 01:50 AM

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
>>He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?
>
>
> http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

If you are so gullible as to believe this sort of "publication", then I
pity you.

Matt

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 02:02 AM

Matt wrote:
>If you are so gullible as to believe this sort of "publication", then I pity you.

Get off your high horse Matt, no need to pity me. I'm doing just fine.
It was just discussion. You can believe what you want to believe and
I'll respect your beliefs.

Sylvain

December 29th 05, 02:04 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> Open source does make access even easier, but it's by no means required for
> the purpose of providing sufficient inspection. I definitely disagree with
> the claim of "significantly easier to detect flaws". Open source isn't more
> readable, it's not less obfuscated, it's not easier to validate. It's just
> publicly available. That's all.

you haven't been looking at much code, proprietary or open source if
you believe so; when you write code that you know is potentially going
to be scrutinized by the best mind out there -- whether it is going
to be the case or not, but you can be it will, by your next potential
employer -- if said potential employer is not a moron -- next time you
apply for a job and by people who matter in the field, the average
programmer tends to do things differently it seems than what is
done for code which is known to remain proprietary (who's going to look
at it? Pointy Haired Bosses?) and where being readable and unobfuscated
is a known bad carreer move (do you really want your code to be easily
taken over by the nice folks of the newly opened field office in
Bangalore?); I have seen good and bad code in either proprietary
or open sources, you bet, but by far, the worst piece of junk I
ever had to look at were proprietary, no contest.

--Sylvain

now this is of course completely off the topic, isn't it? :-)

John Theune

December 29th 05, 02:05 AM

Flyingmonk wrote:
> John wrote:
>
>
>>And there is also the minor detail that the crime was not the BJ, but swearing in a court of law that it did not happen.
>
>
> I agree that what he did was wrong, but spending over 40+ million
> dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ...and if I had to
> 'over-look' the wrong doings of our past and present presidents, I'd
> sooner 'over-look' Slick's short comings. :^)
>
> BTW, what/where did the name Theune come from? Just curious.
>
> The Monk
>
It's a old German name. My grandparents on both sides immigrated in the
late 20s with my parents as very young children to New York City. I'm a
first generation American and I found out not too long ago that I came
within 2 weeks of being a South African. My grandfather had applied to
both the US and South Africa for immigration and the US paper work came
back first. I have a number of distant cousins over there now.

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 02:26 AM

John wrote:
>It's a old German name. My grandparents on both sides immigrated in the
>late 20s with my parents as very young children to New York City. I'm a
>first generation American and I found out not too long ago that I came
>within 2 weeks of being a South African. My grandfather had applied to
>both the US and South Africa for immigration and the US paper work came
>back first. I have a number of distant cousins over there now.

Kewl...

I was within three days of being an Auzzie myself. My father had
applied to both the US and Australia for immigration and the US paper
work came back first. :^)

The Monk

Morgans

December 29th 05, 02:51 AM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote

> spending over 40+ million
> dollars trying to impeach him was wrong too. ...

I wish everyone would use the word "impeachment" correctly.

He WAS impeached. The next step of removing him from office did not occur.
--
Jim in NC

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 02:59 AM

Jim wrote:
>I wish everyone would use the word "impeachment" correctly.
>He WAS impeached. The next step of removing him from office did not occur.

Oh, I didn't know that :^) Now I know... Next time I'll use it
correctly, promise :^) I thought that the impeachment process was
not complete until they could get him out of the office. :^)

The Monk

Morgans

December 29th 05, 03:24 AM

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jim wrote:
>>I wish everyone would use the word "impeachment" correctly.
>>He WAS impeached. The next step of removing him from office did not
>>occur.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that :^) Now I know... Next time I'll use it
> correctly, promise :^) I thought that the impeachment process was
> not complete until they could get him out of the office. :^)

Nope. Impeachment is like a grand jury saying that there is enough evidence
to take him to trial.
--
Jim in NC

Peter Duniho

December 29th 05, 09:37 AM

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> you haven't been looking at much code

lol...the fact that you would even say that simply shows how little you know
about me (and about the prevalence of maintainable code generally).

Suffice to say, the rest of your reply is way off base.

Neil Gould

December 29th 05, 11:33 AM

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Well, it's Democrats that don't want elections to be secure.
>
> This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
> secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
> after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
> to be counted came from Republicans presently in office.
>
That's the situation here in Ohio, where Diebold has made the process as
questionable as possible in their approach to voting machines while at the
same time pledging to do everything possible to elect Republicans. And,
it's the Republican administration here that thinks that's a good idea,
and buys their products. Hmmm.

Neil

Neil Gould

December 29th 05, 11:44 AM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
>> [...]
>> An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
>> whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and
>> media is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would
>> have more confidence in such a machine.
>
> I would not.
[...]
> I do agree that an open source software voting machine is preferable.
> But IMHO, the more important aspects are for the voting machine to
> provide a paper record of the vote, and for the voting results to be
> audited.
>
> Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper
> ballot very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect
> the ballot to verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then,
> some small percentage of voting machines should be selected
> (randomly, of course) for their output votes to be compared to
> manually counted paper ballots from those machines.
>
I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should not
be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same time,
with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to the
registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify the
electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
discrepancy?

It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach that is
completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.

Neil

Ash Wyllie

December 29th 05, 12:25 PM

Steven P. McNicoll opined

>"sfb" > wrote in message news:dHxsf.27020$x%2.1088@trnddc06...
>>
>> Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.
>>
>> The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
>> (Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
>> determine the constitutionally of the law.
>>

>What branch does the Constitution give the power to pass laws abridging the
>freedom of speech to?

Congress, of course. With the help of the Supreme Court.

Don't believe me? Just consider McCain-Fiengold and the rest of the campaign
finance legislation.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 29th 05, 01:42 PM

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
>
> Congress, of course. With the help of the Supreme Court.
>

In what article would that power be found?

>
> Don't believe me? Just consider McCain-Fiengold and the rest of the
> campaign
> finance legislation.
>

McCain-Feingold and the rest of the campaign finance legislation do not
amend the Constitution.

Larry Dighera

December 29th 05, 02:38 PM

On 28 Dec 2005 14:11:08 -0800, "Flyingmonk" > wrote
in . com>::

>GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous
>provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at
>the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel
>Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
>
>"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
>Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
>
>"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
>that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
>
>"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
>just a goddamned piece of paper!"
>
>I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they
>all confirm that the President of the United States called the
>Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

The Genesis of Big Brother

In the beginning, the GOP political machine found the people's rights
guaranteed by the nation's Constitution of the United States of
America a hindrance to their tacit agenda. They sought power, through
the Bush administration, to enable them to acquire wealth beyond that
readily obtainable through noble statesmanship and moral purpose. To
raid the nation's coffers, indeed, plunder the world's wealth, before
detonation of the "Population Bomb"1, they summoned all their
intellect, and conceived the Orwellian incarnation cloaked in a Trojan
Horse: The Patriot Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_glance
Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act are set to expire December
31, 2005 if not renews. The house and Senate voted Thursday to
extend the anti=terrorism law until February 3, 2005. The provisions
are:

Section 202 - Gives federal officials the authority to intercept
[domestic] wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to
terrorism.

Section 202 - Gives federal officials the authority to intercept
[domestic] wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to
computer fraud and abuse offenses.

Subsection 203(b) - Permits the sharing of grand jury information that
involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with federal law
enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense
or national security officials

Subsection 203(d) - Gives foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
officers the ability to share foreign intelligence information
obtained as part of a criminal investigation with law enforcement.

Section 204 - Makes clear that nothing in the law regarding pen
registers - an electronic device which records all numbers dialed from
a particular phone line - stops the government's ability to obtain
foreign intelligence information.

Section 206 - Allows federal officials to issue roving "John Doe"
wiretaps, which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and
tap any computer they think a suspected spy or terrorist might use.

Section 207 - Increases the amount of time that federal officials may
watch people they suspect are spies or terrorists.

Section 209 - Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a
warrant.

Section 212 - Permits Internet service providers and other electronic
communication and remote computing service providers to hand over
records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations.

Section 214 - Allows use of a pen register or trap and trace devices
that record originating phone numbers of all incoming calls in
international terrorism or spy investigations.

Section 215 - Authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items"
like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores,
for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.
Section 217 - Makes it lawful to intercept the wire or electronic
communication of a computer hacker or intruder in certain
circumstances.

Section 218 - Allows federal officials to wiretap or watch suspects if
foreign intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" for seeking
a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act order. The pre-Patriot Act
standard said officials could ask for the surveillance only if it was
the sole or main purpose.

Section 220 - Provides for nationwide service of search warrants for
electronic evidence.

Section 223 - Amends the federal criminal code to provide for
[weakened] administrative discipline of federal officers or employees
who violate prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of
information gathered under this act.

Section 225 - Amends FISA to prohibit lawsuits against people or
companies that provide information to federal officials for a
terrorism investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm

Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and
another Republican, said "there is no doubt that this is
inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early
next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold
called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down
the spine of every senator and every American".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

"Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
said in interviews that they want to know why the administration
believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading
e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal.
Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that
information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may
have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their
court. . . .

"Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown
into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of
the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the
court."

What exactly is the government doing so secretly? And why was
judicial oversight -- even with the granting of retroactive
approval -- apparently too limiting? Different theories are
emerging. One is that the secret program is some sort of giant
high-tech fishing expedition.

1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A
best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to
overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that
"in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to
death." This prediction did not come true, due for the most part to
the efforts of Norman Borlaug's "Green Revolution" of the 1960s.
Although the book is primarily a repetition of the Malthusian
catastrophe argument, that population growth will outpace agricultural
growth unless controlled, it expressed the possibility of disaster in
broader terms.
A "population bomb," as defined in the book, requires only three
things:
" A rapid rate of change
" A limit of some sort
" Delays in perceiving the limit

Enron Lay's trial set for January 2006:
http://www.apfn.org/enron/whitehouse.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081903G.shtml

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public. -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to
power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary
government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the
clergy. -- David Hume

sfb

December 29th 05, 03:09 PM

It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt then
you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the machine
disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which one is the
true vote?

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message news:o_Psf.48165

> I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should
> not
> be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
> from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same
> time,
> with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to
> the
> registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify
> the
> electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
> discrepancy?
>
> It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
> being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach
> that is
> completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.
>
> Neil
>
>

Matt Barrow

December 29th 05, 03:43 PM

"Hilton" > wrote in message
k.net...
>

CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON

Jack

December 29th 05, 04:04 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:

> CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON.

But then we'd have to post a lot of OT pilot and aviation stuff in
alt.politics.childish.assholes in order to balance USENET properly.

Jack

Larry Dighera

December 29th 05, 04:11 PM

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:43:31 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in >::

>
>"Hilton" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>
>CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON
>

I didn't think an airman was capable of such inane rudeness. Your
boorish behavior reflects badly on us all. Please consider an
objective self-assessment and tendering an apology.

Matt Barrow

December 29th 05, 04:11 PM

"Jack" > wrote in message
. com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON.
>
> But then we'd have to post a lot of OT pilot and aviation stuff in
> alt.politics.childish.assholes in order to balance USENET properly.
>
>
Ya know...it sounds like elementary school hallway monitors when people try
to lord it over others in the group and play netcop.

Larry Dighera

December 29th 05, 04:20 PM

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:11:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in >::

>Ya know...it sounds like elementary school hallway monitors when people try
>to lord it over others in the group and play netcop.

Ya know... such an onerous outburst in response to a polite request
sounds like a rebellious child acting out for attention.

Neil Gould

December 29th 05, 06:10 PM

Recently, sfb > posted:

> It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
> voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
> receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt
> then you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the
> machine disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which
> one is the true vote?
>
Why would a receipt *ever* be printed before the "final" button is
pressed? At that point, printing them in duplicate is not a problem.

> There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
> new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
> the problems with punch cards.
>
Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification, the
task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.

Regards,

Neil

Tom Conner

December 29th 05, 06:44 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, sfb > posted:
>
> > It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
> > voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
> > receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt
> > then you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the
> > machine disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which
> > one is the true vote?
> >
> Why would a receipt *ever* be printed before the "final" button is
> pressed? At that point, printing them in duplicate is not a problem.
>
> > There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
> > new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
> > the problems with punch cards.
> >
> Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification, the
> task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
> layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.
>

Additionally, just because a receipt is printed it does not mean that the
vote recorded is the same as printed on the receipt (screen says vote for
"X", receipt says vote for "X", record vote as a vote for "Y"). It appears
there is no way to insure fraud is not a part of the voting process. The
only thing that can be done is try and minimize the fraud.

Flyingmonk

December 29th 05, 06:48 PM

Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

Peter Duniho

December 29th 05, 06:53 PM

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Additionally, just because a receipt is printed it does not mean that the
> vote recorded is the same as printed on the receipt

True. That's why a hand-recount is needed of some percentage of the paper
ballots, as an audit of the machine-counted votes.

> [...] It appears
> there is no way to insure fraud is not a part of the voting process.

As long as human beings are involved at any part of the process, there will
be the potential for fraud. The problem is that currently, the potential
for fraud is VASTLY higher than it should be.

> The only thing that can be done is try and minimize the fraud.

Indeed. So, let's do that thing. :)

Pete

Larry Dighera

December 29th 05, 08:14 PM

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:10:26 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification, the
>task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
>layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.

What method would you employ to assure that the receipts are not
forgeries?

sfb

December 29th 05, 08:34 PM

If the rationalize is the computer program makes mistakes then you must
accept that either the electronic vote or the paper receipt could be
wrong. There is no guarantee that the paper receipt is correct since the
very same computer program that drives the electronic totals is printing
the paper receipt.

Anytime the screen vote and the paper receipt do not agree, you have to
give the voter a chance to fix it or call for an election judge. If you
don't, then which vote is valid.

Counting by hand is impossible. The three re-count counties in Florida
in 2000 cast 1.6 million votes. All you need is one hand counter to
sneeze and you start all over.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, sfb > posted:
>
>> It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
>> voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
>> receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt
>> then you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the
>> machine disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which
>> one is the true vote?
>>
> Why would a receipt *ever* be printed before the "final" button is
> pressed? At that point, printing them in duplicate is not a problem.
>
>> There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a
>> entire
>> new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many
>> of
>> the problems with punch cards.
>>
> Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification,
> the
> task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
> layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>
>

sfb

December 29th 05, 08:38 PM

If you are going to use the paper receipt to recount, then you can't
allow them to leave the polling place. Imagine the law suits when you
have a million electronic votes and people only returned 500, 000
receipts.

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them,
> if
> let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
> million receipts by hand?
>

sfb

December 29th 05, 08:42 PM

Hand counting a sample proves nothing as you can't assume the identical
distribution of votes in the uncounted votes.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>
> True. That's why a hand-recount is needed of some percentage of the
> paper ballots, as an audit of the machine-counted votes.
>

lynn

December 29th 05, 09:12 PM

"...with loads of free time to spare to criticize
and belittle your leaders? "

Care to document?

OBTW, getting a blow-job in the White House is not a sign of
leadership.

"Belongs to the people" does not mean you have free access.

"...your public opinion polls control policy." This is not the Clinton
White House. Not my "...public opinion polls." I don't like public
opinion polls.

You do a lot of ranting and raving. U R Borderline WACKO! No! U R
WACKO!!!!!

Jose

December 29th 05, 09:16 PM

> If the rationalize is the computer program makes mistakes

The rationale is that the computer program is suspect of being
deliberately programmed to misrepresent the voting.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

sfb

December 29th 05, 09:55 PM

So?? How do distinguish deliberate fraud from stuff happens? The problem
is you have two votes - electronic and paper - that do not agree. How do
you know which is correct?

Heading back on topic, the altimeter says 5,000 feet and the GPS 6,000.
Which is correct?

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> If the rationalize is the computer program makes mistakes
>
> The rationale is that the computer program is suspect of being
> deliberately programmed to misrepresent the voting.
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

December 29th 05, 10:06 PM

> So?? How do distinguish deliberate fraud from stuff happens?

You examine the publicly available source code.

> The problem is you have two votes - electronic and paper
> - that do not agree. How do you know which is correct?

You don't. But you do know that the vote tally from that machine is
suspect. It should never happen.

(ok, you can stop laughing)

But it should never happen. Vote tallying is inherently simple, even if
voting theory is inherenly complex. Any beginning programmer can write
a program to tally votes (and also to mis-tally them). If the computer
can't count, then something is massively wrong.

> Heading back on topic, the altimeter says 5,000 feet and the GPS 6,000.
> Which is correct?

You don't know. But what you do know, which is valuable, is not to
conduct an instrument approach in IMC with this kind of discrepancy.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[email protected]

December 30th 05, 12:12 AM

lynn wrote:
> criticize and belittle your leaders? "
>
> Care to document?

Huh? Do you actually read the posts or do you just jerk-off "OBTW"
snippets of delinquency? If you COULD actually READ the major news
media, you would have all the documentation you would want.

> OBTW, getting a blow-job in the White House is not a sign of
> leadership.

OBTW, really? I did not know that! :)))) Nor is: > You do a lot of
ranting and raving. U R Borderline WACKO! No! U R WACKO!!!!! < a
sign of much intelligence! :)))

He...he... No wonder you don`t want to talk politics in this arena or
any other I imagine. :)))

Have a happy holiday and may the new year bless you with good health.

Tien

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 03:34 AM

"sfb" > wrote in message news:sSXsf.9913$Q73.2199@trnddc03...
> Hand counting a sample proves nothing

I never said it "proves" anything.

> as you can't assume the identical distribution of votes in the uncounted
> votes.

Who would make such an assumption? Why would you? What point in making
such an assumption would there be?

sfb

December 30th 05, 05:11 AM

George and Al are tied with 100 electronic votes each. You count a
sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5. Other than Al won
the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
the total vote.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:sSXsf.9913$Q73.2199@trnddc03...
>> Hand counting a sample proves nothing
>
> I never said it "proves" anything.
>
>> as you can't assume the identical distribution of votes in the
>> uncounted votes.
>
> Who would make such an assumption? Why would you? What point in
> making such an assumption would there be?
>

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 05:37 AM

"sfb" > wrote in message news:Nj3tf.8766$3Y3.2508@trnddc02...
> [...] you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of the
> total vote.

So what? The random audit isn't intended to tell you anything "about the
correctness of the total vote.

sfb

December 30th 05, 06:47 AM

Please explain what "auditing" a sample of the paper receipts
establishes since the only thing that matters is the total votes cast
for each candidate.

An election isn't a production line making a gazillion identical widgets
per day where sampling will tell you something about meeting
specifications. A election produces a different product for each
candidate on the ballot. The only way to know how many votes each
candidate got is counting every single vote.

Early in the day 2004 exit polls predicted a Kerry win only to be proven
wrong by the actual votes since the sampling was apparently biased to
only asking Kerry voters.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:Nj3tf.8766$3Y3.2508@trnddc02...
>> [...] you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
>> the total vote.
>
> So what? The random audit isn't intended to tell you anything "about
> the correctness of the total vote.
>

Neil Gould

December 30th 05, 11:35 AM

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:10:26 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>> Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of
>> verification, the task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts
>> followed a standard layout, they could be counted by machine quite
>> easily.
>
> What method would you employ to assure that the receipts are not
> forgeries?
>
The same method that assures that paper ballots aren't forgeries. If you
go back a few messages, I suggested that *two* receipts would be printed &
verified by the voter; one would be given to the polling official, just as
paper ballots are handled now. Then, at least one machine selected at
random from each precinct would have its electronic tally audited against
the receipt. In the case of a discrepancy, a 100% audit would be performed
at that precinct.

Neil

Neil Gould

December 30th 05, 11:39 AM

Recently, sfb > posted:

> So?? How do distinguish deliberate fraud from stuff happens? The
> problem is you have two votes - electronic and paper - that do not
> agree. How do you know which is correct?
>
If the paper receipt has been verified by the voter as representing their
vote, then that one is correct. If the electronic tally disagrees, then it
is wrong.

> Heading back on topic, the altimeter says 5,000 feet and the GPS
> 6,000. Which is correct?
>
If you are trying to avoid traffic, you'd best use the same method of
measurement that other traffic is using.

This isn't rocket science.

Neil

Ash Wyllie

December 30th 05, 01:46 PM

Flyingmonk opined

>Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
>let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
>million receipts by hand?

The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 03:29 PM

"Tien Dao" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> You can stop your pedantic antics. No previous super-power leader should
> be so humiliated as Clinton and by his own people least of all.
>

Clinton's humiliation, if he actually felt any humiliation, was his own
doing.

>
> Really? It "belongs" to the "people" as much as the Constitution, the
> Senate and the House? I guess you can just drop in any time for a cup of
> tea
> since it really "belongs" to you? :))) The guy's the world's leader. He
> can do
> whatever he wants in that office!! Yah, so he lied about a blow job. Big
> deal? All lies great and small are equally impeachable? You guys think
> it is as important a lie as covering up for breaking into Watergate?
>

Clinton lied under oath.

>
> Really? How observant. I guess I am the only "conservative" who sees the
> similarities between the two wars, and how difficult it will be to get
> out, lose the peace and lose face, again. Then the public will really
> hesitate
> to get into another war like the post-Vietnam era when a strong America is
> really what the world needs at this time.
>

What are the similarities?

>
> Americans have done more to damage to your own standing in the public
> opinion of the world by these acts of political naiveté than any outside
> threat.
>

So doing the right thing causes world opinion of the US to drop. I'm okay
with that.

>
> The world just doesn`t know where america stands on many issues
> because your public opinion polls control policy.
>

That was true under the previous administration, but it is not true today.

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 03:57 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:35:36 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:10:26 GMT, "Neil Gould"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>> Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of
>>> verification, the task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts
>>> followed a standard layout, they could be counted by machine quite
>>> easily.
>>
>> What method would you employ to assure that the receipts are not
>> forgeries?
>>
>The same method that assures that paper ballots aren't forgeries. If you
>go back a few messages, I suggested that *two* receipts would be printed &
>verified by the voter; one would be given to the polling official, just as
>paper ballots are handled now. Then, at least one machine selected at
>random from each precinct would have its electronic tally audited against
>the receipt. In the case of a discrepancy, a 100% audit would be performed
>at that precinct.
>
>Neil
>

That's a reasoned solution. Why do you feel it necessary to *add* a
receipt to be given to the voter? What would be the advantage of
electronic voting over the current *one* ballot system?

Personally, I think it's going to be nearly impossible to insure an
accurate electronic vote tally much as it was in the
paper-vote/voting-machine era. But here's an idea:

Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
incremented accurately. The real-time vote tally could be
continuously monitored by representatives of each party/candidate?
If a dispute should arise, the sealed camera that monitored the
running tally could be consulted. Under no circumstances should
anyone other than the voter be able to modify the running tally;
their must be no way for administrator intervention to modify the
running tally.

Everything occurs in real-time. The voter confirms his own vote.
There is no necessity to print anything. Of course, there's the issue
of how to Handel the situation when/if the voter sees his vote affect
the tally erroneously.

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 04:10 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:29:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>Clinton lied under oath.

What do *you* believe was his lie?

According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
business but his.

DID CLINTON LIE?: DEFINING “SEXUAL RELATIONS”
PETER TIERSMA*

With the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton
now a distant memory, we can step back and consider the matter
somewhat more dispassionately than was possible in the midst of
such an intense and highly politicized debate. The focus of the
impeachment hearings was on whether Clinton perjured himself and
engaged in obstruction of justice when answering questions
relating to the nature of his relationship with a former White
House intern, Monica Lewinsky. I will limit my observations in
this Article to the question of whether Clinton committed perjury,
and in particular, I will focus on whether he lied when he denied
having had a “sexual relationship” with Lewinsky.

Yet the real subject of this Article is not the Clinton
impeachment, nor is it primarily about perjury law, although I
will have things to say about each. It is really about ...

Jose

December 30th 05, 05:06 PM

> You count a
> sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5. Other than Al won
> the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
> the total vote.

Right. Then you compare the paper sample to the electronic sample and
find that Al is ahead 12-8 in the electronic sample. You now know,
which you didn't before, that the voting is rigged (or busted). Had the
tallys matched, you would have more confidence than before that the
voting was fairly counted electronically, and could trust the other
electronic tallys.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

December 30th 05, 05:09 PM

> Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
> voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
> incremented accurately.

And what detects whether =this= is rigged or not? Also, anybody else
watching the tally can figure out how you voted.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Nick Danger

December 30th 05, 06:38 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:29:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Clinton lied under oath.
>
>
> What do *you* believe was his lie?
>
>
> According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
> http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
> entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie.

Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive
the other person right from the start.

When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" he knew exactly what
the word "sex" meant and what it implied to his audience, regardless of how
much technical BS people want to throw into the equation after the fact.

It's just too bad that common sense is so rare these days in the US.

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 06:58 PM

"sfb" > wrote in message news:8K4tf.9457$3Y3.8158@trnddc02...
> Please explain what "auditing" a sample of the paper receipts establishes
> since the only thing that matters is the total votes cast for each
> candidate.

Please explain what "auditing" a sample of taxpayers establishes since the
only thing that matters is the total revenue paid by all taxpayers.

> An election isn't a production line making a gazillion identical widgets
> per day where sampling will tell you something about meeting
> specifications.

Actually, in some respects it is exactly like a production line making a
gazillion identical widgets per day. The main difference is that when
you're making widgets, usually you don't have to worry about someone
intentionally screwing it up.

But otherwise, the concept of a random check for some subset of the total
production is identical. By auditing, one can have some degree of
confidence regarding the complete "production output", even without
double-checking 100% of your production output.

> A election produces a different product for each candidate on the ballot.
> The only way to know how many votes each candidate got is counting every
> single vote.

The auditing isn't about knowing "how many votes each candidate got".

> Early in the day 2004 exit polls predicted a Kerry win only to be proven
> wrong by the actual votes since the sampling was apparently biased to only
> asking Kerry voters.

Non-sequitur, and besides there is still ample disagreement regarding the
true reason(s) behind the discrepancy you're describing.

Pete

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 07:00 PM

"Nick Danger" > wrote in message
. ..
> Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
> another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
> cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive
> the other person right from the start.

You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction?"

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 07:41 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:09:00 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
>> voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
>> incremented accurately.
>
>And what detects whether =this= is rigged or not?

I doubt there is any foolproof way to assure an accurate tally, but in
my scenario those monitoring the real-time tally would be charged with
assuring the validity.

>Also, anybody else watching the tally can figure out how you voted.

If all that was visible were the various vote tallies and numerous
voters were casting their ballots simultaneously, how would they know
for sure?

Granted, there are some issues with my scenario.

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 07:45 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:38:49 GMT, "Nick Danger"
> wrote in
>::

>When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman"

If you had read the referenced article, you'd know that that is not
what Clinton said under oath.

Jose

December 30th 05, 07:51 PM

> If all that was visible were the various vote tallies and numerous
> voters were casting their ballots simultaneously, how would they know
> for sure?

In the smaller districts and towns, somebody observant enough could
probably figure out how each person voted. There are many cases where
votes are non-simultaneous. I've done something similar myself in a
different environment based simply on precise statistics after the fact;
doing it live would be trivial.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 07:53 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> What do *you* believe was his lie?
>

Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
I've never had an affair with her."

>
> According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
> http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
> entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie.
>

But according to sound logic it is entirely clear that Clinton actually did
lie.

>
> At any rate, what a
> president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
> unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
> business but his.
>

What Clinton did in his private life was never an issue.

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 08:04 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> If all that was visible were the various vote tallies and numerous
> voters were casting their ballots simultaneously, how would they know
> for sure?

Um...maybe I'm missing something.

If votes are cast simultaneously (or nearly so), how does a voter know that
the change in the tally represents his vote? Or that the change in the
tally of a different candidate does NOT represent his vote?

Non-simultaneous voting has the entirely different problem already pointed
out.

There is of course the issue regarding vote tallys being known to voters
prior to the closing of the polls, a big no-no in practically every US
election I'm aware of.

> Granted, there are some issues with my scenario.

Indeed. :)

Pete

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 08:22 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
>question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
>completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
>as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
>His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
>I've never had an affair with her."

I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
analysis of the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm
Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person."

However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:

Main Entry:sexual relations
Function:noun plural
Date:1950

: COITUS

Main Entry:coitus
Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin, from coire
Date:1855

: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
–coital \-t*l\ adjective
–coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb

So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.

Nick Danger

December 30th 05, 08:27 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
> "Nick Danger" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
> > another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
> > cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to
deceive
> > the other person right from the start.
>
> You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons
> of mass destruction?"

Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a
problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some
pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement. Or, he
may have been lying.

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 08:27 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:04:46 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>If votes are cast simultaneously (or nearly so), how does a voter know that
>the change in the tally represents his vote?

That's also a problem. Oh well...

lynn

December 30th 05, 08:32 PM

Tien,

I don't want to talk politics on a rec.aviation.piloting Google Group.
Some get it. You do not!!!!!

I have great health because I work at it.

I had a MERRY CHRISTMAS not a "holiday".

You really do need your lithium!.

LYNN

lynn

December 30th 05, 08:36 PM

John,

You really should use an alias. It took less than 10 seconds to narrow
your address down to three possibilites in WI & one in MD.

Matt Whiting

December 30th 05, 08:40 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>
>>Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the
>>question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
>>completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
>>as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?"
>>His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
>>I've never had an affair with her."
>
>
> I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
> analysis of the issue:
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm
> Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
> considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
> relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
> relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
> relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
> with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
> of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
> desire of any person."
>
>
> However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:
>
> Main Entry:sexual relations
> Function:noun plural
> Date:1950
>
> : COITUS
>
>
>
> Main Entry:coitus
> Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
> Function:noun
> Etymology:Latin, from coire
> Date:1855
>
> : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
> rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
> from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
> INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
> –coital \-t*l\ adjective
> –coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb
>
>
> So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
> definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
> consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.
>

You better run for office as you use logic that only politicians can
appreciate. That is almost as good as saying that Vietnam wasn't a war,
but just a "police action."

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 08:53 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>>Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to
>>the
>>question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
>>completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
>>as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the
>>Court?"
>>His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
>>I've never had an affair with her."
>
> I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
> analysis of the issue:
>

I wrote only one complete sentence above. What part of, "Clinton lied
repeatedly under oath.", are you having trouble parsing?

>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm
> Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
> considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
> relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
> relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
> relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
> with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
> of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
> desire of any person."
>
>
> However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:
>
> Main Entry:sexual relations
> Function:noun plural
> Date:1950
>
> : COITUS
>
>
>
> Main Entry:coitus
> Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
> Function:noun
> Etymology:Latin, from coire
> Date:1855
>
> : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
> rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
> from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
> INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
> -coital \-t*l\ adjective
> -coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb
>
>
> So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
> definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
> consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.
>

The term "sexual relations" was very specifically defined for use in the
proceeding. "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in
sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . .
contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of
any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person. . . . 'Contact' means intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing."

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 09:33 PM

"Nick Danger" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, exactly like that. Although in that particular case you might have a
> problem proving that Bush outright lied - he may have been relying on some
> pretty lousy intelligence information when he made that statement.

IMHO, he should have said something like "the CIA tells me they know for a
fact..." I don't say that I know something unless I actually do. Bush
obviously could not have known WMD existed, since they eventually turned out
not to. So for him to claim he did know such, had to be a lie.

In my opinion, since Bush did not *personally* know of the WMD, his
statements claiming unequivocable knowledge of them were lies. He probably
doesn't see it that way, and I *know* all those Bush supporters out there
don't see it that way. But I certainly do. His statements made NO
allowance for the possibility that there was an error, misdirection, or
outright untruth in the information he was providing.

I realize people are sloppy with the way they say things, but isn't that the
entire point to this whole subthread? People on both sides of the fence use
words in an ambiguous and incorrect way in order to try to give an
impression of something other than the truth. After the fact, they
equivocate, claiming ignorance or splitting hairs or somesuch. In all
cases, they clearly had the underlying intent to deceive to some degree
(whether about a blowjob or a war).

Frankly, my biggest frustration was watching Powell present the so-called
case to the U.N. I will grant that one assumes the "intelligence community"
uses more information than he was able to present in that forum. But I
certainly came away from his presentation thinking "um, so where did they
actually prove there were WMD?" At best, he had presented a case for
circumstantial evidence, and he certainly did not PROVE the case. Yet huge
numbers of people accepted his hand-waving show as proof.

As much as I might be critical of Bush for making what I perceive to be lies
about Iraq, I object MUCH more to the way everyone was so willing to just
follow along, even when the attempts to demonstrate the claims of WMD were
true failed utterly. It was a real-life "Emperor's New Clothes" situation,
and while Bush made full use of the situation, it couldn't have happened
without the complacency of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other people in a
position to question the claims.

The whole thing is disgusting. I can't think of a single federal politician
who can claim taking the side of truth and justice, Democrat *or*
Republican. They all make me angry.

Pete

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 09:45 PM

On 30 Dec 2005 12:36:22 -0800, "lynn" > wrote
in . com>::

>
>You really should use an alias. It took less than 10 seconds to narrow
>your address down to three possibilites in WI & one in MD.

Perhaps John has nothing to hide.

Peter Duniho

December 30th 05, 09:50 PM

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.

That's a "big" problem? I would expect anyone involved in a major
vote-purchasing scheme would simply take advantage of absentee ballots. You
don't buy the behavior of the voter. You just buy their absentee ballot
(signed, of course).

I don't really think receipts are all that necessary (a single printed
ballot should be sufficient), but I don't see that they would present a big
problem either.

Pete

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 09:56 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:53:27 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote in
>> et>::
>>
>>>Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to
>>>the
>>>question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is
>>>completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky,
>>>as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the
>>>Court?"
>>>His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
>>>I've never had an affair with her."
>>
>> I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair
>> analysis of the issue:
>>
>
>I wrote only one complete sentence above. What part of, "Clinton lied
>repeatedly under oath.", are you having trouble parsing?
>

It was the sentences following that one. How was I to know that you
didn't write the sentences following that one? Were they a quote?

>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm
>> Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He
>> considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual
>> relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual
>> relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual
>> relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact
>> with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks
>> of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
>> desire of any person."
>>
>>
>> However, Marriam-Webster's definition is:
>>
>> Main Entry:sexual relations
>> Function:noun plural
>> Date:1950
>>
>> : COITUS
>>
>>
>>
>> Main Entry:coitus
>> Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s
>> Function:noun
>> Etymology:Latin, from coire
>> Date:1855
>>
>> : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by
>> rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen
>> from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also :
>> INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM
>> -coital \-t*l\ adjective
>> -coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb
>>
>>
>> So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal
>> definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been
>> consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase.
>>
>
>The term "sexual relations" was very specifically defined for use in the
>proceeding. "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in
>sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . .
>contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of
>any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
>person. . . . 'Contact' means intentional touching, either directly or
>through clothing."
>

So the question of Clinton's alleged guilt hinges on whether or not he
was aware of that strict procedural definition at the time he answered
the questions.

Matt Whiting

December 30th 05, 10:07 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> So the question of Clinton's alleged guilt hinges on whether or not he
> was aware of that strict procedural definition at the time he answered
> the questions.
>

No, even the common sense definition would have sufficed.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 10:14 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was the sentences following that one. How was I to know that you
> didn't write the sentences following that one?
>

The quotation marks should have tipped you off.

>
> Were they a quote?
>

Yes.

>
> So the question of Clinton's alleged guilt hinges on whether or not he
> was aware of that strict procedural definition at the time he answered
> the questions.
>

Yes, and he was.

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 10:39 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:14:11 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>The quotation marks should have tipped you off.

Here's what you wrote:

Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his
response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual
affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had
sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in
Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was,
"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've
never had an affair with her."

The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first
sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote. In the future
you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is
more apparent that they were not written by you.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 10:49 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's what you wrote:
>
> Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his
> response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual
> affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had
> sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in
> Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was,
> "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've
> never had an affair with her."
>
> The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first
> sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote.
>

Look again. The first sentence is not enclosed in quotation marks.

>
> In the future
> you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is
> more apparent that they were not written by you.
>

What would be the point of enclosing my own words in quotation marks?

In the future you might consider thinking before replying. It should have
been obvious that the source was the deposition mentioned in the articles of
impeachment. That's what we were discussing.

Larry Dighera

December 30th 05, 11:13 PM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:49:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Here's what you wrote:
>>
>> Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his
>> response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual
>> affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had
>> sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in
>> Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was,
>> "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've
>> never had an affair with her."
>>
>> The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first
>> sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote.
>>
>
>Look again. The first sentence is not enclosed in quotation marks.

Right. But there are other portions of what you wrote above that are
also not enclosed in quotation marks, however you imply you didn't
write them. Who wrote the text that isn't enclosed in quotations
marks other than the first sentence?

The quotation marks only enclose what Clinton said, apparently. The
quotation you cited is not set within quotation marks or otherwise
indicated to be other than your words.

>
>>
>> In the future
>> you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is
>> more apparent that they were not written by you.
>>
>
>What would be the point of enclosing my own words in quotation marks?

I have not implied that you should do that. How did you manage to
infer such an inane notion from what I wrote?

>In the future you might consider thinking before replying.

What makes you think I didn't?

>It should have been obvious that the source was the deposition mentioned
>in the articles of impeachment.

It wasn't.

>That's what we were discussing.

Please provide the Message-ID of the article in this thread that
mentions the "articles of impeachment." I don't recall seeing that
phrase in this thread at all.

Montblack

December 30th 05, 11:35 PM

("Ash Wyllie" wrote)
>>Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
>>let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
>>million receipts by hand?

> The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.

Thomas Edison
1868: Came up with his first patented invention, an Electrical Vote
Recorder. Application for this patent was signed 0n October 11, 1968.
Because the invention was way ahead of its time, it was heartily denigrated
by politicians... He now becomes much more oriented towards making certain
there is a strong public demand and associated market for anything he tries
to invent.

Tripped over this while surfing.

Montblack

Tom Conner

December 30th 05, 11:44 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:14:11 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
> >
> >The quotation marks should have tipped you off.
>
> Here's what you wrote:
>
> Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his
> response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual
> affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had
> sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in
> Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was,
> "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've
> never had an affair with her."
>
> The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first
> sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote. In the future
> you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is
> more apparent that they were not written by you.
>

Isn't Steven the same guy who lifted an entire article from Snopes.com and
didn't quote it, thus implying he wrote it? He provided a link at the end
but never gave any attribution as to the reason for the link.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 11:45 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right. But there are other portions of what you wrote above that are
> also not enclosed in quotation marks, however you imply you didn't
> write them.
>

Did I? How did I imply that?

>
> Who wrote the text that isn't enclosed in quotations
> marks other than the first sentence?
>

Me.

>
> The quotation marks only enclose what Clinton said, apparently.
>

The quotation marks enclosed a question directed at Clinton and his
response.

>
> The
> quotation you cited is not set within quotation marks or otherwise
> indicated to be other than your words.
>

Better look again.

>
> I have not implied that you should do that.
>

Yes you have.

>
> How did you manage to
> infer such an inane notion from what I wrote?
>

Because that is what is implied by you wrote.

>
> What makes you think I didn't?
>

You're right. I may have simply overestimated your intelligence.

>
> It wasn't.
>

But it should have been.

>
> Please provide the Message-ID of the article in this thread that
> mentions the "articles of impeachment." I don't recall seeing that
> phrase in this thread at all.
>

"Tien Dao" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> You can stop your pedantic antics. No previous super-power leader should
> be so humiliated as Clinton and by his own people least of all.
>

Clinton's humiliation, if he actually felt any humiliation, was his own
doing.

>
> Really? It "belongs" to the "people" as much as the Constitution, the
> Senate and the House? I guess you can just drop in any time for a cup of
> tea
> since it really "belongs" to you? :))) The guy's the world's leader. He
> can do
> whatever he wants in that office!! Yah, so he lied about a blow job. Big
> deal? All lies great and small are equally impeachable? You guys think
> it is as important a lie as covering up for breaking into Watergate?
>

Clinton lied under oath.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 30th 05, 11:48 PM

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Isn't Steven the same guy who lifted an entire article from Snopes.com and
> didn't quote it, thus implying he wrote it?
>

Steven didn't do that.

Tom Conner

December 30th 05, 11:57 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Tom Conner" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Isn't Steven the same guy who lifted an entire article from Snopes.com
and
> > didn't quote it, thus implying he wrote it?
> >
>
> Steven didn't do that.
>
>

Apparently, Clinton isn't the only liar.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_frm/thread/33b6bcb16b6891ad/7034a0405a0b0858?q=Steven+P.+McNicoll&rnum=8#7034a0405a0b0858

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: "Steven P. McNicoll" > - Find messages by
this author
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:34:38 GMT
Local: Wed, Dec 7 2005 12:34 pm
Subject: Re: Easy Eddie
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Some parts of this glurge about Edgar Joseph "Easy Eddie" O'Hare (also known
as EJ) and his son, Edward Henry "Butch" O'Hare, are true, if exaggerated in
the presentation above. The senior O'Hare provided legal services to Al
Capone and later helped the government bring that.........

Sylvain

December 31st 05, 12:47 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.

how many people died as a consequence?

--Sylvain

Bob Noel

December 31st 05, 12:49 AM

In article >, Sylvain >
wrote:

> > Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.
>
> how many people died as a consequence?

This is relevant how?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

Nick Danger

December 31st 05, 12:50 AM

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.
>
> how many people died as a consequence?
>
> --Sylvain

Not that I agree with such a narrow view of the war and our reasons for
being there but are you saying that it's OK for our president to lie to us
as long as no one dies as a result?

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 12:55 AM

Sylvain wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.
>
>
> how many people died as a consequence?

He was impeached, not tried for murder. What is your point?

Matt

sfb

December 31st 05, 01:00 AM

How do you sample a counter with the total vote cast for a candidate?

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> You count a sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5.
>> Other than Al won the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing
>> about the correctness of the total vote.
>
> Right. Then you compare the paper sample to the electronic sample and
> find that Al is ahead 12-8 in the electronic sample. You now know,
> which you didn't before, that the voting is rigged (or busted). Had
> the tallys matched, you would have more confidence than before that
> the voting was fairly counted electronically, and could trust the
> other electronic tallys.
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

George Patterson

December 31st 05, 02:07 AM

lynn wrote:

> You really should use an alias. It took less than 10 seconds to narrow
> your address down to three possibilites in WI & one in MD.

So? I used to post my N number. Anyone could look up my address. "Yea though I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil. 'Cause I'm
the meanest MoFo in the valley."

John may feel that he has nothing to fear if people know who he is.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Jose

December 31st 05, 02:37 AM

> How do you sample a counter with the total vote cast for a candidate?

You don't. You sample the votes to see if they agree. That is, you
compare the electronically reported tally of a set of voting machines
with the mechanical (paper?) ballots corresponding to that same set of
voting machines. It doesn't matter who is ahead or behind, just that
the paper and electronic ones match.

If they don't match, something's wrong.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

December 31st 05, 02:48 AM

>>The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.
>
> That's a "big" problem?

Uh... I think it would be. Another problem is anonymity. The voter
will either take the paper home (where it appears eventually in his
trash) or he leaves it at the site (along with his fingerprints). A
sufficiently clever and motivated opponent (personal or otherwise) could
make use of this information.

In any case, the issue is whether or not the vote the voter =thinks= is
cast, is =actually= the vote that gets counted. This is independent of
paper receipts to the voter.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Duniho

December 31st 05, 03:06 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> In any case, the issue is whether or not the vote the voter =thinks= is
> cast, is =actually= the vote that gets counted. This is independent of
> paper receipts to the voter.

Agreed. My point is (still) that giving the vote a receipt isn't going to
affect the issue of vote selling very much. There's not much to prevent
vote selling now, other than the risk of being found out, as it is now.
Handing a receipt to a voter isn't going to shift the problem much, given
how wide open it already is.

Larry Dighera

December 31st 05, 03:08 AM

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>>
>> At any rate, what a
>> president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
>> unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
>> business but his.
>>
>
>What Clinton did in his private life was never an issue.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Clinton was a virtuous president.
And if Clinton's amoral behavior was conducted during business hours,
you have a valid point. I hadn't thought of it that way.

Jose

December 31st 05, 03:17 AM

> There's not much to prevent
> vote selling now, other than the risk of being found out

Well, the receipt makes the vote you sold verifiable without going the
absentee ballot route.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose

December 31st 05, 03:18 AM

> And if Clinton's amoral behavior was conducted during business hours,
> you have a valid point.

What are the president's business hours? (pre-W)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 05, 03:21 AM

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> how many people died as a consequence?
>

Were you trying to make a point?

Peter Duniho

December 31st 05, 03:34 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> Well, the receipt makes the vote you sold verifiable without going the
> absentee ballot route.

So? It's not like "going the absentee ballot route" is the least bit
challenging. If anything, it's slightly easier for the vote seller, because
they don't actually have to go to the polls. Just get the absentee ballot,
sign it, sell it.

Sylvain

December 31st 05, 03:47 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Were you trying to make a point?

yes. but there is no point in explaining it if
you do not want to understand it.

--Sylvain

sfb

December 31st 05, 03:49 AM

Receipts will be a sea change for vote selling. It doesn't happen much
now because it is all risk no reward to the buyer who has no way of
knowing how the seller actually voted. A receipt removes all risk
guaranteeing the buyer gets what they paid for.

Without receipts, the buyer has to seek out voters in advance. With
receipts, the buyer just stands outside the polling place and buys a
sure thing after the vote is cast.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In any case, the issue is whether or not the vote the voter =thinks=
>> is cast, is =actually= the vote that gets counted. This is
>> independent of paper receipts to the voter.
>
> Agreed. My point is (still) that giving the vote a receipt isn't
> going to affect the issue of vote selling very much. There's not much
> to prevent vote selling now, other than the risk of being found out,
> as it is now. Handing a receipt to a voter isn't going to shift the
> problem much, given how wide open it already is.
>

Montblack

December 31st 05, 03:57 AM

("Tom Conner" wrote)
> Apparently, Clinton isn't the only liar.

> Some parts of this glurge about Edgar Joseph "Easy Eddie" O'Hare (also
> known as EJ) and his son, Edward Henry "Butch" O'Hare, are true, if
> exaggerated in the presentation above. The senior O'Hare provided legal
> services to Al Capone and later helped the government bring that.........

Tom,

That dog won't hunt.

"Montblack"

Steven P. McNicoll

December 31st 05, 06:40 AM

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> yes. but there is no point in explaining it if
> you do not want to understand it.
>

I'll take that to mean you're not capable of explaining it.

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 07:17 AM

"lynn" wrote in message
oups.com...
> John,
>
> You really should use an alias. It took less than 10 seconds to narrow
> your address down to three possibilites in WI & one in MD.

Why? He has balls enough to use his real name and stand behind what he says
on the net... More people should be that way... Hell, I used to use my name
until I found a couple other people on the net with the same name -- rock
singer, college professor, British rugby player... So, I decided to use my
aircraft and full tail number as my moniker... Easy enough to look up on the
FAA database... And if the wrong person decides to look me up? Well, gators
gotta eat too, ya' know...

http://www.geocities.com/grumman581/gators-gotta-eat-too.htm

Grumman-581

December 31st 05, 07:17 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:43:31 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> I didn't think an airman was capable of such inane rudeness.

Damn Larry, ya' must have never met a naval aviator...

--
"A bitchin' sailor is a happy sailor"
http://www.geocities.com/grumman581/n581-nm.jpg

Peter Duniho

December 31st 05, 08:20 AM

"sfb" > wrote in message news:Qcntf.163$7x.160@trnddc03...
> Receipts will be a sea change for vote selling. It doesn't happen much now
> because it is all risk no reward to the buyer who has no way of knowing
> how the seller actually voted.

Um...then the people buying votes are idiots, I guess.

As I already pointed out, absentee ballots are a perfect way to buy votes.
You don't even leave the voting up to the seller. You just get their vote
by proxy, through their absentee ballot.

> A receipt removes all risk guaranteeing the buyer gets what they paid for.

Only for the seller too dumb to use absentee ballots.

> Without receipts, the buyer has to seek out voters in advance. With
> receipts, the buyer just stands outside the polling place and buys a sure
> thing after the vote is cast.

Um, again...idiots? Anyone who stands outside a polling place and offers
money to anyone who just happened to vote the way they wanted, that's an
idiot right there.

"Sea change"? I don't think so.

Pete

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 01:29 PM

Jose wrote:
>> And if Clinton's amoral behavior was conducted during business hours,
>> you have a valid point.
>
>
> What are the president's business hours? (pre-W)

24/7.

Matt

Jose

December 31st 05, 04:38 PM

>> What are the president's business hours? (pre-W)
>
> 24/7.

So, he's asleep during business hours too.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting

December 31st 05, 05:31 PM

Jose wrote:

>>> What are the president's business hours? (pre-W)
>>
>>
>> 24/7.
>
>
> So, he's asleep during business hours too.

Probably, a President is always on call and on duty.

Matt

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:25 PM

Presidents of the United States have been on duty 24/7/365
since Korea. It doesn't matter if the news media says the
President is vacationing at Camp David, chopping wood in
California, burying the wood in Arkansas, or building fences
in Crawford, the President always has a full staff present,
communications and can do everything except go to the
shelter under the Whitehouse from anywhere in the world.

Being as old as Clinton, I always thought his sex life
sounded pretty good, except for the cigars. Hope the girls
don't get any cancers, sounds worse than oral cancer.

AS an old married man, I like the idea that 50% of the
country and more than 50% of the women [if the polls are
correct] approved of old men and young women. It means I
have a chance.

My problem with Clinton began while he was still Governor of
Arkansas.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jose wrote:
| >> And if Clinton's amoral behavior was conducted during
business hours,
| >> you have a valid point.
| >
| >
| > What are the president's business hours? (pre-W)
|
| 24/7.
|
|
| Matt

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 06:31 PM

They wake Presidents up, a vacation means you go to sleep or
for a walk and you are alone. The President is never alone,
truly alone. When I wanted my "day off" and the boss called
to get me to come in to fly something I usually went in, but
sometimes I would pop a cap on a Pepsi and say, "Give me
another beer." Presidents can't do that.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
| >> What are the president's business hours? (pre-W)
| >
| > 24/7.
|
| So, he's asleep during business hours too.
|
| Jose
| --
| You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose
whom to love.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Neil Gould

December 31st 05, 08:42 PM

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:35:36 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>> What method would you employ to assure that the receipts are not
>>> forgeries?
>>>
>> The same method that assures that paper ballots aren't forgeries. If
>> you go back a few messages, I suggested that *two* receipts would be
>> printed & verified by the voter; one would be given to the polling
>> official, just as paper ballots are handled now. Then, at least one
>> machine selected at random from each precinct would have its
>> electronic tally audited against the receipt. In the case of a
>> discrepancy, a 100% audit would be performed at that precinct.
>>
>
> That's a reasoned solution. Why do you feel it necessary to *add* a
> receipt to be given to the voter? What would be the advantage of
> electronic voting over the current *one* ballot system?
>
After thinking about it, there probably is no advantage to two printed
receipts. I know I wouldn't care to have one.

> Personally, I think it's going to be nearly impossible to insure an
> accurate electronic vote tally much as it was in the
> paper-vote/voting-machine era. But here's an idea:
>
All voting methods have "issues", but I was only trying to suggest a
solution to a system that introduces a lot of new issues, and could be
very easily "rigged". The fact is, I'm not being paid to figure this out,
but many people are. What are *their* solutions to this problem?

> Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
> voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
> incremented accurately. The real-time vote tally could be
> continuously monitored by representatives of each party/candidate?
> If a dispute should arise, the sealed camera that monitored the
> running tally could be consulted. Under no circumstances should
> anyone other than the voter be able to modify the running tally;
> their must be no way for administrator intervention to modify the
> running tally.
>
I don't see much value in knowing how my vote tallied with previous votes,
and as others pointed out, that tally is likely to be changing so rapidly
it would be unreadable anyway.

> Everything occurs in real-time. The voter confirms his own vote.
> There is no necessity to print anything.
>
The idea of the printed receipt is to verify the accuracy of the machine.
If all you have is an on-screen display, there is no way to insure that
the data passed to the board of elections is a valid representation of the
actual votes, which I find to be an intolerable scenario. Why others
aren't bothered by it does puzzle me.

Neil

Jim Macklin

December 31st 05, 09:21 PM

I've been voting since 1968 and have voted in every
election, from school board to Presidential. I have never
known positively that any of my ballots or votes was
actually counted. The candidates I voted for won a lot of
the time, but not always.

How does anybody know their vote was ever counted
accurately, whether a paper ballot with an X in the box, a
punch card or some electrical machine...all can be rigged,
spoiled, stuffed or otherwise invalidated.

Unless we give up the secret ballot, voter fraud will always
be possible and the possible happens.

Being a poll worker, like jury duty, is an essential public
service.

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. com...
| Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
|
| > On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:35:36 GMT, "Neil Gould"
| > > wrote in
| > >::
| >
| >>> What method would you employ to assure that the
receipts are not
| >>> forgeries?
| >>>
| >> The same method that assures that paper ballots aren't
forgeries. If
| >> you go back a few messages, I suggested that *two*
receipts would be
| >> printed & verified by the voter; one would be given to
the polling
| >> official, just as paper ballots are handled now. Then,
at least one
| >> machine selected at random from each precinct would
have its
| >> electronic tally audited against the receipt. In the
case of a
| >> discrepancy, a 100% audit would be performed at that
precinct.
| >>
| >
| > That's a reasoned solution. Why do you feel it
necessary to *add* a
| > receipt to be given to the voter? What would be the
advantage of
| > electronic voting over the current *one* ballot system?
| >
| After thinking about it, there probably is no advantage to
two printed
| receipts. I know I wouldn't care to have one.
|
| > Personally, I think it's going to be nearly impossible
to insure an
| > accurate electronic vote tally much as it was in the
| > paper-vote/voting-machine era. But here's an idea:
| >
| All voting methods have "issues", but I was only trying to
suggest a
| solution to a system that introduces a lot of new issues,
and could be
| very easily "rigged". The fact is, I'm not being paid to
figure this out,
| but many people are. What are *their* solutions to this
problem?
|
| > Provide a real-time running total of each ballot
choice on the
| > voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm
their vote
| > incremented accurately. The real-time vote tally
could be
| > continuously monitored by representatives of each
party/candidate?
| > If a dispute should arise, the sealed camera that
monitored the
| > running tally could be consulted. Under no
circumstances should
| > anyone other than the voter be able to modify the
running tally;
| > their must be no way for administrator intervention
to modify the
| > running tally.
| >
| I don't see much value in knowing how my vote tallied with
previous votes,
| and as others pointed out, that tally is likely to be
changing so rapidly
| it would be unreadable anyway.
|
| > Everything occurs in real-time. The voter confirms his
own vote.
| > There is no necessity to print anything.
| >
| The idea of the printed receipt is to verify the accuracy
of the machine.
| If all you have is an on-screen display, there is no way
to insure that
| the data passed to the board of elections is a valid
representation of the
| actual votes, which I find to be an intolerable scenario.
Why others
| aren't bothered by it does puzzle me.
|
| Neil
|
|