6 Jan
2008
6 Jan
'08
8:15 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, madodel wrote:
I can only say that they should and they could, but from what I have read
on how insecure their voting machines are, I would say that now-a-days they
have no clue.
Mark
--
From the eComStation Desktop of: Mark Dodel
Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
http://www.warpstock.eu
For a choice in the future of personal computing, Join VOICE -
http://www.os2voice.org
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic State itself. That in it's essence, is Fascism - ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private
power." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the Monopoly
Investigation, 1938
I've been using OS/2 since version 1.3.
I'm fairly well acquainted with
its capabilities. Yes I can be wrong and maybe you saw what you think you
saw, but all you have is a story. Where is your proof other then that you
think you saw it was OS/2? I can't prove a negative, but you should be
able to prove that it did happen.
You're certainly welcome to doubt whether he was right, and/or think that
he was mistaken. But we rarely put up a "burden of proof".
but never at an OS/2 prompt. And as I also
posted, if the original ATM
code programmer had known what they were doing then the program itself
should have been set as the shell, so no command prompt should have ever
been attainable.
"IF . . . had known what they were doing"
I don't doubt that you could write some extraordinarily robust code.
But, do you assert that Diebold knows what they are doing?