<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_08_1311240</id>
	<title>Software Bug Adds 5K Votes To Election</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1244471400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"You may be able to argue that a five-thousand-vote error is a <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/31/2327246&amp;tid=123">small price to pay for a national election</a>, but these errors are certainly inadmissible on a much smaller scale.  According to the Rapid City Journal, <a href="http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/06/04/news/local/doc4a26be929b134639509302.txt">a software glitch added 4,875 phantom ballots in a South Dakota election</a> for a seat on the city council.  It's not a hardware security problem this time; it's a software glitch.  Although not <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/18/2217252&amp;tid=266">unheard of in electronic voting</a>, this bug was about to cause a runoff vote since the incumbent did not hold a high enough percentage of the vote.  That is no longer the case after the numbers were corrected.  Wired <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/voting-machine-adds-nearly-5000-ballots-to-tally/">notes it's probably a complex bug</a> as it is not just multiplying the vote count by two.  Here's to hoping that AutoMark follows suit and <a href="//news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/07/0845255&amp;tid=266">releases the source code for others to scrutinize</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " You may be able to argue that a five-thousand-vote error is a small price to pay for a national election , but these errors are certainly inadmissible on a much smaller scale .
According to the Rapid City Journal , a software glitch added 4,875 phantom ballots in a South Dakota election for a seat on the city council .
It 's not a hardware security problem this time ; it 's a software glitch .
Although not unheard of in electronic voting , this bug was about to cause a runoff vote since the incumbent did not hold a high enough percentage of the vote .
That is no longer the case after the numbers were corrected .
Wired notes it 's probably a complex bug as it is not just multiplying the vote count by two .
Here 's to hoping that AutoMark follows suit and releases the source code for others to scrutinize .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "You may be able to argue that a five-thousand-vote error is a small price to pay for a national election, but these errors are certainly inadmissible on a much smaller scale.
According to the Rapid City Journal, a software glitch added 4,875 phantom ballots in a South Dakota election for a seat on the city council.
It's not a hardware security problem this time; it's a software glitch.
Although not unheard of in electronic voting, this bug was about to cause a runoff vote since the incumbent did not hold a high enough percentage of the vote.
That is no longer the case after the numbers were corrected.
Wired notes it's probably a complex bug as it is not just multiplying the vote count by two.
Here's to hoping that AutoMark follows suit and releases the source code for others to scrutinize.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28257535</id>
	<title>Too much obscenity on slashdot...</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1244459220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Belgium</p></div><p>Please don't use that word in polite company!<br>
And don't use it here either!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BelgiumPlease do n't use that word in polite company !
And do n't use it here either !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BelgiumPlease don't use that word in polite company!
And don't use it here either!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252971</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1244485080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no, it's clearly a glitch. Counting numbers (e.g. 1+1) really isn't a computer's strong suit, so it's understandable that it would sometimes do this, 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 + 5000 + 1 + 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no , it 's clearly a glitch .
Counting numbers ( e.g .
1 + 1 ) really is n't a computer 's strong suit , so it 's understandable that it would sometimes do this , 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 5000 + 1 + 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no, it's clearly a glitch.
Counting numbers (e.g.
1+1) really isn't a computer's strong suit, so it's understandable that it would sometimes do this, 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 + 5000 + 1 + 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28255711</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>natoochtoniket</author>
	<datestamp>1244452800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask a computer programmer to "rig" an election, to make it come out with exactly a six-percent margin, in a closed-source proprietary system.  And then ask a person to "rig" an election the same way, except that the person has to count the votes in front of dozens of witnesses, and show each ballot to each witness.  If you had to stake your <i>freedom</i> on catching the election rigging, which one do you think would be more likely to get caught?</p><p>It isn't the accuracy of "counting" that matters.  It is the ease of "rigging".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask a computer programmer to " rig " an election , to make it come out with exactly a six-percent margin , in a closed-source proprietary system .
And then ask a person to " rig " an election the same way , except that the person has to count the votes in front of dozens of witnesses , and show each ballot to each witness .
If you had to stake your freedom on catching the election rigging , which one do you think would be more likely to get caught ? It is n't the accuracy of " counting " that matters .
It is the ease of " rigging " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask a computer programmer to "rig" an election, to make it come out with exactly a six-percent margin, in a closed-source proprietary system.
And then ask a person to "rig" an election the same way, except that the person has to count the votes in front of dozens of witnesses, and show each ballot to each witness.
If you had to stake your freedom on catching the election rigging, which one do you think would be more likely to get caught?It isn't the accuracy of "counting" that matters.
It is the ease of "rigging".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252985</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1244485080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is a voting system doing any kind of math at all?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's pretty tough to make a digital system that does no math.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is a voting system doing any kind of math at all ? It 's pretty tough to make a digital system that does no math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is a voting system doing any kind of math at all?It's pretty tough to make a digital system that does no math.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256497</id>
	<title>3 things that would fix the US election system</title>
	<author>tjonnyc999</author>
	<datestamp>1244455260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.) Action: change current system to runoff elections. If neither party gets a winning majority - remove all but top 2 contestants, and run it again.<br>
Reason: under a runoff system, candidates must appeal to a broad range of voters; runoff voting discourages extreme partisanship, and prevents minor f[r]actions from upsetting the balance (example: 1992, Candidate #3 "steals" 3\% of votes from Candidate #2, resulting in Candidate #3 [barely] getting the majority and royally pissing off voters supporting Candidate #2)
Result: discordant elections (Bush-Gore, Bush-Clinton-Perot) are much less likely; winner has clear support and mandate from majority of voters.<br> <br>

2.) Action: prohibit political advertising. Debates, yes. Town hall meetings, sure. Q-and-A sessions, of course. <b>Buying</b> a Senate seat or the Presidency? Hell no.<br>
Reason: political leadership should be elected on the basis of merits / values / track record, <b>not</b> on the basis of who's got a fatter wallet.<br>
Result: no more travesties like (just an example, nothing personal) Jon Corzine deciding that he's made enough money, now it's time to play politics, wallpapering New Jersey with $ 63,000,000.00's worth of advertising, and winning a Senate seat.<br> <br>
3.) Action: allow <b>ONLY</b> open-source voting machines, audited by several independent sources.<br>
Reason: voters must have proof that their vote was received and counted. The right to vote should not be canceled by a "glitch in the system", or a behind-the-scenes manipulation of the vote totals, without any possibility of an audit. (Hey, AutoMark / Diebold / ES&amp;S, my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have my voice heard trumps your profit margin. Either make it work correctly, or GTFO the election.) Closed-source, un-auditable "black box" voting machines have a proven track record of miscounting votes. If it's a "black box", it doesn't get to play.<br>
Result: no more "missing votes", "extra votes", "double-counted votes", or any other bullshit. If there's an issue, it's detected, fixed, and the election is run again.<br> <br>

<br>

Of course, this is all a dream. The 2-party duopoly will never allow #1. The media makes too much profit from political advertisement to allow #2. And the makers of voting machines make too much money to allow #3. Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Action : change current system to runoff elections .
If neither party gets a winning majority - remove all but top 2 contestants , and run it again .
Reason : under a runoff system , candidates must appeal to a broad range of voters ; runoff voting discourages extreme partisanship , and prevents minor f [ r ] actions from upsetting the balance ( example : 1992 , Candidate # 3 " steals " 3 \ % of votes from Candidate # 2 , resulting in Candidate # 3 [ barely ] getting the majority and royally pissing off voters supporting Candidate # 2 ) Result : discordant elections ( Bush-Gore , Bush-Clinton-Perot ) are much less likely ; winner has clear support and mandate from majority of voters .
2. ) Action : prohibit political advertising .
Debates , yes .
Town hall meetings , sure .
Q-and-A sessions , of course .
Buying a Senate seat or the Presidency ?
Hell no .
Reason : political leadership should be elected on the basis of merits / values / track record , not on the basis of who 's got a fatter wallet .
Result : no more travesties like ( just an example , nothing personal ) Jon Corzine deciding that he 's made enough money , now it 's time to play politics , wallpapering New Jersey with $ 63,000,000.00 's worth of advertising , and winning a Senate seat .
3. ) Action : allow ONLY open-source voting machines , audited by several independent sources .
Reason : voters must have proof that their vote was received and counted .
The right to vote should not be canceled by a " glitch in the system " , or a behind-the-scenes manipulation of the vote totals , without any possibility of an audit .
( Hey , AutoMark / Diebold / ES&amp;S , my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have my voice heard trumps your profit margin .
Either make it work correctly , or GTFO the election .
) Closed-source , un-auditable " black box " voting machines have a proven track record of miscounting votes .
If it 's a " black box " , it does n't get to play .
Result : no more " missing votes " , " extra votes " , " double-counted votes " , or any other bullshit .
If there 's an issue , it 's detected , fixed , and the election is run again .
Of course , this is all a dream .
The 2-party duopoly will never allow # 1 .
The media makes too much profit from political advertisement to allow # 2 .
And the makers of voting machines make too much money to allow # 3 .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) Action: change current system to runoff elections.
If neither party gets a winning majority - remove all but top 2 contestants, and run it again.
Reason: under a runoff system, candidates must appeal to a broad range of voters; runoff voting discourages extreme partisanship, and prevents minor f[r]actions from upsetting the balance (example: 1992, Candidate #3 "steals" 3\% of votes from Candidate #2, resulting in Candidate #3 [barely] getting the majority and royally pissing off voters supporting Candidate #2)
Result: discordant elections (Bush-Gore, Bush-Clinton-Perot) are much less likely; winner has clear support and mandate from majority of voters.
2.) Action: prohibit political advertising.
Debates, yes.
Town hall meetings, sure.
Q-and-A sessions, of course.
Buying a Senate seat or the Presidency?
Hell no.
Reason: political leadership should be elected on the basis of merits / values / track record, not on the basis of who's got a fatter wallet.
Result: no more travesties like (just an example, nothing personal) Jon Corzine deciding that he's made enough money, now it's time to play politics, wallpapering New Jersey with $ 63,000,000.00's worth of advertising, and winning a Senate seat.
3.) Action: allow ONLY open-source voting machines, audited by several independent sources.
Reason: voters must have proof that their vote was received and counted.
The right to vote should not be canceled by a "glitch in the system", or a behind-the-scenes manipulation of the vote totals, without any possibility of an audit.
(Hey, AutoMark / Diebold / ES&amp;S, my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have my voice heard trumps your profit margin.
Either make it work correctly, or GTFO the election.
) Closed-source, un-auditable "black box" voting machines have a proven track record of miscounting votes.
If it's a "black box", it doesn't get to play.
Result: no more "missing votes", "extra votes", "double-counted votes", or any other bullshit.
If there's an issue, it's detected, fixed, and the election is run again.
Of course, this is all a dream.
The 2-party duopoly will never allow #1.
The media makes too much profit from political advertisement to allow #2.
And the makers of voting machines make too much money to allow #3.
Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251427</id>
	<title>Pseudocode</title>
	<author>Jamamala</author>
	<datestamp>1244478060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I posted a question yesterday about what was wrong with a simple program. No-one seemed to know so here's my attempt at writing that simple program. Feel free to tear my ideas to pieces. Hint: I am not a programmer.<br> <br>


MAIN:<br>

print("Please enter your Voter ID")<br>
scan, store as voterID<br>
if (voterID == any value in array of legal voters)<br>
then run the vote program<br>
else {<br>
print("Error")<br>
go back to main }<br>
<br>
VOTE:<br>
print("Enter your choice of candidate")<br>
scan, store as candidate<br>
if (candidate == A) {<br>
then record vote for candidate A<br>
remove voterID from array of legal voters<br>
exit }<br> <br>
elif (candidate == B) {<br>
then record vote for candidate B++<br>
remove voterID from array of legal voters<br>
exit }<br> <br>
else {<br>
print("Error")<br>
go back to vote }</htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted a question yesterday about what was wrong with a simple program .
No-one seemed to know so here 's my attempt at writing that simple program .
Feel free to tear my ideas to pieces .
Hint : I am not a programmer .
MAIN : print ( " Please enter your Voter ID " ) scan , store as voterID if ( voterID = = any value in array of legal voters ) then run the vote program else { print ( " Error " ) go back to main } VOTE : print ( " Enter your choice of candidate " ) scan , store as candidate if ( candidate = = A ) { then record vote for candidate A remove voterID from array of legal voters exit } elif ( candidate = = B ) { then record vote for candidate B + + remove voterID from array of legal voters exit } else { print ( " Error " ) go back to vote }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted a question yesterday about what was wrong with a simple program.
No-one seemed to know so here's my attempt at writing that simple program.
Feel free to tear my ideas to pieces.
Hint: I am not a programmer.
MAIN:

print("Please enter your Voter ID")
scan, store as voterID
if (voterID == any value in array of legal voters)
then run the vote program
else {
print("Error")
go back to main }

VOTE:
print("Enter your choice of candidate")
scan, store as candidate
if (candidate == A) {
then record vote for candidate A
remove voterID from array of legal voters
exit } 
elif (candidate == B) {
then record vote for candidate B++
remove voterID from array of legal voters
exit } 
else {
print("Error")
go back to vote }</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251973</id>
	<title>PuhLease</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1244481000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't these idiots get anything right? This is so freaking easy to fix it boggles the mind....


votes = votes - 5000 ;


There. Done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't these idiots get anything right ?
This is so freaking easy to fix it boggles the mind... . votes = votes - 5000 ; There .
Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't these idiots get anything right?
This is so freaking easy to fix it boggles the mind....


votes = votes - 5000 ;


There.
Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254113</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244490360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you meant to have Gore first, then Bush...</p></div><p>Only on the PC version.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you meant to have Gore first , then Bush...Only on the PC version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you meant to have Gore first, then Bush...Only on the PC version.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</id>
	<title>Uh oh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The software has achieved sentience and is trying to elect its robot overlords! Before anyone else... I for one welcome our democratically elected robot overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The software has achieved sentience and is trying to elect its robot overlords !
Before anyone else... I for one welcome our democratically elected robot overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software has achieved sentience and is trying to elect its robot overlords!
Before anyone else... I for one welcome our democratically elected robot overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252773</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1244484180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think voting in the US is like the taxcode, deliberately fluid and hackable.<br>

All slashdotters know that any online bank or Pricewaterhouse could implement a convenient, accountable online voting system. Here I just created a group to see if anyone agrees. <br>

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=84902568935" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=84902568935</a> [facebook.com] <br>

I think I am going to boycott voting until this Diabold or NorthDakota voting crap ceases.<br>

-jim</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think voting in the US is like the taxcode , deliberately fluid and hackable .
All slashdotters know that any online bank or Pricewaterhouse could implement a convenient , accountable online voting system .
Here I just created a group to see if anyone agrees .
http : //www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 84902568935 [ facebook.com ] I think I am going to boycott voting until this Diabold or NorthDakota voting crap ceases .
-jim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think voting in the US is like the taxcode, deliberately fluid and hackable.
All slashdotters know that any online bank or Pricewaterhouse could implement a convenient, accountable online voting system.
Here I just created a group to see if anyone agrees.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=84902568935 [facebook.com] 

I think I am going to boycott voting until this Diabold or NorthDakota voting crap ceases.
-jim</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251903</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>johnek</author>
	<datestamp>1244480580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. People are adding code snippets with vote++, etc. That's absurd. It's a vote collection system, not a calculator. Wouldn't the votes be saved in a transactional, network capable, data collection system? Maybe a Database. Then on the back end the Election officials can run reports, etc. Then tie those reports to reports run at polling centers. There would be no overcounts, lost votes, etc. And since it's transactional you can verify things down to the vote level. I've never actually worked on a system like this, but it sounds like maybe I should. Damn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the silliest thing I have ever heard .
People are adding code snippets with vote + + , etc .
That 's absurd .
It 's a vote collection system , not a calculator .
Would n't the votes be saved in a transactional , network capable , data collection system ?
Maybe a Database .
Then on the back end the Election officials can run reports , etc .
Then tie those reports to reports run at polling centers .
There would be no overcounts , lost votes , etc .
And since it 's transactional you can verify things down to the vote level .
I 've never actually worked on a system like this , but it sounds like maybe I should .
Damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
People are adding code snippets with vote++, etc.
That's absurd.
It's a vote collection system, not a calculator.
Wouldn't the votes be saved in a transactional, network capable, data collection system?
Maybe a Database.
Then on the back end the Election officials can run reports, etc.
Then tie those reports to reports run at polling centers.
There would be no overcounts, lost votes, etc.
And since it's transactional you can verify things down to the vote level.
I've never actually worked on a system like this, but it sounds like maybe I should.
Damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251329</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Additions just aren't so simple anymore in concurrent computing.</p></div><p>Why would e-voting be a concurrent operation? Each voting machine should tally votes locally. Every hour (or at the end of the day, or at some other random interval), each machine would connect to a central server, upload its current tally, and reset its local info. This upload-and-reset should be done in a synchronous fashion, such that the server accepts only one tally at a time and the client resets only after it confirms the upload with the server. Surely existing database protocols such a two-phase commit would solve this problem satisfactorily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additions just are n't so simple anymore in concurrent computing.Why would e-voting be a concurrent operation ?
Each voting machine should tally votes locally .
Every hour ( or at the end of the day , or at some other random interval ) , each machine would connect to a central server , upload its current tally , and reset its local info .
This upload-and-reset should be done in a synchronous fashion , such that the server accepts only one tally at a time and the client resets only after it confirms the upload with the server .
Surely existing database protocols such a two-phase commit would solve this problem satisfactorily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additions just aren't so simple anymore in concurrent computing.Why would e-voting be a concurrent operation?
Each voting machine should tally votes locally.
Every hour (or at the end of the day, or at some other random interval), each machine would connect to a central server, upload its current tally, and reset its local info.
This upload-and-reset should be done in a synchronous fashion, such that the server accepts only one tally at a time and the client resets only after it confirms the upload with the server.
Surely existing database protocols such a two-phase commit would solve this problem satisfactorily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256733</id>
	<title>Bull</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Glitch", "Bug" = lousy programming</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Glitch " , " Bug " = lousy programming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Glitch", "Bug" = lousy programming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254807</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244493300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it went like this:</p><p> <tt>void vote(int candidate)
{
   switch (candidate)
   {
      case RALPH\_NADER:
         totalVotes[RALPH\_NADER] ++;

      case GEORGE\_BUSH:
         totalVotes[GEORGE\_BUSH] ++;
         break;

      case AL\_GORE:
         totalVotes[AL\_GORE] ++;
         break;
   }
}</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it went like this : void vote ( int candidate ) { switch ( candidate ) { case RALPH \ _NADER : totalVotes [ RALPH \ _NADER ] + + ; case GEORGE \ _BUSH : totalVotes [ GEORGE \ _BUSH ] + + ; break ; case AL \ _GORE : totalVotes [ AL \ _GORE ] + + ; break ; } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it went like this: void vote(int candidate)
{
   switch (candidate)
   {
      case RALPH\_NADER:
         totalVotes[RALPH\_NADER] ++;

      case GEORGE\_BUSH:
         totalVotes[GEORGE\_BUSH] ++;
         break;

      case AL\_GORE:
         totalVotes[AL\_GORE] ++;
         break;
   }
}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252763</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>slyn</author>
	<datestamp>1244484120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, if they want an electronic voting platform that is bug free they can just tell everyone to bring in their #2 pencils and drag in the scantron machines from the local public schools.</p><p>When was the last time you heard about a student getting a 5000/100 because the scantron had a bug in the software. Pure incompetence (or worse) on the part of the voting machine companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if they want an electronic voting platform that is bug free they can just tell everyone to bring in their # 2 pencils and drag in the scantron machines from the local public schools.When was the last time you heard about a student getting a 5000/100 because the scantron had a bug in the software .
Pure incompetence ( or worse ) on the part of the voting machine companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if they want an electronic voting platform that is bug free they can just tell everyone to bring in their #2 pencils and drag in the scantron machines from the local public schools.When was the last time you heard about a student getting a 5000/100 because the scantron had a bug in the software.
Pure incompetence (or worse) on the part of the voting machine companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254549</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>omega\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1244492340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read through the robinson method, and here's what I see:  Loss of anonymity of votes.  Therefore, it fails.  Period.  You may dismiss out of hand the potential for knowing someone who writes in a vote, but that is a loss of anonymity.  It allows detection of voting patterns that may or may not directly identify a voter; how many people would vote (coin) (coin) (writein) (coin) (writein) (writein).  Not to mention non-votes; am I required to vote for every race?  And if I'm not required to vote for every race/proposition, then you get to see that I didn't vote because you see that I didn't put in a coin.
<br> <br>That's not even getting into the ease of purposefully adding errors to the counting process that could easily completely invalidate a vote count.  Let's say a poll worker has the skills to shave 1/10th (or whatever the tolerance of the scale is) of the weight off of half the tokens, and add 1/10th the weight to the other half.  Then, they systematically choose to give (say) black people the shaved tokens, and white people the unshaved tokens.  All of a sudden, white people get a greater vote share equal to 2xW, where W is the tolerance of the scale.<br> <br>
Basically, stop being a whiny emokid and realize that every idea you have is not IPU's gift to mankind.  You, sir, are indeed fallible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read through the robinson method , and here 's what I see : Loss of anonymity of votes .
Therefore , it fails .
Period. You may dismiss out of hand the potential for knowing someone who writes in a vote , but that is a loss of anonymity .
It allows detection of voting patterns that may or may not directly identify a voter ; how many people would vote ( coin ) ( coin ) ( writein ) ( coin ) ( writein ) ( writein ) .
Not to mention non-votes ; am I required to vote for every race ?
And if I 'm not required to vote for every race/proposition , then you get to see that I did n't vote because you see that I did n't put in a coin .
That 's not even getting into the ease of purposefully adding errors to the counting process that could easily completely invalidate a vote count .
Let 's say a poll worker has the skills to shave 1/10th ( or whatever the tolerance of the scale is ) of the weight off of half the tokens , and add 1/10th the weight to the other half .
Then , they systematically choose to give ( say ) black people the shaved tokens , and white people the unshaved tokens .
All of a sudden , white people get a greater vote share equal to 2xW , where W is the tolerance of the scale .
Basically , stop being a whiny emokid and realize that every idea you have is not IPU 's gift to mankind .
You , sir , are indeed fallible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read through the robinson method, and here's what I see:  Loss of anonymity of votes.
Therefore, it fails.
Period.  You may dismiss out of hand the potential for knowing someone who writes in a vote, but that is a loss of anonymity.
It allows detection of voting patterns that may or may not directly identify a voter; how many people would vote (coin) (coin) (writein) (coin) (writein) (writein).
Not to mention non-votes; am I required to vote for every race?
And if I'm not required to vote for every race/proposition, then you get to see that I didn't vote because you see that I didn't put in a coin.
That's not even getting into the ease of purposefully adding errors to the counting process that could easily completely invalidate a vote count.
Let's say a poll worker has the skills to shave 1/10th (or whatever the tolerance of the scale is) of the weight off of half the tokens, and add 1/10th the weight to the other half.
Then, they systematically choose to give (say) black people the shaved tokens, and white people the unshaved tokens.
All of a sudden, white people get a greater vote share equal to 2xW, where W is the tolerance of the scale.
Basically, stop being a whiny emokid and realize that every idea you have is not IPU's gift to mankind.
You, sir, are indeed fallible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253081</id>
	<title>Re:Pseudocode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hint: I am not a programmer.</p></div><p>You see, that's the problem here. You totally miss to account for the stuff that makes these machines so complicated:<br>
&nbsp; - different voting system<br>
&nbsp; - more complex ballots<br>
&nbsp; - prevention of storing a link between voter and vote<br>
&nbsp; - logging / failure recovery<br>
&nbsp; - tallying of the actual total (across machines)</p><p>Also a big part is the user interface itself. So really, just reducing it to "increment one number each time" is by far not enough.</p><p>By the way as far as I am concerned, pen&amp;paper voting is the only reasonably method.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hint : I am not a programmer.You see , that 's the problem here .
You totally miss to account for the stuff that makes these machines so complicated :   - different voting system   - more complex ballots   - prevention of storing a link between voter and vote   - logging / failure recovery   - tallying of the actual total ( across machines ) Also a big part is the user interface itself .
So really , just reducing it to " increment one number each time " is by far not enough.By the way as far as I am concerned , pen&amp;paper voting is the only reasonably method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hint: I am not a programmer.You see, that's the problem here.
You totally miss to account for the stuff that makes these machines so complicated:
  - different voting system
  - more complex ballots
  - prevention of storing a link between voter and vote
  - logging / failure recovery
  - tallying of the actual total (across machines)Also a big part is the user interface itself.
So really, just reducing it to "increment one number each time" is by far not enough.By the way as far as I am concerned, pen&amp;paper voting is the only reasonably method.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252541</id>
	<title>The real issue</title>
	<author>Subm</author>
	<datestamp>1244483340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real issue isn't that the votes were miscounted in South Dakota.</p><p>It's that I bought them for South <i>Carolina</i>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real issue is n't that the votes were miscounted in South Dakota.It 's that I bought them for South Carolina !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real issue isn't that the votes were miscounted in South Dakota.It's that I bought them for South Carolina!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additions just aren't so simple anymore in concurrent computing. The obvious way to do addition in gcc c would be:</p><p>totalVotes[candidate]++;</p><p>but this will totally screw up the vote count, whereas</p><p>\_\_sync\_add\_and\_fetch(&amp;totalVotes[candidate], 1);</p><p>gets it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additions just are n't so simple anymore in concurrent computing .
The obvious way to do addition in gcc c would be : totalVotes [ candidate ] + + ; but this will totally screw up the vote count , whereas \ _ \ _sync \ _add \ _and \ _fetch ( &amp;totalVotes [ candidate ] , 1 ) ; gets it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additions just aren't so simple anymore in concurrent computing.
The obvious way to do addition in gcc c would be:totalVotes[candidate]++;but this will totally screw up the vote count, whereas\_\_sync\_add\_and\_fetch(&amp;totalVotes[candidate], 1);gets it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251547</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... each vote for Bush also resulted in a vote for Gore?</p><p>Never forget your <tt>break</tt>s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... each vote for Bush also resulted in a vote for Gore ? Never forget your breaks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... each vote for Bush also resulted in a vote for Gore?Never forget your breaks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251425</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded insightful and not funny?</p><p>Gore is getting all of his votes + all of Bushes votes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded insightful and not funny ? Gore is getting all of his votes + all of Bushes votes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded insightful and not funny?Gore is getting all of his votes + all of Bushes votes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253417</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>wfstanle</author>
	<datestamp>1244487480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is why is there a need for parallel processing?  This is a voting machine, even a simple single core processor without any threads should be sufficient.  As a matter of fact, I would try to make the software as simple as possible.  When it is short and simple, there is less chance of hidden bugs or for a malicious programmer to hide something in the code.  Also, any obfuscated code should not be allowed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is why is there a need for parallel processing ?
This is a voting machine , even a simple single core processor without any threads should be sufficient .
As a matter of fact , I would try to make the software as simple as possible .
When it is short and simple , there is less chance of hidden bugs or for a malicious programmer to hide something in the code .
Also , any obfuscated code should not be allowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is why is there a need for parallel processing?
This is a voting machine, even a simple single core processor without any threads should be sufficient.
As a matter of fact, I would try to make the software as simple as possible.
When it is short and simple, there is less chance of hidden bugs or for a malicious programmer to hide something in the code.
Also, any obfuscated code should not be allowed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251851</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1244480220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahhh!

That explains The Governator! South Dakota must be following the example of California.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh !
That explains The Governator !
South Dakota must be following the example of California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh!
That explains The Governator!
South Dakota must be following the example of California.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250973</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1244475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm as puzzled as you are on why its doing simple addition wrong, I can understand why you would want a computer to do the math though, as it should be more error-proof than humans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm as puzzled as you are on why its doing simple addition wrong , I can understand why you would want a computer to do the math though , as it should be more error-proof than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm as puzzled as you are on why its doing simple addition wrong, I can understand why you would want a computer to do the math though, as it should be more error-proof than humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251405</id>
	<title>We do not need electronic voting machines</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1244477940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one yet has provided me a compelling argument for why we need to use electronic voting.</p><p>It seems to be simply a combination of techno-fetish with an illogical push toward "the new thing" which someone has sold as "better".</p><p>Yes, it is hard to conduct an election.  Making machines do the counting would reduce the human effort, but the cost way is too high.  While I was open to the concept initially, the graft and fraud uncovered leaves me with no confidence any longer that the machines in an election booth will enable a fair election, and thus, a just political system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one yet has provided me a compelling argument for why we need to use electronic voting.It seems to be simply a combination of techno-fetish with an illogical push toward " the new thing " which someone has sold as " better " .Yes , it is hard to conduct an election .
Making machines do the counting would reduce the human effort , but the cost way is too high .
While I was open to the concept initially , the graft and fraud uncovered leaves me with no confidence any longer that the machines in an election booth will enable a fair election , and thus , a just political system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one yet has provided me a compelling argument for why we need to use electronic voting.It seems to be simply a combination of techno-fetish with an illogical push toward "the new thing" which someone has sold as "better".Yes, it is hard to conduct an election.
Making machines do the counting would reduce the human effort, but the cost way is too high.
While I was open to the concept initially, the graft and fraud uncovered leaves me with no confidence any longer that the machines in an election booth will enable a fair election, and thus, a just political system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251291</id>
	<title>In related news...</title>
	<author>Xiver</author>
	<datestamp>1244477340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In related news its apparently very easy to convince the media that programming voting machines is hard.  I seriously doubt this was an accident.  Independent testing should have flushed this bug out very early.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news its apparently very easy to convince the media that programming voting machines is hard .
I seriously doubt this was an accident .
Independent testing should have flushed this bug out very early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news its apparently very easy to convince the media that programming voting machines is hard.
I seriously doubt this was an accident.
Independent testing should have flushed this bug out very early.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254891</id>
	<title>Unity vote tabulation software</title>
	<author>defective\_warthog</author>
	<datestamp>1244493540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eldavojohn please know that the AutoMark is a ballot marking device. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tabulating vote totals. Most likely this was a problem with the way the ES&amp;S Unity software was configured. </p><p>That software (ES&amp;S Unity) is what needs to have it's source code closely examined. From personal experience I can say that this software can be configured to count a given precincts votes multiple times. Imho this jurisdiction needs to improve some of its basic procedures; adding the total votes cast on each optical scan machine would have revealed the error by the vote tabulation software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn please know that the AutoMark is a ballot marking device .
It has nothing whatsoever to do with tabulating vote totals .
Most likely this was a problem with the way the ES&amp;S Unity software was configured .
That software ( ES&amp;S Unity ) is what needs to have it 's source code closely examined .
From personal experience I can say that this software can be configured to count a given precincts votes multiple times .
Imho this jurisdiction needs to improve some of its basic procedures ; adding the total votes cast on each optical scan machine would have revealed the error by the vote tabulation software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn please know that the AutoMark is a ballot marking device.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with tabulating vote totals.
Most likely this was a problem with the way the ES&amp;S Unity software was configured.
That software (ES&amp;S Unity) is what needs to have it's source code closely examined.
From personal experience I can say that this software can be configured to count a given precincts votes multiple times.
Imho this jurisdiction needs to improve some of its basic procedures; adding the total votes cast on each optical scan machine would have revealed the error by the vote tabulation software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251317</id>
	<title>Paper Trail</title>
	<author>WarwickRyan</author>
	<datestamp>1244477520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case quite clearly highlights all the advantages of an paper trail.</p><p>Dispite a the software part of the IT system, we're capable of finding the true result of the election because we've still got the paper votes.</p><p>Result: the voting system works.</p><p>Compare and contract this to an system which didn't have paper ballots.  It would be almost impossible to even see if there was a problem, let alone be able recover from it.  You could possibly see that the numbers were wrong if they'd taken an register of who'd voted, or if they'd counted the number of voters manually.  However there'd have been no fallback.  No way to recover the votes.</p><p>So yeah, this case is an <strong>fantastic</strong> advert for electronic voting systems which have an paper trail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case quite clearly highlights all the advantages of an paper trail.Dispite a the software part of the IT system , we 're capable of finding the true result of the election because we 've still got the paper votes.Result : the voting system works.Compare and contract this to an system which did n't have paper ballots .
It would be almost impossible to even see if there was a problem , let alone be able recover from it .
You could possibly see that the numbers were wrong if they 'd taken an register of who 'd voted , or if they 'd counted the number of voters manually .
However there 'd have been no fallback .
No way to recover the votes.So yeah , this case is an fantastic advert for electronic voting systems which have an paper trail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case quite clearly highlights all the advantages of an paper trail.Dispite a the software part of the IT system, we're capable of finding the true result of the election because we've still got the paper votes.Result: the voting system works.Compare and contract this to an system which didn't have paper ballots.
It would be almost impossible to even see if there was a problem, let alone be able recover from it.
You could possibly see that the numbers were wrong if they'd taken an register of who'd voted, or if they'd counted the number of voters manually.
However there'd have been no fallback.
No way to recover the votes.So yeah, this case is an fantastic advert for electronic voting systems which have an paper trail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252729</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you meant to have Gore first, then Bush...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you meant to have Gore first , then Bush.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you meant to have Gore first, then Bush...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251069</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>RenHoek</author>
	<datestamp>1244476320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there's the</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; candidate[x]++;</p><p>that should be going on inside..</p><p>Other then then, no math..</p><p>Seems somebody is not following the K.I.S.S. method..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's the     candidate [ x ] + + ; that should be going on inside..Other then then , no math..Seems somebody is not following the K.I.S.S .
method. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's the
    candidate[x]++;that should be going on inside..Other then then, no math..Seems somebody is not following the K.I.S.S.
method..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251667</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ob-SImpsons</p><p>"Math is hard! Let's go shopping."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ob-SImpsons " Math is hard !
Let 's go shopping .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ob-SImpsons"Math is hard!
Let's go shopping.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253641</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244488620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure that this is the joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure that this is the joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure that this is the joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251845</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1244480220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right.  Ask a computer to count 1 million records and stop exactly on the millionth, and then ask a person to count 1 million cards and stop on the millionth.  If you had to bet your life on it, who would you think would be more precise?  Obviously computers have value.
</p><p>On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in the idea that the source code should be available for review to make sure there are no weird bugs that could multiply votes, and there should be a paper trail so that the computer can be checked for voter fraud.  Computers are more efficient, but not only are they more efficient at doing the right thing, and they're more efficient at doing the wrong thing.  If the code tells them to count votes incorrectly (whether it's fraud or an inadvertent bug) they will very efficiently count the votes incorrectly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Ask a computer to count 1 million records and stop exactly on the millionth , and then ask a person to count 1 million cards and stop on the millionth .
If you had to bet your life on it , who would you think would be more precise ?
Obviously computers have value .
On the other hand , I 'm a firm believer in the idea that the source code should be available for review to make sure there are no weird bugs that could multiply votes , and there should be a paper trail so that the computer can be checked for voter fraud .
Computers are more efficient , but not only are they more efficient at doing the right thing , and they 're more efficient at doing the wrong thing .
If the code tells them to count votes incorrectly ( whether it 's fraud or an inadvertent bug ) they will very efficiently count the votes incorrectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Ask a computer to count 1 million records and stop exactly on the millionth, and then ask a person to count 1 million cards and stop on the millionth.
If you had to bet your life on it, who would you think would be more precise?
Obviously computers have value.
On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in the idea that the source code should be available for review to make sure there are no weird bugs that could multiply votes, and there should be a paper trail so that the computer can be checked for voter fraud.
Computers are more efficient, but not only are they more efficient at doing the right thing, and they're more efficient at doing the wrong thing.
If the code tells them to count votes incorrectly (whether it's fraud or an inadvertent bug) they will very efficiently count the votes incorrectly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256899</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>man\_the\_king</author>
	<datestamp>1244456760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So... business as usual?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... business as usual ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... business as usual?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253659</id>
	<title>Hold them responsable</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1244488620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As part of the agreement for purchasing the voting machines, add a clause that subtracts $1.00 for each vote miscalculated.<br>This should make the voting machine creators be much more careful about the software they supply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As part of the agreement for purchasing the voting machines , add a clause that subtracts $ 1.00 for each vote miscalculated.This should make the voting machine creators be much more careful about the software they supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As part of the agreement for purchasing the voting machines, add a clause that subtracts $1.00 for each vote miscalculated.This should make the voting machine creators be much more careful about the software they supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252037</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>default:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cout &gt;&gt; "What are you doing?!?!?!?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>default :                 cout &gt; &gt; " What are you doing ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>default:
                cout &gt;&gt; "What are you doing?!?!?!?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256751</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whoosh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whoosh .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whoosh ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251351</id>
	<title>Here's to hoping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is hoping the right response? I want source code period. Imagine a person coming into town and saying tell me your vote and Ill make sure it gets passed on. If the code is hidden there is no difference. You have no idea what the stranger will do with your vote, forget it, throw it out, change it to Paultard. Or maybe the code is remembering who voted for who. Or maybe... We have no idea, because we cant see the code!!!

How does a nation that sent boys into bullets to protect Democracy let it be taken away so easily. We have seen massive voter suppression tactics by the Republicans, they and their media ilk have opined in various locations that voters are stupid and always vote wrong, they have a vested interest in stopping voting. Hello.

Yes yes I know Democrats do it too, hehee, thats why you should support efforts to weed out nefarious Democrat tricks,. (Why are the graves in New Orleans always above ground? Its not the water table its easier for the dead to vote)

Yeah  "hope we get democracy again real soon."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is hoping the right response ?
I want source code period .
Imagine a person coming into town and saying tell me your vote and Ill make sure it gets passed on .
If the code is hidden there is no difference .
You have no idea what the stranger will do with your vote , forget it , throw it out , change it to Paultard .
Or maybe the code is remembering who voted for who .
Or maybe... We have no idea , because we cant see the code ! ! !
How does a nation that sent boys into bullets to protect Democracy let it be taken away so easily .
We have seen massive voter suppression tactics by the Republicans , they and their media ilk have opined in various locations that voters are stupid and always vote wrong , they have a vested interest in stopping voting .
Hello . Yes yes I know Democrats do it too , hehee , thats why you should support efforts to weed out nefarious Democrat tricks, .
( Why are the graves in New Orleans always above ground ?
Its not the water table its easier for the dead to vote ) Yeah " hope we get democracy again real soon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is hoping the right response?
I want source code period.
Imagine a person coming into town and saying tell me your vote and Ill make sure it gets passed on.
If the code is hidden there is no difference.
You have no idea what the stranger will do with your vote, forget it, throw it out, change it to Paultard.
Or maybe the code is remembering who voted for who.
Or maybe... We have no idea, because we cant see the code!!!
How does a nation that sent boys into bullets to protect Democracy let it be taken away so easily.
We have seen massive voter suppression tactics by the Republicans, they and their media ilk have opined in various locations that voters are stupid and always vote wrong, they have a vested interest in stopping voting.
Hello.

Yes yes I know Democrats do it too, hehee, thats why you should support efforts to weed out nefarious Democrat tricks,.
(Why are the graves in New Orleans always above ground?
Its not the water table its easier for the dead to vote)

Yeah  "hope we get democracy again real soon.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251423</id>
	<title>Biometrics did not match</title>
	<author>bbhack</author>
	<datestamp>1244478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's hope the real reason this was found was that the voting machine's captured biometrics did not match anyone in the FBI's databases. The fingerprints, face and iris scans came up blank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope the real reason this was found was that the voting machine 's captured biometrics did not match anyone in the FBI 's databases .
The fingerprints , face and iris scans came up blank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope the real reason this was found was that the voting machine's captured biometrics did not match anyone in the FBI's databases.
The fingerprints, face and iris scans came up blank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28263767</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>MoogMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244551980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real kicker is that GEORGE\_BUSH == AL\_GORE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real kicker is that GEORGE \ _BUSH = = AL \ _GORE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real kicker is that GEORGE\_BUSH == AL\_GORE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256087</id>
	<title>How hard...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244453940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How fucking hard could counting votes be?!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How fucking hard could counting votes be ? ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fucking hard could counting votes be?!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251471</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously...</p><p>How hard is</p><p>If "A"<br>A = A + 1<br>elseif "B"<br>B = B + 1<br>elseif "C"<br>C = C + 1<br>endif</p><p>???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously...How hard isIf " A " A = A + 1elseif " B " B = B + 1elseif " C " C = C + 1endif ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously...How hard isIf "A"A = A + 1elseif "B"B = B + 1elseif "C"C = C + 1endif??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251699</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm... I fail to see how this is insightful rather then +5 funny. Switch the two cases and then I would understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... I fail to see how this is insightful rather then + 5 funny .
Switch the two cases and then I would understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... I fail to see how this is insightful rather then +5 funny.
Switch the two cases and then I would understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28255163</id>
	<title>Re:Pseudocode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244494500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens when the user selects the wrong candidate (they have "fat fingers", shaky hands, or whatever)?  They know very well who they wanted to pick but the touch screen just didn't work right.</p><p>Of course the user of a voting machine which used that algorithm wouldn't know who they accidentally voted for because there is no "print 'You voted for <i>candidate</i>'" line.  It would be awfully nice to know which button the voting machine thinks I pressed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when the user selects the wrong candidate ( they have " fat fingers " , shaky hands , or whatever ) ?
They know very well who they wanted to pick but the touch screen just did n't work right.Of course the user of a voting machine which used that algorithm would n't know who they accidentally voted for because there is no " print 'You voted for candidate ' " line .
It would be awfully nice to know which button the voting machine thinks I pressed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when the user selects the wrong candidate (they have "fat fingers", shaky hands, or whatever)?
They know very well who they wanted to pick but the touch screen just didn't work right.Of course the user of a voting machine which used that algorithm wouldn't know who they accidentally voted for because there is no "print 'You voted for candidate'" line.
It would be awfully nice to know which button the voting machine thinks I pressed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251539</id>
	<title>ballot browser</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1244478480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a very simple, comparatively low-tech fix for broken elections that involve paper ballots.</p><p>As we do in Humboldt County, CA, run all ballots through an off-the-shelf scanner and run an independent count with independent, open source software.  Ballot Browser (open source, Python, GPL from me)  is available for tweaking and the basics are explained in April's Python Magazine.  Or, it's really not that difficult to write your own bubble-reading software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a very simple , comparatively low-tech fix for broken elections that involve paper ballots.As we do in Humboldt County , CA , run all ballots through an off-the-shelf scanner and run an independent count with independent , open source software .
Ballot Browser ( open source , Python , GPL from me ) is available for tweaking and the basics are explained in April 's Python Magazine .
Or , it 's really not that difficult to write your own bubble-reading software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a very simple, comparatively low-tech fix for broken elections that involve paper ballots.As we do in Humboldt County, CA, run all ballots through an off-the-shelf scanner and run an independent count with independent, open source software.
Ballot Browser (open source, Python, GPL from me)  is available for tweaking and the basics are explained in April's Python Magazine.
Or, it's really not that difficult to write your own bubble-reading software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251853</id>
	<title>Why it is not just a factor of 2</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1244480280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people's vote is double counted. For others, only 0.2 extra votes were added. (0.6 original vote and another 0.6 double counted vote). Looks like they followed the constitution a little too strictly and counted *some* people as only 3/5 people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people 's vote is double counted .
For others , only 0.2 extra votes were added .
( 0.6 original vote and another 0.6 double counted vote ) .
Looks like they followed the constitution a little too strictly and counted * some * people as only 3/5 people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people's vote is double counted.
For others, only 0.2 extra votes were added.
(0.6 original vote and another 0.6 double counted vote).
Looks like they followed the constitution a little too strictly and counted *some* people as only 3/5 people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt><br><br>void vote(int candidate)<br>{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;switch (candidate)<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; case GEORGE\_BUSH:<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;totalVotes[GEORGE\_BUSH] ++;<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; case AL\_GORE:<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;totalVotes[AL\_GORE] ++;<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;break;<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;}<br>}<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>void vote ( int candidate ) {     switch ( candidate )     {       case GEORGE \ _BUSH :           totalVotes [ GEORGE \ _BUSH ] + + ;       case AL \ _GORE :           totalVotes [ AL \ _GORE ] + + ;           break ;     } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>void vote(int candidate){   switch (candidate)   {      case GEORGE\_BUSH:         totalVotes[GEORGE\_BUSH] ++;      case AL\_GORE:         totalVotes[AL\_GORE] ++;         break;   }}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251315</id>
	<title>my observation</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1244477460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that companies that make ATMs for systems that track things down to the penny are unable to track much smaller numbers with errors of plus or minus THOUSANDS.</p><p>Maybe we should just start voting at ATMs?</p><p>Oh wait, that's what the lobbyists do already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that companies that make ATMs for systems that track things down to the penny are unable to track much smaller numbers with errors of plus or minus THOUSANDS.Maybe we should just start voting at ATMs ? Oh wait , that 's what the lobbyists do already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that companies that make ATMs for systems that track things down to the penny are unable to track much smaller numbers with errors of plus or minus THOUSANDS.Maybe we should just start voting at ATMs?Oh wait, that's what the lobbyists do already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251157</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1244476740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The obvious way to do addition in gcc c would be:</p><p>totalVotes[candidate]++;</p><p>but this will totally screw up the vote count.</p></div><p>Why will it screw up? A bug? <tt>gcc</tt> trying to force good coding practices? Ignorant minds want to know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious way to do addition in gcc c would be : totalVotes [ candidate ] + + ; but this will totally screw up the vote count.Why will it screw up ?
A bug ?
gcc trying to force good coding practices ?
Ignorant minds want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious way to do addition in gcc c would be:totalVotes[candidate]++;but this will totally screw up the vote count.Why will it screw up?
A bug?
gcc trying to force good coding practices?
Ignorant minds want to know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252811</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not who votes which counts, it's who counts the votes... (Stalin)</p><p>There is a solution to ALL election fraud - the Robinson Method.<br>Read about it here:</p><p>http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1</p><p>Instant results. No fraud. Huge savings in money and time. Ballot boxes in public view at ALL times, from the beginning of the election when they are empty, to the end of the election, when the winner will be clearly visible to all, the minute the final vote has been cast!</p><p>Yet another day and another vote fraud story. Surely you can come up with a method that works? The Robinson Method works and is fraud proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not who votes which counts , it 's who counts the votes... ( Stalin ) There is a solution to ALL election fraud - the Robinson Method.Read about it here : http : //paul-robinson.us/index.php ? blog = 5&amp;title = the \ _robinson \ _method \ _a \ _really \ _simple \ _way \ _&amp;more = 1&amp;c = 1&amp;tb = 1&amp;pb = 1Instant results .
No fraud .
Huge savings in money and time .
Ballot boxes in public view at ALL times , from the beginning of the election when they are empty , to the end of the election , when the winner will be clearly visible to all , the minute the final vote has been cast ! Yet another day and another vote fraud story .
Surely you can come up with a method that works ?
The Robinson Method works and is fraud proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not who votes which counts, it's who counts the votes... (Stalin)There is a solution to ALL election fraud - the Robinson Method.Read about it here:http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1Instant results.
No fraud.
Huge savings in money and time.
Ballot boxes in public view at ALL times, from the beginning of the election when they are empty, to the end of the election, when the winner will be clearly visible to all, the minute the final vote has been cast!Yet another day and another vote fraud story.
Surely you can come up with a method that works?
The Robinson Method works and is fraud proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252755</id>
	<title>This Shit Again</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244484060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PAPER FUCKING VOTES<br>HAND FUCKING COUNTS<br>FUCK!</p><p>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.  THAT'S BECAUSE I'M YELLING!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PAPER FUCKING VOTESHAND FUCKING COUNTSFUCK ! Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING .
THAT 'S BECAUSE I 'M YELLING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PAPER FUCKING VOTESHAND FUCKING COUNTSFUCK!Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.
THAT'S BECAUSE I'M YELLING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253437</id>
	<title>Robotically Elected Democratic Overloads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't that be "our robotically elected democratic overloads?"  Either way I welcome them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't that be " our robotically elected democratic overloads ?
" Either way I welcome them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't that be "our robotically elected democratic overloads?
"  Either way I welcome them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253865</id>
	<title>That's not a glitch!</title>
	<author>monkeyboythom</author>
	<datestamp>1244489400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a feature! And I paid a pretty penny for that feature. Uh, hmmm...nevermind! Just ignore what I just said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a feature !
And I paid a pretty penny for that feature .
Uh , hmmm...nevermind !
Just ignore what I just said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a feature!
And I paid a pretty penny for that feature.
Uh, hmmm...nevermind!
Just ignore what I just said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251735</id>
	<title>I'm missing something.</title>
	<author>dAzED1</author>
	<datestamp>1244479620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, being serious here.  I'm an eng for a software development company.  Security is a very aspect of our software; we store patient records for DoD hospitals.</p><p>I'm honestly scratching my head here, completely confused as to how anyone...<i>anyone</i>...could take a concept as overwhelmingly farking simple as COUNTING and screw it up.  Seriously.  I'm pretty sure I could have a reliable, bug-free (oh yes, I made that claim), fully auditable system created in a few days.  I really, really don't understand why the hell this whole concept is getting so incredibly overblown.  At this point, I almost have to be sceptical that when "bugs" are reported in the machines of a funded commercial entity (diebold, etc) that they <i>have</i> to have been intentional for some reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , being serious here .
I 'm an eng for a software development company .
Security is a very aspect of our software ; we store patient records for DoD hospitals.I 'm honestly scratching my head here , completely confused as to how anyone...anyone...could take a concept as overwhelmingly farking simple as COUNTING and screw it up .
Seriously. I 'm pretty sure I could have a reliable , bug-free ( oh yes , I made that claim ) , fully auditable system created in a few days .
I really , really do n't understand why the hell this whole concept is getting so incredibly overblown .
At this point , I almost have to be sceptical that when " bugs " are reported in the machines of a funded commercial entity ( diebold , etc ) that they have to have been intentional for some reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, being serious here.
I'm an eng for a software development company.
Security is a very aspect of our software; we store patient records for DoD hospitals.I'm honestly scratching my head here, completely confused as to how anyone...anyone...could take a concept as overwhelmingly farking simple as COUNTING and screw it up.
Seriously.  I'm pretty sure I could have a reliable, bug-free (oh yes, I made that claim), fully auditable system created in a few days.
I really, really don't understand why the hell this whole concept is getting so incredibly overblown.
At this point, I almost have to be sceptical that when "bugs" are reported in the machines of a funded commercial entity (diebold, etc) that they have to have been intentional for some reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251651</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on, people. How hard can it be for a machine to count stuff? Am I missing something?
<br> <br>
foreach category {
<br>
candidates[] clist = getSelectedCandidates();<br>
if not onecandidateselected() then continue;<br>
foreach candidate {<br>
numvotes(candidate) += 1<br>
}<br>
}</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , people .
How hard can it be for a machine to count stuff ?
Am I missing something ?
foreach category { candidates [ ] clist = getSelectedCandidates ( ) ; if not onecandidateselected ( ) then continue ; foreach candidate { numvotes ( candidate ) + = 1 } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, people.
How hard can it be for a machine to count stuff?
Am I missing something?
foreach category {

candidates[] clist = getSelectedCandidates();
if not onecandidateselected() then continue;
foreach candidate {
numvotes(candidate) += 1
}
}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254625</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1244492640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never been able to figure this out myself.</p><p>I'm a software developer. I've worked on software ranging from extremely simple to extremely complex. It seems to me that this kind of software would fall under the "extremely simple" category. In fact, I'd say the entire business logic of the application should look something like this:</p><p> <tt>votes[selection] ++;</tt> </p><p>How, exactly, do you fuck that up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been able to figure this out myself.I 'm a software developer .
I 've worked on software ranging from extremely simple to extremely complex .
It seems to me that this kind of software would fall under the " extremely simple " category .
In fact , I 'd say the entire business logic of the application should look something like this : votes [ selection ] + + ; How , exactly , do you fuck that up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been able to figure this out myself.I'm a software developer.
I've worked on software ranging from extremely simple to extremely complex.
It seems to me that this kind of software would fall under the "extremely simple" category.
In fact, I'd say the entire business logic of the application should look something like this: votes[selection] ++; How, exactly, do you fuck that up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253361</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1244487180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, software CAN glitch, due to memory corruption from cosmic rays and such. But more often the problem is in the programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , software CAN glitch , due to memory corruption from cosmic rays and such .
But more often the problem is in the programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, software CAN glitch, due to memory corruption from cosmic rays and such.
But more often the problem is in the programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253107</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1244485680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The answer of course is because I have no friends.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/hug Cixelsiduous</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer of course is because I have no friends .
/hug Cixelsiduous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer of course is because I have no friends.
/hug Cixelsiduous
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253515</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244488020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously...</p><p>How hard is</p><p>If "A"
A = A + 1
elseif "B"
B = B + 1
elseif "C"
C = C + 1
endif</p><p>???</p></div><p>I can see you've never read <a href="http://thedailywtf.com/" title="thedailywtf.com" rel="nofollow">http://thedailywtf.com/</a> [thedailywtf.com] For some so-called programmers, it's <i>impossible</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously...How hard isIf " A " A = A + 1 elseif " B " B = B + 1 elseif " C " C = C + 1 endif ? ?
? I can see you 've never read http : //thedailywtf.com/ [ thedailywtf.com ] For some so-called programmers , it 's impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously...How hard isIf "A"
A = A + 1
elseif "B"
B = B + 1
elseif "C"
C = C + 1
endif??
?I can see you've never read http://thedailywtf.com/ [thedailywtf.com] For some so-called programmers, it's impossible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251763</id>
	<title>Its not about avoiding bugs</title>
	<author>joekrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1244479800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The important issue is not to create bug-free software. It is about designing redundancy and validation that avoids both software bugs and fraudulent data tampering. Before you leave the voting booth, your data should be transmitted to multiple locations, and you should be able to later<br>validate that your individual vote is correctly in the system with some form of hash or validation code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The important issue is not to create bug-free software .
It is about designing redundancy and validation that avoids both software bugs and fraudulent data tampering .
Before you leave the voting booth , your data should be transmitted to multiple locations , and you should be able to latervalidate that your individual vote is correctly in the system with some form of hash or validation code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important issue is not to create bug-free software.
It is about designing redundancy and validation that avoids both software bugs and fraudulent data tampering.
Before you leave the voting booth, your data should be transmitted to multiple locations, and you should be able to latervalidate that your individual vote is correctly in the system with some form of hash or validation code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251609</id>
	<title>Re:my observation</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1244478840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, if there's a screwup like that at an ATM, I'm pretty sure the bank sends a few guys around to those responsible to have a "chat" with a sockfull of quarters and maybe a power drill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , if there 's a screwup like that at an ATM , I 'm pretty sure the bank sends a few guys around to those responsible to have a " chat " with a sockfull of quarters and maybe a power drill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, if there's a screwup like that at an ATM, I'm pretty sure the bank sends a few guys around to those responsible to have a "chat" with a sockfull of quarters and maybe a power drill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251241</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That works fine in c#<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That works fine in c # : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That works fine in c# :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>eh...your first case statement is missing a break. As it currently stands, a vote for GEORGE\_BUSH also adds a vote for AL\_GORE.

I dunno maybe you left it out on purpose to make a point? I guess the bigger question is: why do I care? The answer of course is because I have no friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eh...your first case statement is missing a break .
As it currently stands , a vote for GEORGE \ _BUSH also adds a vote for AL \ _GORE .
I dunno maybe you left it out on purpose to make a point ?
I guess the bigger question is : why do I care ?
The answer of course is because I have no friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eh...your first case statement is missing a break.
As it currently stands, a vote for GEORGE\_BUSH also adds a vote for AL\_GORE.
I dunno maybe you left it out on purpose to make a point?
I guess the bigger question is: why do I care?
The answer of course is because I have no friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251493</id>
	<title>This is why it's hard...</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1244478360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you forgot the first two lines:<br> <br>
<tt>
const int GEORGE\_BUSH=1;<br>
const int AL\_GORE=GEORGE\_BUSH;
</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forgot the first two lines : const int GEORGE \ _BUSH = 1 ; const int AL \ _GORE = GEORGE \ _BUSH ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forgot the first two lines: 

const int GEORGE\_BUSH=1;
const int AL\_GORE=GEORGE\_BUSH;
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256825</id>
	<title>Voting with Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244456400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The financial networks that route our money between various accounts is entrusted with billions of dollars daily.  Why not use it to make a secure voting platform?</p><p>For example, when a person visits a polling booth and signs in, they get a random debit card loaded with one dollar (to protect privacy).  To vote, they transfer that dollar to the bank account of one of the candidates.  At the end of the day, which ever candidate has the most money in their account wins.  Simple, easy, and built upon a known system.</p><p>Of course, real dollars shouldn't be used.  A fake currency would be needed, and that currency can't be bought and sold like other currencies, but the rest can piggy-back on the electronic monetary system already in place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The financial networks that route our money between various accounts is entrusted with billions of dollars daily .
Why not use it to make a secure voting platform ? For example , when a person visits a polling booth and signs in , they get a random debit card loaded with one dollar ( to protect privacy ) .
To vote , they transfer that dollar to the bank account of one of the candidates .
At the end of the day , which ever candidate has the most money in their account wins .
Simple , easy , and built upon a known system.Of course , real dollars should n't be used .
A fake currency would be needed , and that currency ca n't be bought and sold like other currencies , but the rest can piggy-back on the electronic monetary system already in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The financial networks that route our money between various accounts is entrusted with billions of dollars daily.
Why not use it to make a secure voting platform?For example, when a person visits a polling booth and signs in, they get a random debit card loaded with one dollar (to protect privacy).
To vote, they transfer that dollar to the bank account of one of the candidates.
At the end of the day, which ever candidate has the most money in their account wins.
Simple, easy, and built upon a known system.Of course, real dollars shouldn't be used.
A fake currency would be needed, and that currency can't be bought and sold like other currencies, but the rest can piggy-back on the electronic monetary system already in place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251707</id>
	<title>How hard is it to Add?</title>
	<author>JohnnyGTO</author>
	<datestamp>1244479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they should replace the core of their system Open Office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should replace the core of their system Open Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should replace the core of their system Open Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251893</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fall-through<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fall-through .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fall-through ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251933</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>Fozzyuw</author>
	<datestamp>1244480760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGxdgNJ\_lZM" title="youtube.com">Obligatory Onion Video</a> [youtube.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory Onion Video [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Obligatory Onion Video [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256073</id>
	<title>Nobody's perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244453880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why we have error checking.</p><p>You need checks that provide sums of votes across different categories, and vote totals that can be cross checked against manual tallies taken by voter registration attendants.</p><p>In a perfect world you'd have two independently written software programs on two heterogenous software configurations both tally the votes, and both provide two reports to the user.</p><p>If they're not the same, somebody fucked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why we have error checking.You need checks that provide sums of votes across different categories , and vote totals that can be cross checked against manual tallies taken by voter registration attendants.In a perfect world you 'd have two independently written software programs on two heterogenous software configurations both tally the votes , and both provide two reports to the user.If they 're not the same , somebody fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why we have error checking.You need checks that provide sums of votes across different categories, and vote totals that can be cross checked against manual tallies taken by voter registration attendants.In a perfect world you'd have two independently written software programs on two heterogenous software configurations both tally the votes, and both provide two reports to the user.If they're not the same, somebody fucked up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256663</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1244455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot your constants:

<tt> <br>
const PAT\_BUCHANAN="AL\_GORE";<br>
const AL\_GORE="Ralph Nader";<br>
const GEORGE\_BUSH=null;<br>
<br>
const DB\_ACCESS\_PATH="c:\documents and settings\owner\my database.mdb";<br>
</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot your constants : const PAT \ _BUCHANAN = " AL \ _GORE " ; const AL \ _GORE = " Ralph Nader " ; const GEORGE \ _BUSH = null ; const DB \ _ACCESS \ _PATH = " c : \ documents and settings \ owner \ my database.mdb " ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot your constants:

 
const PAT\_BUCHANAN="AL\_GORE";
const AL\_GORE="Ralph Nader";
const GEORGE\_BUSH=null;

const DB\_ACCESS\_PATH="c:\documents and settings\owner\my database.mdb";
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252829</id>
	<title>Choice, Responsibility and Punishment</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1244484420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you make the Choice to make something closed, especially something this important, you really should be taking on the responsibility for any errors, bugs, security flaws or back-doors that end up in the software.</p><p>If you're willing to take the responsibility, than any error should be considered criminal--as in jail time for the CEO and others who made the (now obviously wrong) decision to keep the information private.</p><p>If you don't want the responsibiliy, that's totally understandable--just open the software for peer review by anyone.</p><p>I'm getting kind of tired of CEOs and politicians with no competency doing jobs they obviously don't understand, taking authority and reward without responsibility.  I realize they are hard jobs, but doesn't that make it even more important to hire someone intellictually and morally competent instead of some college drinking bud from the good ole' boy network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you make the Choice to make something closed , especially something this important , you really should be taking on the responsibility for any errors , bugs , security flaws or back-doors that end up in the software.If you 're willing to take the responsibility , than any error should be considered criminal--as in jail time for the CEO and others who made the ( now obviously wrong ) decision to keep the information private.If you do n't want the responsibiliy , that 's totally understandable--just open the software for peer review by anyone.I 'm getting kind of tired of CEOs and politicians with no competency doing jobs they obviously do n't understand , taking authority and reward without responsibility .
I realize they are hard jobs , but does n't that make it even more important to hire someone intellictually and morally competent instead of some college drinking bud from the good ole ' boy network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you make the Choice to make something closed, especially something this important, you really should be taking on the responsibility for any errors, bugs, security flaws or back-doors that end up in the software.If you're willing to take the responsibility, than any error should be considered criminal--as in jail time for the CEO and others who made the (now obviously wrong) decision to keep the information private.If you don't want the responsibiliy, that's totally understandable--just open the software for peer review by anyone.I'm getting kind of tired of CEOs and politicians with no competency doing jobs they obviously don't understand, taking authority and reward without responsibility.
I realize they are hard jobs, but doesn't that make it even more important to hire someone intellictually and morally competent instead of some college drinking bud from the good ole' boy network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252851</id>
	<title>I Bet</title>
	<author>Stoned Necromancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244484540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Bug populations are getting bigger because of the Global Warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bug populations are getting bigger because of the Global Warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bug populations are getting bigger because of the Global Warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253513</id>
	<title>Hacking Democracy anyone?</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1244488020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The documentary "Hacking Democracy" talks about bugs like this one as well as poorly written and easily exploited code used in these systems. It why one such system was banned from use in California. It is amazing how many government tools use extremely poor code not just voting machines, but breathalyzers and other vital hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The documentary " Hacking Democracy " talks about bugs like this one as well as poorly written and easily exploited code used in these systems .
It why one such system was banned from use in California .
It is amazing how many government tools use extremely poor code not just voting machines , but breathalyzers and other vital hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The documentary "Hacking Democracy" talks about bugs like this one as well as poorly written and easily exploited code used in these systems.
It why one such system was banned from use in California.
It is amazing how many government tools use extremely poor code not just voting machines, but breathalyzers and other vital hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252451</id>
	<title>Re:my observation</title>
	<author>Acer500</author>
	<datestamp>1244483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it interesting that companies that make ATMs for systems that track things down to the penny are unable to track much smaller numbers with errors of plus or minus THOUSANDS.</p></div><p>I had ATMs screw up four times in about 8 years. One of the four times, a Diebold machine refused to give me the money, gave me no receipt, just had a "failure" message on screen, but the withdrawal was somehow recorded. It was on a national holiday over here, so nobody could be reached for help, the maintainers of the ATM network refused to acknowledge the error, and instructed me to file a complaint to the bank the day after.<br> <br>The bank refused to reimburse the money, that's why I won't do business with Banco Itau again (it was BankBoston - the Uruguay branch - at the time of the ATM failure, was since purchased by Itau, along with my ill will).<br> <br>Second time (after switching banks), the transaction was "rolled back" with no more inconvenience. <br> <br>Tthe third time was on a workday and I camped at the ATM for hours until a crew arrived to repair it (both my card and the money had become stuck inside the ATM !!!).<br> <br> The fourth time the ATM refused to give me the money and recorded the withdrawal again,  I was instructed to file a complaint, and this time the bank (ABN-AMRO at the time, now Banco Santander of Spain) did refund me the money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that companies that make ATMs for systems that track things down to the penny are unable to track much smaller numbers with errors of plus or minus THOUSANDS.I had ATMs screw up four times in about 8 years .
One of the four times , a Diebold machine refused to give me the money , gave me no receipt , just had a " failure " message on screen , but the withdrawal was somehow recorded .
It was on a national holiday over here , so nobody could be reached for help , the maintainers of the ATM network refused to acknowledge the error , and instructed me to file a complaint to the bank the day after .
The bank refused to reimburse the money , that 's why I wo n't do business with Banco Itau again ( it was BankBoston - the Uruguay branch - at the time of the ATM failure , was since purchased by Itau , along with my ill will ) .
Second time ( after switching banks ) , the transaction was " rolled back " with no more inconvenience .
Tthe third time was on a workday and I camped at the ATM for hours until a crew arrived to repair it ( both my card and the money had become stuck inside the ATM ! ! ! ) .
The fourth time the ATM refused to give me the money and recorded the withdrawal again , I was instructed to file a complaint , and this time the bank ( ABN-AMRO at the time , now Banco Santander of Spain ) did refund me the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that companies that make ATMs for systems that track things down to the penny are unable to track much smaller numbers with errors of plus or minus THOUSANDS.I had ATMs screw up four times in about 8 years.
One of the four times, a Diebold machine refused to give me the money, gave me no receipt, just had a "failure" message on screen, but the withdrawal was somehow recorded.
It was on a national holiday over here, so nobody could be reached for help, the maintainers of the ATM network refused to acknowledge the error, and instructed me to file a complaint to the bank the day after.
The bank refused to reimburse the money, that's why I won't do business with Banco Itau again (it was BankBoston - the Uruguay branch - at the time of the ATM failure, was since purchased by Itau, along with my ill will).
Second time (after switching banks), the transaction was "rolled back" with no more inconvenience.
Tthe third time was on a workday and I camped at the ATM for hours until a crew arrived to repair it (both my card and the money had become stuck inside the ATM !!!).
The fourth time the ATM refused to give me the money and recorded the withdrawal again,  I was instructed to file a complaint, and this time the bank (ABN-AMRO at the time, now Banco Santander of Spain) did refund me the money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28264335</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1244556300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure (except normal "computer is broken" style failures).</p></div><p>You mean that this did not happen?
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.47.html#subj7" title="ncl.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">Cosmic ray hits Brussels election -- really?</a> [ncl.ac.uk]</li>
<li> <a href="http://www.poureva.be/article.php3?id\_article=36" title="poureva.be" rel="nofollow">Le Ministre DEWAEL reconnait la faillibilite du vote electronique grace &#195; un rayon cosmique complice !</a> [poureva.be] </li></ul><p>Do you really think the cosmic ray is a believable explanation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure ( except normal " computer is broken " style failures ) .You mean that this did not happen ?
Cosmic ray hits Brussels election -- really ?
[ ncl.ac.uk ] Le Ministre DEWAEL reconnait la faillibilite du vote electronique grace   un rayon cosmique complice !
[ poureva.be ] Do you really think the cosmic ray is a believable explanation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure (except normal "computer is broken" style failures).You mean that this did not happen?
Cosmic ray hits Brussels election -- really?
[ncl.ac.uk]
 Le Ministre DEWAEL reconnait la faillibilite du vote electronique grace Ã un rayon cosmique complice !
[poureva.be] Do you really think the cosmic ray is a believable explanation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865</id>
	<title>How hard is it for a computer to do addition?</title>
	<author>pieterh</author>
	<datestamp>1244475240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is a voting system doing any kind of math at all?  I voted yesterday in Belgium on a computer that puts my vote onto a card, which is then tallied separately.  This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure (except normal "computer is broken" style failures).</p><p>How can a computer "add phantom ballots"?  Software does not just "glitch", it breaks in ways that depend entirely on how it was built.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is a voting system doing any kind of math at all ?
I voted yesterday in Belgium on a computer that puts my vote onto a card , which is then tallied separately .
This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure ( except normal " computer is broken " style failures ) .How can a computer " add phantom ballots " ?
Software does not just " glitch " , it breaks in ways that depend entirely on how it was built .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is a voting system doing any kind of math at all?
I voted yesterday in Belgium on a computer that puts my vote onto a card, which is then tallied separately.
This same system has been working since at least 1995 with zero reports of fraud or failure (except normal "computer is broken" style failures).How can a computer "add phantom ballots"?
Software does not just "glitch", it breaks in ways that depend entirely on how it was built.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250977</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>OeLeWaPpErKe</author>
	<datestamp>1244475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 bug, 1 vote !</p><p>fight for you rights !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 bug , 1 vote ! fight for you rights !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 bug, 1 vote !fight for you rights !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251499</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh...</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1244478360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take it you've never really taken a good hard look at the crop of politicians currently in office. The 'droids have been running the show for quite some time now....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it you 've never really taken a good hard look at the crop of politicians currently in office .
The 'droids have been running the show for quite some time now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it you've never really taken a good hard look at the crop of politicians currently in office.
The 'droids have been running the show for quite some time now....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28255711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28264335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28255163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28257535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28263767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_08_1311240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253437
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28255163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_08_1311240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28250973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28255711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28264335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252729
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28254807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251467
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253107
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28263767
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28256751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28253361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28257535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28251903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_08_1311240.28252773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
