<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_2236252</id>
	<title>Open Source Voting Software Concept Released</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256306460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>filesiteguy writes <i>"Wired is reporting that the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation has announced the first release of <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/open-source">Linux- and Ruby-based election management software</a>. This software should compete in the same realm as Election Systems &amp; Software, as well as Diebold/Premiere for use by County registrars. Mitch Kapor &mdash; founder of Lotus 1-2-3 &mdash; and Dean Logan, Registrar for Los Angeles County, and Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, all took part in a formal announcement ceremony. The <a href="http://osdv.org/about">OSDV</a> is working with multiple jurisdictions, activists, developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services.' The announcement was made as part of the OSDV <a href="http://www.trustthevote.org/">Trust the Vote</a> project, where open source tools are to be used to create a certifiable and sustainable open source voting system."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>filesiteguy writes " Wired is reporting that the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation has announced the first release of Linux- and Ruby-based election management software .
This software should compete in the same realm as Election Systems &amp; Software , as well as Diebold/Premiere for use by County registrars .
Mitch Kapor    founder of Lotus 1-2-3    and Dean Logan , Registrar for Los Angeles County , and Debra Bowen , California Secretary of State , all took part in a formal announcement ceremony .
The OSDV is working with multiple jurisdictions , activists , developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy ' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services .
' The announcement was made as part of the OSDV Trust the Vote project , where open source tools are to be used to create a certifiable and sustainable open source voting system .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>filesiteguy writes "Wired is reporting that the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation has announced the first release of Linux- and Ruby-based election management software.
This software should compete in the same realm as Election Systems &amp; Software, as well as Diebold/Premiere for use by County registrars.
Mitch Kapor — founder of Lotus 1-2-3 — and Dean Logan, Registrar for Los Angeles County, and Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, all took part in a formal announcement ceremony.
The OSDV is working with multiple jurisdictions, activists, developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services.
' The announcement was made as part of the OSDV Trust the Vote project, where open source tools are to be used to create a certifiable and sustainable open source voting system.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</id>
	<title>Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256310720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, programmers thinking software will change the world.</p><p>Elections are not based on trust of software, it is based on trust of the PROCESS.</p><p>Don't trust the PROCESS, and it doesn't matter how trustworthy your software is.</p><p>I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY. A "Bug" in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence, or pays for the cost of a reelection.</p><p>Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot. A simple "X" inside a circle. Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc. Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.</p><p>Software can solve a lot of problems, trust is not one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , programmers thinking software will change the world.Elections are not based on trust of software , it is based on trust of the PROCESS.Do n't trust the PROCESS , and it does n't matter how trustworthy your software is.I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY .
A " Bug " in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence , or pays for the cost of a reelection.Here in the great white North , we have a paper ballot .
A simple " X " inside a circle .
Human verifiable , countable , no switches , electrons , software , etc .
Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.Software can solve a lot of problems , trust is not one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, programmers thinking software will change the world.Elections are not based on trust of software, it is based on trust of the PROCESS.Don't trust the PROCESS, and it doesn't matter how trustworthy your software is.I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY.
A "Bug" in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence, or pays for the cost of a reelection.Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot.
A simple "X" inside a circle.
Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc.
Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.Software can solve a lot of problems, trust is not one of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854959</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1256377140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PROCESS doesn't matter if the HARDWARE has been specially crafted at the doping level.  How many of you in the OSV are checking the hardware with an electron microscope? None.  I rest my case, Open Source Electronic Voting will Never fix the problem with a broken chain of custody.</p><p>Broken Chain of Custody IS the problem.</p><p>Although, what will likely happen.. is the OSV will somehow manage to snow over officials and Debra Bowen. You'll get open source to replace closed source, but the hardware will still be a problem and it will take us another 20 years to prove it and outlaw it nationally like all the rest of these electronic vote tabulation devices.</p><p>I find it very depressing that the majority of slashdot folks love the idea of open source voting but fail to waste 2 neurons on hardware security. Just cause it says a part number on a chip, doesn't mean that chip is what it says it is.</p><p>It's almost a waste of my time continuing to fight with you, but in the rare chance at least one of you smart programmers wakes up to the fact that ALL software runs on hardware, and the hardware isn't being checked at all. Frankly it can't be without destroying it under an electron microscope.</p><p>So you go ahead and push open source as your agenda, instead of outlawing these crappy broken unvalidatable insecure electronic vote tabulation devices, and enjoy the fact you can't hold your officials accountable, because you can't count your own fucking vote..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PROCESS does n't matter if the HARDWARE has been specially crafted at the doping level .
How many of you in the OSV are checking the hardware with an electron microscope ?
None. I rest my case , Open Source Electronic Voting will Never fix the problem with a broken chain of custody.Broken Chain of Custody IS the problem.Although , what will likely happen.. is the OSV will somehow manage to snow over officials and Debra Bowen .
You 'll get open source to replace closed source , but the hardware will still be a problem and it will take us another 20 years to prove it and outlaw it nationally like all the rest of these electronic vote tabulation devices.I find it very depressing that the majority of slashdot folks love the idea of open source voting but fail to waste 2 neurons on hardware security .
Just cause it says a part number on a chip , does n't mean that chip is what it says it is.It 's almost a waste of my time continuing to fight with you , but in the rare chance at least one of you smart programmers wakes up to the fact that ALL software runs on hardware , and the hardware is n't being checked at all .
Frankly it ca n't be without destroying it under an electron microscope.So you go ahead and push open source as your agenda , instead of outlawing these crappy broken unvalidatable insecure electronic vote tabulation devices , and enjoy the fact you ca n't hold your officials accountable , because you ca n't count your own fucking vote. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PROCESS doesn't matter if the HARDWARE has been specially crafted at the doping level.
How many of you in the OSV are checking the hardware with an electron microscope?
None.  I rest my case, Open Source Electronic Voting will Never fix the problem with a broken chain of custody.Broken Chain of Custody IS the problem.Although, what will likely happen.. is the OSV will somehow manage to snow over officials and Debra Bowen.
You'll get open source to replace closed source, but the hardware will still be a problem and it will take us another 20 years to prove it and outlaw it nationally like all the rest of these electronic vote tabulation devices.I find it very depressing that the majority of slashdot folks love the idea of open source voting but fail to waste 2 neurons on hardware security.
Just cause it says a part number on a chip, doesn't mean that chip is what it says it is.It's almost a waste of my time continuing to fight with you, but in the rare chance at least one of you smart programmers wakes up to the fact that ALL software runs on hardware, and the hardware isn't being checked at all.
Frankly it can't be without destroying it under an electron microscope.So you go ahead and push open source as your agenda, instead of outlawing these crappy broken unvalidatable insecure electronic vote tabulation devices, and enjoy the fact you can't hold your officials accountable, because you can't count your own fucking vote..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853771</id>
	<title>Can it run on Diebold hardware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256311140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If so it could let a lot of counties currently stuck with that PoC switch to the open source code without buying extra hardware.  Just load the free software in the existing hardware (and maybe add a printer).</p><p>The Diebold machines are essentially PCs with touchscreens so they shouldn't be a tough port for Linux and the apps.</p><p>Using the existing hardware could save a bundle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so it could let a lot of counties currently stuck with that PoC switch to the open source code without buying extra hardware .
Just load the free software in the existing hardware ( and maybe add a printer ) .The Diebold machines are essentially PCs with touchscreens so they should n't be a tough port for Linux and the apps.Using the existing hardware could save a bundle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so it could let a lot of counties currently stuck with that PoC switch to the open source code without buying extra hardware.
Just load the free software in the existing hardware (and maybe add a printer).The Diebold machines are essentially PCs with touchscreens so they shouldn't be a tough port for Linux and the apps.Using the existing hardware could save a bundle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853803</id>
	<title>Buzzword politics minefield, synergistically</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256311740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The OSDV is working with multiple jurisdictions, activists, developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services.'</p></div><p>So... ahh... good luck with that. Sounds a lot like swimming through sewerage to me, but I guess somebody has to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OSDV is working with multiple jurisdictions , activists , developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy ' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services.'So.. .
ahh... good luck with that .
Sounds a lot like swimming through sewerage to me , but I guess somebody has to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OSDV is working with multiple jurisdictions, activists, developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services.'So...
ahh... good luck with that.
Sounds a lot like swimming through sewerage to me, but I guess somebody has to do it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854331</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get...</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1256320140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really don't understand what problem electronic voting using computers is supposed to solve.</p></div><p>Handicap accessibility, ballot complexity, but mostly hanging chads.<br>The ability to almost instantly compile election results is just a bonus.</p><p>Scantron ballots are a good idea, but people are stupid &amp;/or prone to mistakes and <i>will</i> screw it up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand what problem electronic voting using computers is supposed to solve.Handicap accessibility , ballot complexity , but mostly hanging chads.The ability to almost instantly compile election results is just a bonus.Scantron ballots are a good idea , but people are stupid &amp;/or prone to mistakes and will screw it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand what problem electronic voting using computers is supposed to solve.Handicap accessibility, ballot complexity, but mostly hanging chads.The ability to almost instantly compile election results is just a bonus.Scantron ballots are a good idea, but people are stupid &amp;/or prone to mistakes and will screw it up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</id>
	<title>Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>ComputerSlicer23</author>
	<datestamp>1256314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Come back when it is not written in an interpreted language, in a language capable of driving hardware, and it has "real" functionality.  I looked quickly, and the tabulation code is virtually empty.  Both the Python and the Javascript will be non-starters and the code rejected out of hand the first time reviewed (and none of the VSTL's will have anyone capable of reviewing Python).  Java passes because of the bytecode.  Python might pass because of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pyc files.  The Javascript will be a problem.  The lack of type declarations will likely also be a problem in Python.  It will be hard to follow the documentation rules that require all of the types to be documented.
</p><p>
None of this code stands a chance of VVSG compliance (the Federal Election standards which code must pass to be certified if any Federal funds are used to purchase the hardware or software).  The list of blatantly obvious things wrong with the code base in the one file I looked in:
</p><ul>
<li>The code files does not have a valid modification history for the file.</li><li>The code does not have per function comments.</li><li>The code uses multiple returns inside of a single function.</li><li>Repeatedly use the same values without having them be assigned to a constant.</li><li>Have single variable letter names that are not used for array indexes.</li><li>Usage of numerical constants other then -1, 0, 1 without a comment explaining the value.</li><li>Not all control flows decision points are documented.</li><li>It has lines longer then 80 characters.</li></ul><p>
Or at least those are the obvious things I found in <a href="http://github.com/trustthevote/tabulator/blob/master/tabulator\_site/tabulator/views.py" title="github.com">one example file</a> [github.com] in the 2 minutes it took me to scan it quickly.  Remember, the coding guidelines are written by people who have never written a line of code, and are designed to protect against common mistakes from the mid-80s.  So the fact that the entire system is in version control is irrelevant.  Even if you give them all of the version control, you must document the changes to the code at the top of the file.  You must document the changes per function.  Even though no one would ever do it in this day and age, your code must be printable on a standard 8.5" wide paper.
</p><p>
All of the rules required to follow are obscene.  You can't have function or variable names that differ by a single letter.  It took 3-4 years to get an exception to that rule to allow the usage of "getFoo", "setFoo", because they differ by a single letter.  You can't use 0x80 to represent the MSB of a byte, if you call that PIN\_8, and had PIN\_1 those differ by a single character, so we had to do PIN\_EIGHT, PIN\_ONE.  It's just archaic.  Oh, and you get to document every function a function calls.  Because they couldn't possible use a compiler that would build a call list automatically.
</p><p>
The rules don't explicitly mention exceptions, so it depends on who is reading the code if they treat an exception as having multiple entry/exit points.  So it is generally easier to get the code past compliance without exceptions, even if it does lead to buggier code.  The other rule they invoke is that you are only allowed to use the control flow structures documented in the VVSG (they have flow charts for the allowable forms of if, if/else, for, while, and switch statements.  They specifically state that if the language you are using does not have those, you must simulate those flows of control in the language used.
</p><p>
Oh, and if LA thinks it has the hardest jurisdiction because they have 7 languages, I believe NY has at least 20-30 languages or dialects just in NYC, they have several election districts (they'd be called precincts anywhere else in the country, but in NY, the word precinct is only used for the NYPD and maybe the NYFD) that have more then 7.
</p><p>
I've written code that has been used to count ballots in both state and federal elections.  Trust me, this code base will have to be re-written from scratch to meet the 2002 or</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come back when it is not written in an interpreted language , in a language capable of driving hardware , and it has " real " functionality .
I looked quickly , and the tabulation code is virtually empty .
Both the Python and the Javascript will be non-starters and the code rejected out of hand the first time reviewed ( and none of the VSTL 's will have anyone capable of reviewing Python ) .
Java passes because of the bytecode .
Python might pass because of the .pyc files .
The Javascript will be a problem .
The lack of type declarations will likely also be a problem in Python .
It will be hard to follow the documentation rules that require all of the types to be documented .
None of this code stands a chance of VVSG compliance ( the Federal Election standards which code must pass to be certified if any Federal funds are used to purchase the hardware or software ) .
The list of blatantly obvious things wrong with the code base in the one file I looked in : The code files does not have a valid modification history for the file.The code does not have per function comments.The code uses multiple returns inside of a single function.Repeatedly use the same values without having them be assigned to a constant.Have single variable letter names that are not used for array indexes.Usage of numerical constants other then -1 , 0 , 1 without a comment explaining the value.Not all control flows decision points are documented.It has lines longer then 80 characters .
Or at least those are the obvious things I found in one example file [ github.com ] in the 2 minutes it took me to scan it quickly .
Remember , the coding guidelines are written by people who have never written a line of code , and are designed to protect against common mistakes from the mid-80s .
So the fact that the entire system is in version control is irrelevant .
Even if you give them all of the version control , you must document the changes to the code at the top of the file .
You must document the changes per function .
Even though no one would ever do it in this day and age , your code must be printable on a standard 8.5 " wide paper .
All of the rules required to follow are obscene .
You ca n't have function or variable names that differ by a single letter .
It took 3-4 years to get an exception to that rule to allow the usage of " getFoo " , " setFoo " , because they differ by a single letter .
You ca n't use 0x80 to represent the MSB of a byte , if you call that PIN \ _8 , and had PIN \ _1 those differ by a single character , so we had to do PIN \ _EIGHT , PIN \ _ONE .
It 's just archaic .
Oh , and you get to document every function a function calls .
Because they could n't possible use a compiler that would build a call list automatically .
The rules do n't explicitly mention exceptions , so it depends on who is reading the code if they treat an exception as having multiple entry/exit points .
So it is generally easier to get the code past compliance without exceptions , even if it does lead to buggier code .
The other rule they invoke is that you are only allowed to use the control flow structures documented in the VVSG ( they have flow charts for the allowable forms of if , if/else , for , while , and switch statements .
They specifically state that if the language you are using does not have those , you must simulate those flows of control in the language used .
Oh , and if LA thinks it has the hardest jurisdiction because they have 7 languages , I believe NY has at least 20-30 languages or dialects just in NYC , they have several election districts ( they 'd be called precincts anywhere else in the country , but in NY , the word precinct is only used for the NYPD and maybe the NYFD ) that have more then 7 .
I 've written code that has been used to count ballots in both state and federal elections .
Trust me , this code base will have to be re-written from scratch to meet the 2002 or</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Come back when it is not written in an interpreted language, in a language capable of driving hardware, and it has "real" functionality.
I looked quickly, and the tabulation code is virtually empty.
Both the Python and the Javascript will be non-starters and the code rejected out of hand the first time reviewed (and none of the VSTL's will have anyone capable of reviewing Python).
Java passes because of the bytecode.
Python might pass because of the .pyc files.
The Javascript will be a problem.
The lack of type declarations will likely also be a problem in Python.
It will be hard to follow the documentation rules that require all of the types to be documented.
None of this code stands a chance of VVSG compliance (the Federal Election standards which code must pass to be certified if any Federal funds are used to purchase the hardware or software).
The list of blatantly obvious things wrong with the code base in the one file I looked in:

The code files does not have a valid modification history for the file.The code does not have per function comments.The code uses multiple returns inside of a single function.Repeatedly use the same values without having them be assigned to a constant.Have single variable letter names that are not used for array indexes.Usage of numerical constants other then -1, 0, 1 without a comment explaining the value.Not all control flows decision points are documented.It has lines longer then 80 characters.
Or at least those are the obvious things I found in one example file [github.com] in the 2 minutes it took me to scan it quickly.
Remember, the coding guidelines are written by people who have never written a line of code, and are designed to protect against common mistakes from the mid-80s.
So the fact that the entire system is in version control is irrelevant.
Even if you give them all of the version control, you must document the changes to the code at the top of the file.
You must document the changes per function.
Even though no one would ever do it in this day and age, your code must be printable on a standard 8.5" wide paper.
All of the rules required to follow are obscene.
You can't have function or variable names that differ by a single letter.
It took 3-4 years to get an exception to that rule to allow the usage of "getFoo", "setFoo", because they differ by a single letter.
You can't use 0x80 to represent the MSB of a byte, if you call that PIN\_8, and had PIN\_1 those differ by a single character, so we had to do PIN\_EIGHT, PIN\_ONE.
It's just archaic.
Oh, and you get to document every function a function calls.
Because they couldn't possible use a compiler that would build a call list automatically.
The rules don't explicitly mention exceptions, so it depends on who is reading the code if they treat an exception as having multiple entry/exit points.
So it is generally easier to get the code past compliance without exceptions, even if it does lead to buggier code.
The other rule they invoke is that you are only allowed to use the control flow structures documented in the VVSG (they have flow charts for the allowable forms of if, if/else, for, while, and switch statements.
They specifically state that if the language you are using does not have those, you must simulate those flows of control in the language used.
Oh, and if LA thinks it has the hardest jurisdiction because they have 7 languages, I believe NY has at least 20-30 languages or dialects just in NYC, they have several election districts (they'd be called precincts anywhere else in the country, but in NY, the word precinct is only used for the NYPD and maybe the NYFD) that have more then 7.
I've written code that has been used to count ballots in both state and federal elections.
Trust me, this code base will have to be re-written from scratch to meet the 2002 or</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855115</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1256380860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've written code that has been used to count ballots in both state and federal elections. Trust me</p><p>I don't trust you.  I don't trust officials your all full of shit.</p><p>The Hardware isn't checked. PERIOD.<br>MASSIVE FAIL<br>FUCK ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written code that has been used to count ballots in both state and federal elections .
Trust meI do n't trust you .
I do n't trust officials your all full of shit.The Hardware is n't checked .
PERIOD.MASSIVE FAILFUCK ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written code that has been used to count ballots in both state and federal elections.
Trust meI don't trust you.
I don't trust officials your all full of shit.The Hardware isn't checked.
PERIOD.MASSIVE FAILFUCK ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854079</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>joshuaheretic</author>
	<datestamp>1256316480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally prefer paper ballots as well, and you're right that it's all about trust in the process.

However, the fact is that many areas are rolling out electronic voting whether we would like it or not. And in a narrow field of options, I would like more than just a buggy, black-box Diebold piece of shit. If they can provide an OSS solution that works and can be audited for security and reliability, that would be infinitely preferable to the proprietary options with a poor track record.

Just make sure there are paper receipts!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally prefer paper ballots as well , and you 're right that it 's all about trust in the process .
However , the fact is that many areas are rolling out electronic voting whether we would like it or not .
And in a narrow field of options , I would like more than just a buggy , black-box Diebold piece of shit .
If they can provide an OSS solution that works and can be audited for security and reliability , that would be infinitely preferable to the proprietary options with a poor track record .
Just make sure there are paper receipts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally prefer paper ballots as well, and you're right that it's all about trust in the process.
However, the fact is that many areas are rolling out electronic voting whether we would like it or not.
And in a narrow field of options, I would like more than just a buggy, black-box Diebold piece of shit.
If they can provide an OSS solution that works and can be audited for security and reliability, that would be infinitely preferable to the proprietary options with a poor track record.
Just make sure there are paper receipts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854055</id>
	<title>Trust the vote?</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1256316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Trust the vote"?  Only if the people voting are regular readers of dailypaul.com</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Trust the vote " ?
Only if the people voting are regular readers of dailypaul.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Trust the vote"?
Only if the people voting are regular readers of dailypaul.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853751</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256310780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's pretty cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854695</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1256326680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely, the problem with software or complex hardware of any sort is that the average person cannot verify it working. The simple "paper and pencil" approach can be understood and verified by everybody, even people who cannot programm or cannot reverse-engineer complex microelectronics with their bare eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely , the problem with software or complex hardware of any sort is that the average person can not verify it working .
The simple " paper and pencil " approach can be understood and verified by everybody , even people who can not programm or can not reverse-engineer complex microelectronics with their bare eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely, the problem with software or complex hardware of any sort is that the average person cannot verify it working.
The simple "paper and pencil" approach can be understood and verified by everybody, even people who cannot programm or cannot reverse-engineer complex microelectronics with their bare eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853841</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256312340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't open-source, verifiable software be <b>part</b> of your hallowed PROCESS? It can. And ought to be. Software engineers have a legitimate seat at this table.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't open-source , verifiable software be part of your hallowed PROCESS ?
It can .
And ought to be .
Software engineers have a legitimate seat at this table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't open-source, verifiable software be part of your hallowed PROCESS?
It can.
And ought to be.
Software engineers have a legitimate seat at this table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856317</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>ComputerSlicer23</author>
	<datestamp>1256396280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I completely and totally agree with the notion that those rules are stupid.  However, most states use Federal Funding for the purchase of hardware for elections.  Once that is done, you must be certified by the FEC, and you must follow the above guidelines.  Unless your state officials want to break Federal laws, or can find all the money for it from non-Federal sources, those rules will have to be followed.  It's not like you can use an off-the-shelf computer, and the hardware is only good once maybe twice a year.  You'll need one that refuses all external input except for the types of storage you plan on using to transport the votes from a machine.  Even if all of the software is secure from this Open Source code, they will still need to get secure hardware.  The problem is you send everyone to a place alone with the machine where they have total access.  Securing the machine is actually, extremely difficult.
</p><p>
From what I know of the state and counties, they all use Federal money.  Everybody who took HAVA money has to follow both those and ROHS rules for the hardware (ROHS, I might have the acronym wrong, but it's the environmental friendly hardware when you go to dispose of it, so no using lead, etc, etc).  Even most states defer to the FEC to set testing guidelines, and most states will refuse anything that does not pass the VVSG hardware and software guidelines.
</p><p>
You can't run an election without a scanner of some sort.  You'll need a scantron type solution for a state wide vote.  You can't run those any other way.  If you say "DRE", I'm going to smack you.  Even one's with paper trails are stupid.  Scantrons to count, and paper ballots are the only way, unless we hand count (which I've got no problem with, but the computers generally do a better job, especially if you want to do accurate stats for funding of parties).  Once you start doing scantrons it will require custom hardware, and the state will be incapable of dealing with it.
</p><p>
I think it would be great to require a security review from real security folks.  The problem with most of the VSTL employees I've dealt with, is that they aren't capable of getting a paying programmers job.  That's why they review someone else's code.  We tried fairly hard with the stuff I worked on.  We used Linux, and used a "known" Live CD to boot from, and had a completely scripted build from source code.  With the exception of the RSA Crypto library and the JDK/JRE (because we couldn't prove OpenSSL's was FIPS-140.2 compliant on our OS and hardware), everything was built in from of an Election official.  We built the entire toolchain that would then build the absolutely everything that was installed on the firmware.  For a "real" security review, we had almost everything.  If OpenJDK had been released at the time, we would have built the JDK/JRE from scratch also.
</p><p>
The stuff I worked on could have been hacked, especially if the source code ever leaked.  Not that it was blatantly insecure, but like most code written, it has bugs and flaws that more eyes would catch.  We generally did a good job using constructs that avoided buffer overflows (we avoided most C in favor of C++ where possible).  The problem was the size of the programming team (I'm guessing that maybe 5-6 full time programmers worked on the system that counted a significant fraction of the votes in the 2000 and 2004 elections).  I left because of the dysfunction inside the company due to dealing with Federal crapola.  I just hated the code I had to write.  I hated how old and antiquated the rules I had to follow were.  It was a fun gig, and I liked that I got to contribute to cleaning up some of the problems folks have with electronic voting.  I took it very seriously.
</p><p>
I agree with you, the solution is to update the rules to involve actual security.  The problem is you most literally can't.  There are lots of "rules of thumb", but if there were actual rules to follow, we wouldn't have security professionals we'd just write a compiler that understood the rules.  These rules exis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely and totally agree with the notion that those rules are stupid .
However , most states use Federal Funding for the purchase of hardware for elections .
Once that is done , you must be certified by the FEC , and you must follow the above guidelines .
Unless your state officials want to break Federal laws , or can find all the money for it from non-Federal sources , those rules will have to be followed .
It 's not like you can use an off-the-shelf computer , and the hardware is only good once maybe twice a year .
You 'll need one that refuses all external input except for the types of storage you plan on using to transport the votes from a machine .
Even if all of the software is secure from this Open Source code , they will still need to get secure hardware .
The problem is you send everyone to a place alone with the machine where they have total access .
Securing the machine is actually , extremely difficult .
From what I know of the state and counties , they all use Federal money .
Everybody who took HAVA money has to follow both those and ROHS rules for the hardware ( ROHS , I might have the acronym wrong , but it 's the environmental friendly hardware when you go to dispose of it , so no using lead , etc , etc ) .
Even most states defer to the FEC to set testing guidelines , and most states will refuse anything that does not pass the VVSG hardware and software guidelines .
You ca n't run an election without a scanner of some sort .
You 'll need a scantron type solution for a state wide vote .
You ca n't run those any other way .
If you say " DRE " , I 'm going to smack you .
Even one 's with paper trails are stupid .
Scantrons to count , and paper ballots are the only way , unless we hand count ( which I 've got no problem with , but the computers generally do a better job , especially if you want to do accurate stats for funding of parties ) .
Once you start doing scantrons it will require custom hardware , and the state will be incapable of dealing with it .
I think it would be great to require a security review from real security folks .
The problem with most of the VSTL employees I 've dealt with , is that they are n't capable of getting a paying programmers job .
That 's why they review someone else 's code .
We tried fairly hard with the stuff I worked on .
We used Linux , and used a " known " Live CD to boot from , and had a completely scripted build from source code .
With the exception of the RSA Crypto library and the JDK/JRE ( because we could n't prove OpenSSL 's was FIPS-140.2 compliant on our OS and hardware ) , everything was built in from of an Election official .
We built the entire toolchain that would then build the absolutely everything that was installed on the firmware .
For a " real " security review , we had almost everything .
If OpenJDK had been released at the time , we would have built the JDK/JRE from scratch also .
The stuff I worked on could have been hacked , especially if the source code ever leaked .
Not that it was blatantly insecure , but like most code written , it has bugs and flaws that more eyes would catch .
We generally did a good job using constructs that avoided buffer overflows ( we avoided most C in favor of C + + where possible ) .
The problem was the size of the programming team ( I 'm guessing that maybe 5-6 full time programmers worked on the system that counted a significant fraction of the votes in the 2000 and 2004 elections ) .
I left because of the dysfunction inside the company due to dealing with Federal crapola .
I just hated the code I had to write .
I hated how old and antiquated the rules I had to follow were .
It was a fun gig , and I liked that I got to contribute to cleaning up some of the problems folks have with electronic voting .
I took it very seriously .
I agree with you , the solution is to update the rules to involve actual security .
The problem is you most literally ca n't .
There are lots of " rules of thumb " , but if there were actual rules to follow , we would n't have security professionals we 'd just write a compiler that understood the rules .
These rules exis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I completely and totally agree with the notion that those rules are stupid.
However, most states use Federal Funding for the purchase of hardware for elections.
Once that is done, you must be certified by the FEC, and you must follow the above guidelines.
Unless your state officials want to break Federal laws, or can find all the money for it from non-Federal sources, those rules will have to be followed.
It's not like you can use an off-the-shelf computer, and the hardware is only good once maybe twice a year.
You'll need one that refuses all external input except for the types of storage you plan on using to transport the votes from a machine.
Even if all of the software is secure from this Open Source code, they will still need to get secure hardware.
The problem is you send everyone to a place alone with the machine where they have total access.
Securing the machine is actually, extremely difficult.
From what I know of the state and counties, they all use Federal money.
Everybody who took HAVA money has to follow both those and ROHS rules for the hardware (ROHS, I might have the acronym wrong, but it's the environmental friendly hardware when you go to dispose of it, so no using lead, etc, etc).
Even most states defer to the FEC to set testing guidelines, and most states will refuse anything that does not pass the VVSG hardware and software guidelines.
You can't run an election without a scanner of some sort.
You'll need a scantron type solution for a state wide vote.
You can't run those any other way.
If you say "DRE", I'm going to smack you.
Even one's with paper trails are stupid.
Scantrons to count, and paper ballots are the only way, unless we hand count (which I've got no problem with, but the computers generally do a better job, especially if you want to do accurate stats for funding of parties).
Once you start doing scantrons it will require custom hardware, and the state will be incapable of dealing with it.
I think it would be great to require a security review from real security folks.
The problem with most of the VSTL employees I've dealt with, is that they aren't capable of getting a paying programmers job.
That's why they review someone else's code.
We tried fairly hard with the stuff I worked on.
We used Linux, and used a "known" Live CD to boot from, and had a completely scripted build from source code.
With the exception of the RSA Crypto library and the JDK/JRE (because we couldn't prove OpenSSL's was FIPS-140.2 compliant on our OS and hardware), everything was built in from of an Election official.
We built the entire toolchain that would then build the absolutely everything that was installed on the firmware.
For a "real" security review, we had almost everything.
If OpenJDK had been released at the time, we would have built the JDK/JRE from scratch also.
The stuff I worked on could have been hacked, especially if the source code ever leaked.
Not that it was blatantly insecure, but like most code written, it has bugs and flaws that more eyes would catch.
We generally did a good job using constructs that avoided buffer overflows (we avoided most C in favor of C++ where possible).
The problem was the size of the programming team (I'm guessing that maybe 5-6 full time programmers worked on the system that counted a significant fraction of the votes in the 2000 and 2004 elections).
I left because of the dysfunction inside the company due to dealing with Federal crapola.
I just hated the code I had to write.
I hated how old and antiquated the rules I had to follow were.
It was a fun gig, and I liked that I got to contribute to cleaning up some of the problems folks have with electronic voting.
I took it very seriously.
I agree with you, the solution is to update the rules to involve actual security.
The problem is you most literally can't.
There are lots of "rules of thumb", but if there were actual rules to follow, we wouldn't have security professionals we'd just write a compiler that understood the rules.
These rules exis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855253</id>
	<title>Re:In Ruby?! Shirley you jest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256383380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>adn after your all done, you stupidly installed it on my specially crafted hardware!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>adn after your all done , you stupidly installed it on my specially crafted hardware ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adn after your all done, you stupidly installed it on my specially crafted hardware!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29857525</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256406600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't open-source, verifiable software be <b>part</b> of your hallowed PROCESS?</p></div><p>Because that process would hardly be transparent for most people. Everyone grasps the concept of a cross on a piece of paper put into a sealed box.</p><p>How many people could verify a software that does nothing more than increasing a number when a button is pressed? And that is the most simple process you can think of. A very unsatisfying one because it is easily manipulated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't open-source , verifiable software be part of your hallowed PROCESS ? Because that process would hardly be transparent for most people .
Everyone grasps the concept of a cross on a piece of paper put into a sealed box.How many people could verify a software that does nothing more than increasing a number when a button is pressed ?
And that is the most simple process you can think of .
A very unsatisfying one because it is easily manipulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't open-source, verifiable software be part of your hallowed PROCESS?Because that process would hardly be transparent for most people.
Everyone grasps the concept of a cross on a piece of paper put into a sealed box.How many people could verify a software that does nothing more than increasing a number when a button is pressed?
And that is the most simple process you can think of.
A very unsatisfying one because it is easily manipulated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853831</id>
	<title>OK, why Linux, why Ruby?</title>
	<author>r7</author>
	<datestamp>1256312220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curious about the choice of OS, given that Linux security, especially the kernel, is known to be inferior to BSD, OpenBSD in particular.  Also curious about the choice of programming language, Ruby, when Python is known to be more readable, and more easily audited.  Shouldn't the most important feature of a voting system, aside from useability and accesibility, be its auditability?  Why would anyone choose a system that is known to be less auditable and less secure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious about the choice of OS , given that Linux security , especially the kernel , is known to be inferior to BSD , OpenBSD in particular .
Also curious about the choice of programming language , Ruby , when Python is known to be more readable , and more easily audited .
Should n't the most important feature of a voting system , aside from useability and accesibility , be its auditability ?
Why would anyone choose a system that is known to be less auditable and less secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious about the choice of OS, given that Linux security, especially the kernel, is known to be inferior to BSD, OpenBSD in particular.
Also curious about the choice of programming language, Ruby, when Python is known to be more readable, and more easily audited.
Shouldn't the most important feature of a voting system, aside from useability and accesibility, be its auditability?
Why would anyone choose a system that is known to be less auditable and less secure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29858447</id>
	<title>Re:In Ruby?! Shirley you jest</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1256413020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You want the Federal Election Commission to trust a voting machine written in a language used by script-kiddies?! That is utterly laughable in light of the DIEBOLD VB/Access debacle</p></div><p>
No, but I'm not opposed to them giving it a try either. If you look at the projects on sourceforge, the overwhelming majority of them are either dead or dormant, but that doesn't make the open source process that lead to them a complete dud.
</p><p>
Some great open source projects have come out of sourceforge (and many other places as well of course). I don't know if the success rate is 1\%, or 0.5\%, or even lower than that, but whatever it is, I'd still consider the process a good one. </p><p>Also, the desire to create open source software is so high and the barrier to entry is so low, many programming newbies end up cutting their teeth on those types of projects. This encourages participation and programming literacy. And a newbie may not be able to code a perfect voting solution for instance, but at least even if his solution is not selected for any election, or doesn't even come close to being selected for one, it only means that there is at least one more person that's at least semi-computer literate and invested enough to weigh in for the process of selecting a voting solution.

</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want the Federal Election Commission to trust a voting machine written in a language used by script-kiddies ? !
That is utterly laughable in light of the DIEBOLD VB/Access debacle No , but I 'm not opposed to them giving it a try either .
If you look at the projects on sourceforge , the overwhelming majority of them are either dead or dormant , but that does n't make the open source process that lead to them a complete dud .
Some great open source projects have come out of sourceforge ( and many other places as well of course ) .
I do n't know if the success rate is 1 \ % , or 0.5 \ % , or even lower than that , but whatever it is , I 'd still consider the process a good one .
Also , the desire to create open source software is so high and the barrier to entry is so low , many programming newbies end up cutting their teeth on those types of projects .
This encourages participation and programming literacy .
And a newbie may not be able to code a perfect voting solution for instance , but at least even if his solution is not selected for any election , or does n't even come close to being selected for one , it only means that there is at least one more person that 's at least semi-computer literate and invested enough to weigh in for the process of selecting a voting solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want the Federal Election Commission to trust a voting machine written in a language used by script-kiddies?!
That is utterly laughable in light of the DIEBOLD VB/Access debacle
No, but I'm not opposed to them giving it a try either.
If you look at the projects on sourceforge, the overwhelming majority of them are either dead or dormant, but that doesn't make the open source process that lead to them a complete dud.
Some great open source projects have come out of sourceforge (and many other places as well of course).
I don't know if the success rate is 1\%, or 0.5\%, or even lower than that, but whatever it is, I'd still consider the process a good one.
Also, the desire to create open source software is so high and the barrier to entry is so low, many programming newbies end up cutting their teeth on those types of projects.
This encourages participation and programming literacy.
And a newbie may not be able to code a perfect voting solution for instance, but at least even if his solution is not selected for any election, or doesn't even come close to being selected for one, it only means that there is at least one more person that's at least semi-computer literate and invested enough to weigh in for the process of selecting a voting solution.


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661</id>
	<title>In Ruby?!  Shirley you jest</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1256326320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh for fucks sake, you have to be kidding me!</p><p>You want the <b>Federal Election Commission</b> to trust a voting machine written in a language used by script-kiddies?! That is utterly laughable in light of the DIEBOLD VB/Access debacle</p><p>This needs to be a <b>completely</b> stripped down Linux core, NOTHING in it except what is EXACTLY need to do this.  It needs to be written in C, not C++, and I mean COMPLETELY documented ( to the point of inanity), PLAINLY written, VERBOSE code and if you want a better chance write it in ADA, that is what the government is used to dealing with and the code MUST be open source</p><p>You need to go as far as stripping down the standard C libraries to ONLY the functions called by the SINGLE program that makes it work
</p><p>EVERY buffer, EVERY array must be bounds checked.  There can be NO POSSIBILITY of ANY kind of a buffer overflow attack.</p><p>If you are going to use an off the shelf MB any open slot and or connector not used by a component SPECIFICALLY required to make it work must by PHYSICALLY disabled ( cut the traces/wires or whatever ). The BIOS must be custom,designed and coded to do ONLY those functions require to boot the machine, further that BIOS must be OPEN SOURCE.</p><p>As others have pointed out the PROCESS must be VERIFIABLE, it must be RELIABLE, it must be PREDICTABLE <b>100\%</b> of the time.  There can be NO race conditions, there can be NO un-handled exceptions, and EVERY exception must have a reliable, repeatable, reproduceable result, in other words "Kernel Panic" is NOT an option.</p><p>In short it must be a totally custom machine, and created by people 100\% NOT interested in getting rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh for fucks sake , you have to be kidding me ! You want the Federal Election Commission to trust a voting machine written in a language used by script-kiddies ? !
That is utterly laughable in light of the DIEBOLD VB/Access debacleThis needs to be a completely stripped down Linux core , NOTHING in it except what is EXACTLY need to do this .
It needs to be written in C , not C + + , and I mean COMPLETELY documented ( to the point of inanity ) , PLAINLY written , VERBOSE code and if you want a better chance write it in ADA , that is what the government is used to dealing with and the code MUST be open sourceYou need to go as far as stripping down the standard C libraries to ONLY the functions called by the SINGLE program that makes it work EVERY buffer , EVERY array must be bounds checked .
There can be NO POSSIBILITY of ANY kind of a buffer overflow attack.If you are going to use an off the shelf MB any open slot and or connector not used by a component SPECIFICALLY required to make it work must by PHYSICALLY disabled ( cut the traces/wires or whatever ) .
The BIOS must be custom,designed and coded to do ONLY those functions require to boot the machine , further that BIOS must be OPEN SOURCE.As others have pointed out the PROCESS must be VERIFIABLE , it must be RELIABLE , it must be PREDICTABLE 100 \ % of the time .
There can be NO race conditions , there can be NO un-handled exceptions , and EVERY exception must have a reliable , repeatable , reproduceable result , in other words " Kernel Panic " is NOT an option.In short it must be a totally custom machine , and created by people 100 \ % NOT interested in getting rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh for fucks sake, you have to be kidding me!You want the Federal Election Commission to trust a voting machine written in a language used by script-kiddies?!
That is utterly laughable in light of the DIEBOLD VB/Access debacleThis needs to be a completely stripped down Linux core, NOTHING in it except what is EXACTLY need to do this.
It needs to be written in C, not C++, and I mean COMPLETELY documented ( to the point of inanity), PLAINLY written, VERBOSE code and if you want a better chance write it in ADA, that is what the government is used to dealing with and the code MUST be open sourceYou need to go as far as stripping down the standard C libraries to ONLY the functions called by the SINGLE program that makes it work
EVERY buffer, EVERY array must be bounds checked.
There can be NO POSSIBILITY of ANY kind of a buffer overflow attack.If you are going to use an off the shelf MB any open slot and or connector not used by a component SPECIFICALLY required to make it work must by PHYSICALLY disabled ( cut the traces/wires or whatever ).
The BIOS must be custom,designed and coded to do ONLY those functions require to boot the machine, further that BIOS must be OPEN SOURCE.As others have pointed out the PROCESS must be VERIFIABLE, it must be RELIABLE, it must be PREDICTABLE 100\% of the time.
There can be NO race conditions, there can be NO un-handled exceptions, and EVERY exception must have a reliable, repeatable, reproduceable result, in other words "Kernel Panic" is NOT an option.In short it must be a totally custom machine, and created by people 100\% NOT interested in getting rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853971</id>
	<title>trust?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY.</i></p><p>You apparently want a pony.  Whatever the process and accountability may be with FOSS voting systems, they are almost certainly better than anything Diebold has been offering.</p><p><i>A "Bug" in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence, or pays for the cost of a reelection.</i></p><p>If that's your standard, only crooks will provide voting software.</p><p><i>Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot. A simple "X" inside a circle. Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc.</i></p><p>And yet subject to widespread abuses--historical and contemporary--as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY.You apparently want a pony .
Whatever the process and accountability may be with FOSS voting systems , they are almost certainly better than anything Diebold has been offering.A " Bug " in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence , or pays for the cost of a reelection.If that 's your standard , only crooks will provide voting software.Here in the great white North , we have a paper ballot .
A simple " X " inside a circle .
Human verifiable , countable , no switches , electrons , software , etc.And yet subject to widespread abuses--historical and contemporary--as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY.You apparently want a pony.
Whatever the process and accountability may be with FOSS voting systems, they are almost certainly better than anything Diebold has been offering.A "Bug" in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence, or pays for the cost of a reelection.If that's your standard, only crooks will provide voting software.Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot.
A simple "X" inside a circle.
Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc.And yet subject to widespread abuses--historical and contemporary--as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856895</id>
	<title>Solves paper ballot management problems</title>
	<author>jjo</author>
	<datestamp>1256401800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paper ballots, either hand- or scanner-counted, have a few management issues that are made easier and cheaper with electronic voting:

<ol>
<li>the polling places must be sure that they don't run out, so election officials must print ballots based on their guess of the maximum possible turnout.  This makes for almost certain wastage of ballots.</li><li> In many places, mutliple versions of ballots must be maintained in inventory for multiple languages and/or multiple jurisdictions, each version having the same problems listed above.</li></ol><p>
These problems are, of course, completely manageable, but at a cost.  Election officials would welcome a cheaper alternative balloting system, provided it worked just as well as the best ones in use now.  That the the crux of the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paper ballots , either hand- or scanner-counted , have a few management issues that are made easier and cheaper with electronic voting : the polling places must be sure that they do n't run out , so election officials must print ballots based on their guess of the maximum possible turnout .
This makes for almost certain wastage of ballots .
In many places , mutliple versions of ballots must be maintained in inventory for multiple languages and/or multiple jurisdictions , each version having the same problems listed above .
These problems are , of course , completely manageable , but at a cost .
Election officials would welcome a cheaper alternative balloting system , provided it worked just as well as the best ones in use now .
That the the crux of the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paper ballots, either hand- or scanner-counted, have a few management issues that are made easier and cheaper with electronic voting:


the polling places must be sure that they don't run out, so election officials must print ballots based on their guess of the maximum possible turnout.
This makes for almost certain wastage of ballots.
In many places, mutliple versions of ballots must be maintained in inventory for multiple languages and/or multiple jurisdictions, each version having the same problems listed above.
These problems are, of course, completely manageable, but at a cost.
Election officials would welcome a cheaper alternative balloting system, provided it worked just as well as the best ones in use now.
That the the crux of the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29862975</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1256462340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without trustworthly people in the process you can't have a trustworthy process, agreed. However, since E-Voting is something that many IMO misinformed politicians still want, it's important to have an option which is open and thus verifiable.</p><p>I live in Germany where the X in the box on paper marks your vote, I still find it hard to believe that anyone could want electronic voting under the primise (trust me, I'll count your vote). What is it that is so difficult with Paper? Like you said, it is verifiable and very difficult to manipulate.</p><p>BTW, I am a programmer and most programmers I know know that electronic vote counting can't be trusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without trustworthly people in the process you ca n't have a trustworthy process , agreed .
However , since E-Voting is something that many IMO misinformed politicians still want , it 's important to have an option which is open and thus verifiable.I live in Germany where the X in the box on paper marks your vote , I still find it hard to believe that anyone could want electronic voting under the primise ( trust me , I 'll count your vote ) .
What is it that is so difficult with Paper ?
Like you said , it is verifiable and very difficult to manipulate.BTW , I am a programmer and most programmers I know know that electronic vote counting ca n't be trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without trustworthly people in the process you can't have a trustworthy process, agreed.
However, since E-Voting is something that many IMO misinformed politicians still want, it's important to have an option which is open and thus verifiable.I live in Germany where the X in the box on paper marks your vote, I still find it hard to believe that anyone could want electronic voting under the primise (trust me, I'll count your vote).
What is it that is so difficult with Paper?
Like you said, it is verifiable and very difficult to manipulate.BTW, I am a programmer and most programmers I know know that electronic vote counting can't be trusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855285</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>madhusudancs</author>
	<datestamp>1256383920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Software can solve a lot of problems, trust is not one of them.</p></div><p>Amazing quote. I just loved your ending line quote. Thanks for that. Makes a lot of sense!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software can solve a lot of problems , trust is not one of them.Amazing quote .
I just loved your ending line quote .
Thanks for that .
Makes a lot of sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software can solve a lot of problems, trust is not one of them.Amazing quote.
I just loved your ending line quote.
Thanks for that.
Makes a lot of sense!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29857093</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Strilanc</author>
	<datestamp>1256403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am constantly amazed at the cynicism from Slashdot about electronic voting. Yes, the existing systems have generally sucked. A lot. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to do.</p><p>The fundamental problem which must be addressed is verifiability. In order for the election to be secure, you must have a process which guarantees that tampering will be detected with high probability, **even if a malicious company designs a large portion of the voting machines**. This is not an impossible problem!</p><p>For example, suppose you want to be sure your vote is not being flipped. A system which meets that criteria is for the voting process to go as normal, then the machine encrypts and publishes the vote (accessible from the internet), which you verify. Then you are prompted to either check or commit the vote. If you 'check' the vote the machine publishes the encryption keys for the vote, and if you 'commit' then the machine publishes a commitment. All of these actions can be verified by you.</p><p>Now, that system isn't perfect (it can compromise the 'secret' part of the ballot). But there are verifiable systems which meet all the criteria for an election. They are not less secure than paper ballots, they are *more* secure. Don't trust the machine, trust the verifiable actions the machine must perform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am constantly amazed at the cynicism from Slashdot about electronic voting .
Yes , the existing systems have generally sucked .
A lot .
But that does n't mean it 's impossible to do.The fundamental problem which must be addressed is verifiability .
In order for the election to be secure , you must have a process which guarantees that tampering will be detected with high probability , * * even if a malicious company designs a large portion of the voting machines * * .
This is not an impossible problem ! For example , suppose you want to be sure your vote is not being flipped .
A system which meets that criteria is for the voting process to go as normal , then the machine encrypts and publishes the vote ( accessible from the internet ) , which you verify .
Then you are prompted to either check or commit the vote .
If you 'check ' the vote the machine publishes the encryption keys for the vote , and if you 'commit ' then the machine publishes a commitment .
All of these actions can be verified by you.Now , that system is n't perfect ( it can compromise the 'secret ' part of the ballot ) .
But there are verifiable systems which meet all the criteria for an election .
They are not less secure than paper ballots , they are * more * secure .
Do n't trust the machine , trust the verifiable actions the machine must perform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am constantly amazed at the cynicism from Slashdot about electronic voting.
Yes, the existing systems have generally sucked.
A lot.
But that doesn't mean it's impossible to do.The fundamental problem which must be addressed is verifiability.
In order for the election to be secure, you must have a process which guarantees that tampering will be detected with high probability, **even if a malicious company designs a large portion of the voting machines**.
This is not an impossible problem!For example, suppose you want to be sure your vote is not being flipped.
A system which meets that criteria is for the voting process to go as normal, then the machine encrypts and publishes the vote (accessible from the internet), which you verify.
Then you are prompted to either check or commit the vote.
If you 'check' the vote the machine publishes the encryption keys for the vote, and if you 'commit' then the machine publishes a commitment.
All of these actions can be verified by you.Now, that system isn't perfect (it can compromise the 'secret' part of the ballot).
But there are verifiable systems which meet all the criteria for an election.
They are not less secure than paper ballots, they are *more* secure.
Don't trust the machine, trust the verifiable actions the machine must perform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854603</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1256325540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol...you don't think paper ballots can be cheated?  It's trivially easy to break that system and it happens in countries around the world every fucking year.  Deep down I know you realize that.

It's not that you trust paper.  It's that you don't trust electronics.  There's a difference</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol...you do n't think paper ballots can be cheated ?
It 's trivially easy to break that system and it happens in countries around the world every fucking year .
Deep down I know you realize that .
It 's not that you trust paper .
It 's that you do n't trust electronics .
There 's a difference</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol...you don't think paper ballots can be cheated?
It's trivially easy to break that system and it happens in countries around the world every fucking year.
Deep down I know you realize that.
It's not that you trust paper.
It's that you don't trust electronics.
There's a difference</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853907</id>
	<title>Simple solution:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256313420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electronic voting machine allows people to vote, prints off a small receipt.</p><p>Receipt has:<br>1) name/choice of every vote made, human readable<br>2) a barcode that encodes all this information</p><p>Verifiable:<br>each and every receipt can be shown to have words matching what the barcode says</p><p>Countable:<br>Just scan each receipt, or if you aren't sure after that, have humans count the names read on the ballat</p><p>Voter intent:<br>No more problems of 'did they really mean to vote for that guy?' there aren't 'levels of inking' just black and white, this is the name on the slip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electronic voting machine allows people to vote , prints off a small receipt.Receipt has : 1 ) name/choice of every vote made , human readable2 ) a barcode that encodes all this informationVerifiable : each and every receipt can be shown to have words matching what the barcode saysCountable : Just scan each receipt , or if you are n't sure after that , have humans count the names read on the ballatVoter intent : No more problems of 'did they really mean to vote for that guy ?
' there are n't 'levels of inking ' just black and white , this is the name on the slip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electronic voting machine allows people to vote, prints off a small receipt.Receipt has:1) name/choice of every vote made, human readable2) a barcode that encodes all this informationVerifiable:each and every receipt can be shown to have words matching what the barcode saysCountable:Just scan each receipt, or if you aren't sure after that, have humans count the names read on the ballatVoter intent:No more problems of 'did they really mean to vote for that guy?
' there aren't 'levels of inking' just black and white, this is the name on the slip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853791</id>
	<title>I don't get...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256311620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't understand what problem electronic voting using computers is supposed to solve. Why not just make scantron ballots (some places already use them) they are paper so they are verifiable, easy to understand (who didn't have to do a multitude of these in high school?), and a machine can calculate them. About the only glitch is you can't change your mind without getting a new ballot, but its honestly not that hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand what problem electronic voting using computers is supposed to solve .
Why not just make scantron ballots ( some places already use them ) they are paper so they are verifiable , easy to understand ( who did n't have to do a multitude of these in high school ?
) , and a machine can calculate them .
About the only glitch is you ca n't change your mind without getting a new ballot , but its honestly not that hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand what problem electronic voting using computers is supposed to solve.
Why not just make scantron ballots (some places already use them) they are paper so they are verifiable, easy to understand (who didn't have to do a multitude of these in high school?
), and a machine can calculate them.
About the only glitch is you can't change your mind without getting a new ballot, but its honestly not that hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855017</id>
	<title>Re:In Ruby?! Shirley you jest</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1256378820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you plan to run your well stripped, lean, mean linux on....</p><p>Specially crafted hardware at the doping level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you plan to run your well stripped , lean , mean linux on....Specially crafted hardware at the doping level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you plan to run your well stripped, lean, mean linux on....Specially crafted hardware at the doping level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855749</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256390700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No receipts.</p><p>Boss asks who you voted for.  You pause, remembering past instances overhearing his views and how much you disagreed with them.</p><p>"The other guy," you say.</p><p>"That's good.  That's good," he replies. "Got the receipt?"</p><p>Feel free to replace boss with anyone in the position to influence your voting habits via unpleasantness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No receipts.Boss asks who you voted for .
You pause , remembering past instances overhearing his views and how much you disagreed with them .
" The other guy , " you say .
" That 's good .
That 's good , " he replies .
" Got the receipt ?
" Feel free to replace boss with anyone in the position to influence your voting habits via unpleasantness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No receipts.Boss asks who you voted for.
You pause, remembering past instances overhearing his views and how much you disagreed with them.
"The other guy," you say.
"That's good.
That's good," he replies.
"Got the receipt?
"Feel free to replace boss with anyone in the position to influence your voting habits via unpleasantness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29868969</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so use a dead simple serial interface thats hard coded so that coordinate x,y is for Official N, and spit the output to multiple systems written in whatever linux / windows / bsd using python / java / ruby and compare the results.</p><p>When a choice allows for multiple options, use all choices</p><p>fibrewire</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so use a dead simple serial interface thats hard coded so that coordinate x,y is for Official N , and spit the output to multiple systems written in whatever linux / windows / bsd using python / java / ruby and compare the results.When a choice allows for multiple options , use all choicesfibrewire</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so use a dead simple serial interface thats hard coded so that coordinate x,y is for Official N, and spit the output to multiple systems written in whatever linux / windows / bsd using python / java / ruby and compare the results.When a choice allows for multiple options, use all choicesfibrewire</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854275</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1256319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is that the method being trustworthy is necessary, though not sufficient, for trust of the process. With Diebold, a blatantly untrustworthy system mired in problems with bias, incompetence, and lack of security, it doesn't really matter how much I hypothetically trusted the government deploying it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is that the method being trustworthy is necessary , though not sufficient , for trust of the process .
With Diebold , a blatantly untrustworthy system mired in problems with bias , incompetence , and lack of security , it does n't really matter how much I hypothetically trusted the government deploying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is that the method being trustworthy is necessary, though not sufficient, for trust of the process.
With Diebold, a blatantly untrustworthy system mired in problems with bias, incompetence, and lack of security, it doesn't really matter how much I hypothetically trusted the government deploying it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854951</id>
	<title>Re:OK, why Linux, why Ruby?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256376720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any language that gives a semantic meaning to indentation should be banned from this world, but this is mostly a matter of religion so I won't go deeper into that. What I'm interested into is to learn about objective measures of the auditability of different programming languages. Do you have some references? I googled a little but I didn't find anything meaningful particularly about Python and Ruby . Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any language that gives a semantic meaning to indentation should be banned from this world , but this is mostly a matter of religion so I wo n't go deeper into that .
What I 'm interested into is to learn about objective measures of the auditability of different programming languages .
Do you have some references ?
I googled a little but I did n't find anything meaningful particularly about Python and Ruby .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any language that gives a semantic meaning to indentation should be banned from this world, but this is mostly a matter of religion so I won't go deeper into that.
What I'm interested into is to learn about objective measures of the auditability of different programming languages.
Do you have some references?
I googled a little but I didn't find anything meaningful particularly about Python and Ruby .
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855273</id>
	<title>Re:Can it run on Diebold hardware?</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1256383560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HARDWARES? Did I hear you say hardware?  Are you talking about my specially crafted hardware?  Special for you only two dolla per chip0r specially crafted hardware win all election, specially crafted hardware with malicious logic designer, remote rf kill switch, parallel logic, specially crafted for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HARDWARES ?
Did I hear you say hardware ?
Are you talking about my specially crafted hardware ?
Special for you only two dolla per chip0r specially crafted hardware win all election , specially crafted hardware with malicious logic designer , remote rf kill switch , parallel logic , specially crafted for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HARDWARES?
Did I hear you say hardware?
Are you talking about my specially crafted hardware?
Special for you only two dolla per chip0r specially crafted hardware win all election, specially crafted hardware with malicious logic designer, remote rf kill switch, parallel logic, specially crafted for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853869</id>
	<title>Computers should count votes</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1256312700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once they've been granted suffrage.  Not before.
</p><p>I post this same post every time we have a computerized vote counting thread. My objection to this has nothing to do with whether it's a secret proprietary process or a totally open FOSS solution.  With each generation of computer technology we gain the opportunity to go wrong with greater speed than ever before.  Yes, proprietary solutions are horrid and there's some evidence that they've been used to steal votes and they're truly evil.  Unfortunately, FOSS tools can be abused too.
</p><p>I guess my point is that the <i>process</i> of counting votes using humans is an important part of representative democracy because it doesn't just achieve the goal of "counting the vote".  It also impresses on the participants the importance of sanity and trust and impartiality in the process, without which constant reinforcement we can expect democracy to rapidly go off the rails.  Compared to that social good, the importance of getting same-day results fades in importance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they 've been granted suffrage .
Not before .
I post this same post every time we have a computerized vote counting thread .
My objection to this has nothing to do with whether it 's a secret proprietary process or a totally open FOSS solution .
With each generation of computer technology we gain the opportunity to go wrong with greater speed than ever before .
Yes , proprietary solutions are horrid and there 's some evidence that they 've been used to steal votes and they 're truly evil .
Unfortunately , FOSS tools can be abused too .
I guess my point is that the process of counting votes using humans is an important part of representative democracy because it does n't just achieve the goal of " counting the vote " .
It also impresses on the participants the importance of sanity and trust and impartiality in the process , without which constant reinforcement we can expect democracy to rapidly go off the rails .
Compared to that social good , the importance of getting same-day results fades in importance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they've been granted suffrage.
Not before.
I post this same post every time we have a computerized vote counting thread.
My objection to this has nothing to do with whether it's a secret proprietary process or a totally open FOSS solution.
With each generation of computer technology we gain the opportunity to go wrong with greater speed than ever before.
Yes, proprietary solutions are horrid and there's some evidence that they've been used to steal votes and they're truly evil.
Unfortunately, FOSS tools can be abused too.
I guess my point is that the process of counting votes using humans is an important part of representative democracy because it doesn't just achieve the goal of "counting the vote".
It also impresses on the participants the importance of sanity and trust and impartiality in the process, without which constant reinforcement we can expect democracy to rapidly go off the rails.
Compared to that social good, the importance of getting same-day results fades in importance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29873915</id>
	<title>Re:We don't need electronic voting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This *is* paper voting.  You take several hundred thousand to several million ballots and need to count them. Doing so manually will introduce huge costs (unless you use illegal aliens at $1/hour) and errors.  You instead use machines to count the ballots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This * is * paper voting .
You take several hundred thousand to several million ballots and need to count them .
Doing so manually will introduce huge costs ( unless you use illegal aliens at $ 1/hour ) and errors .
You instead use machines to count the ballots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This *is* paper voting.
You take several hundred thousand to several million ballots and need to count them.
Doing so manually will introduce huge costs (unless you use illegal aliens at $1/hour) and errors.
You instead use machines to count the ballots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854731</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256327580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically all code is interpreted.<br>To be fair, you have to assume a binary that executes interpreted code executes it correctly.<br>Just like you have to assume that a processor, when given your pile of binary bits that constitute a program executes it correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically all code is interpreted.To be fair , you have to assume a binary that executes interpreted code executes it correctly.Just like you have to assume that a processor , when given your pile of binary bits that constitute a program executes it correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically all code is interpreted.To be fair, you have to assume a binary that executes interpreted code executes it correctly.Just like you have to assume that a processor, when given your pile of binary bits that constitute a program executes it correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860733</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>metaconcept</author>
	<datestamp>1256387460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You tell a convincing tale; but why would anyone do the required rewriting by hand? The rules you mention sound very much within reach of the kinds of things obfuscating rewriters -- or compilers in general, for that matter -- do. I mean, if expensive, pointless adherence to some bureaucratic mandate is the aim, of course.


Solving the problem wrong, indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You tell a convincing tale ; but why would anyone do the required rewriting by hand ?
The rules you mention sound very much within reach of the kinds of things obfuscating rewriters -- or compilers in general , for that matter -- do .
I mean , if expensive , pointless adherence to some bureaucratic mandate is the aim , of course .
Solving the problem wrong , indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You tell a convincing tale; but why would anyone do the required rewriting by hand?
The rules you mention sound very much within reach of the kinds of things obfuscating rewriters -- or compilers in general, for that matter -- do.
I mean, if expensive, pointless adherence to some bureaucratic mandate is the aim, of course.
Solving the problem wrong, indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854381</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a sec...step back. Take a deep breath and think this through.</p><p>All those rules you described are there for what purpose exactly? Because as far as I can see, those rules have not made existing voting software (which presumably meets these guidelines) any more reliable or trustworthy. If the only reason these rules exist is to make the software secure and trustworthy, and if they create what appears to be a huge burden for developers of voting systems, then perhaps we need to throw out this particular set of guidelines *along with* the existing crappy voting software.</p><p>Am I the only one to whom this is obvious? These rules don't exist for their own sake - they exist to achieve a goal. If they're not achieving that goal, the rules need to be rewritten before you even touch a single line of this code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a sec...step back .
Take a deep breath and think this through.All those rules you described are there for what purpose exactly ?
Because as far as I can see , those rules have not made existing voting software ( which presumably meets these guidelines ) any more reliable or trustworthy .
If the only reason these rules exist is to make the software secure and trustworthy , and if they create what appears to be a huge burden for developers of voting systems , then perhaps we need to throw out this particular set of guidelines * along with * the existing crappy voting software.Am I the only one to whom this is obvious ?
These rules do n't exist for their own sake - they exist to achieve a goal .
If they 're not achieving that goal , the rules need to be rewritten before you even touch a single line of this code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a sec...step back.
Take a deep breath and think this through.All those rules you described are there for what purpose exactly?
Because as far as I can see, those rules have not made existing voting software (which presumably meets these guidelines) any more reliable or trustworthy.
If the only reason these rules exist is to make the software secure and trustworthy, and if they create what appears to be a huge burden for developers of voting systems, then perhaps we need to throw out this particular set of guidelines *along with* the existing crappy voting software.Am I the only one to whom this is obvious?
These rules don't exist for their own sake - they exist to achieve a goal.
If they're not achieving that goal, the rules need to be rewritten before you even touch a single line of this code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854125</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1256317320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No PROCESS based on closed-source software can ever be trusted for elections.</p><p>Having a free, open-source voting system at lesat opens the door to a possibility. I'm not saying software-based voting systems are the best. But having more options is generally a good thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No PROCESS based on closed-source software can ever be trusted for elections.Having a free , open-source voting system at lesat opens the door to a possibility .
I 'm not saying software-based voting systems are the best .
But having more options is generally a good thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No PROCESS based on closed-source software can ever be trusted for elections.Having a free, open-source voting system at lesat opens the door to a possibility.
I'm not saying software-based voting systems are the best.
But having more options is generally a good thing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853981</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>kylebarbour</author>
	<datestamp>1256314860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once again, programmers thinking software will change the world.</p><p>Elections are not based on trust of software, it is based on trust of the PROCESS.</p><p>This is completely true, but having voting machine software that the public can trust is a part of that. I can't trust the process if the software makes it easy to cheat and hide it, or if there's no way for the public to verify that the voting machines do what they're supposed to.</p><p>Wouldn't it be better to have the accountability of paper ballots with all of the benefits of electronic voting (ease, accuracy, instant results, results can be uploaded and publicly accessed, etc.)? We can engineer that, and this is a good first step.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , programmers thinking software will change the world.Elections are not based on trust of software , it is based on trust of the PROCESS.This is completely true , but having voting machine software that the public can trust is a part of that .
I ca n't trust the process if the software makes it easy to cheat and hide it , or if there 's no way for the public to verify that the voting machines do what they 're supposed to.Would n't it be better to have the accountability of paper ballots with all of the benefits of electronic voting ( ease , accuracy , instant results , results can be uploaded and publicly accessed , etc. ) ?
We can engineer that , and this is a good first step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, programmers thinking software will change the world.Elections are not based on trust of software, it is based on trust of the PROCESS.This is completely true, but having voting machine software that the public can trust is a part of that.
I can't trust the process if the software makes it easy to cheat and hide it, or if there's no way for the public to verify that the voting machines do what they're supposed to.Wouldn't it be better to have the accountability of paper ballots with all of the benefits of electronic voting (ease, accuracy, instant results, results can be uploaded and publicly accessed, etc.)?
We can engineer that, and this is a good first step.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860837</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot. A simple "X" inside a circle. Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc. Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.</p></div><p>Oh, so you're one of <i>them</i>, are you? <i>I</i> always use a <i>checkmark</i>, which indicates positivity!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the great white North , we have a paper ballot .
A simple " X " inside a circle .
Human verifiable , countable , no switches , electrons , software , etc .
Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.Oh , so you 're one of them , are you ?
I always use a checkmark , which indicates positivity !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot.
A simple "X" inside a circle.
Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc.
Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.Oh, so you're one of them, are you?
I always use a checkmark, which indicates positivity!
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854195</id>
	<title>It is Ruby based?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better hope no more than 25 vote then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better hope no more than 25 vote then .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better hope no more than 25 vote then ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854411</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>nancymarc</author>
	<datestamp>1256321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is a very good news.i want to buy this software.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Muscle-Might-Review---Dont-Buy-Until-You-Read-This-Review&amp;id=3127611" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">Muscle Might</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is a very good news.i want to buy this software .
Muscle Might [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is a very good news.i want to buy this software.
Muscle Might [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860771</id>
	<title>We don't need electronic voting.</title>
	<author>PotatoHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256388000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's it really.</p><p>The paper is better because it's verifiable, and does not require trusting enabling technology to run an election.  No electronic system meets this criteria, unless it's voting record is written to physical media in a human readable, enduring way.  So then, why bother?</p><p>Doing it with paper gets people involved in their civics too.</p><p>I'll give them top marks for open source, but a FAIL for it just not being a necessary thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's it really.The paper is better because it 's verifiable , and does not require trusting enabling technology to run an election .
No electronic system meets this criteria , unless it 's voting record is written to physical media in a human readable , enduring way .
So then , why bother ? Doing it with paper gets people involved in their civics too.I 'll give them top marks for open source , but a FAIL for it just not being a necessary thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's it really.The paper is better because it's verifiable, and does not require trusting enabling technology to run an election.
No electronic system meets this criteria, unless it's voting record is written to physical media in a human readable, enduring way.
So then, why bother?Doing it with paper gets people involved in their civics too.I'll give them top marks for open source, but a FAIL for it just not being a necessary thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856007</id>
	<title>securing the wrong channel</title>
	<author>bwashed75</author>
	<datestamp>1256393580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this focus on securing an inherently insecure channel..I suggest we instead make sure that if the votes are not OK then it will be discovered after the election? I mean, if anonymity weren't an issue it would be as easy as having a list at the library after the election with names of people in one column and whatever they voted for in another. If everyone is happy with their own entry and the list doesn't have bogus entries, the election went well. Since anonymity is an issue, let the voters draw their receit number from a hat and use that number in the library list instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this focus on securing an inherently insecure channel..I suggest we instead make sure that if the votes are not OK then it will be discovered after the election ?
I mean , if anonymity were n't an issue it would be as easy as having a list at the library after the election with names of people in one column and whatever they voted for in another .
If everyone is happy with their own entry and the list does n't have bogus entries , the election went well .
Since anonymity is an issue , let the voters draw their receit number from a hat and use that number in the library list instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this focus on securing an inherently insecure channel..I suggest we instead make sure that if the votes are not OK then it will be discovered after the election?
I mean, if anonymity weren't an issue it would be as easy as having a list at the library after the election with names of people in one column and whatever they voted for in another.
If everyone is happy with their own entry and the list doesn't have bogus entries, the election went well.
Since anonymity is an issue, let the voters draw their receit number from a hat and use that number in the library list instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855271</id>
	<title>They're missing the point...</title>
	<author>Pembers</author>
	<datestamp>1256383500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Voting machines are inherently untrustworthy. Publish all the code you like. Have it inspected by Donald Knuth. The voters have no way of knowing that that code is what's actually running on the machines in the polling stations, or that the hardware will execute it in the way that the language spec says it should. Attempts to give them a way to know are a sticking plaster over a gaping wound - there are too many things about the machine that are invisible to the naked eye, and too many ways in which the machine can be made to lie.</p><p>Paper-based elections need a lot of people to run them. This is a good thing, because someone who wants to rig an election has to bribe or threaten a lot of people. The more people are in that position, the more likely one of them is to blow the whistle. Someone who wants to rig an election that's run by voting machines has to influence far fewer people. That's the whole point of computers - they do work that would otherwise have to be done by people. If you want to bring in lots more people who are hard to bribe or threaten, you might as well have them run the election and leave the computers out of it.</p><p>The argument that voting machines will give us the result of the election faster than paper ballots is true but irrelevant. Do you want the wrong answer in half an hour, or the right answer in two days? A politician, once elected, will serve for three to five years, and unless he drops dead or gets a blowjob from the wrong person, it's very hard to remove him before the next election. You'd better be damn sure that the guy you put there was the one the people actually wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Voting machines are inherently untrustworthy .
Publish all the code you like .
Have it inspected by Donald Knuth .
The voters have no way of knowing that that code is what 's actually running on the machines in the polling stations , or that the hardware will execute it in the way that the language spec says it should .
Attempts to give them a way to know are a sticking plaster over a gaping wound - there are too many things about the machine that are invisible to the naked eye , and too many ways in which the machine can be made to lie.Paper-based elections need a lot of people to run them .
This is a good thing , because someone who wants to rig an election has to bribe or threaten a lot of people .
The more people are in that position , the more likely one of them is to blow the whistle .
Someone who wants to rig an election that 's run by voting machines has to influence far fewer people .
That 's the whole point of computers - they do work that would otherwise have to be done by people .
If you want to bring in lots more people who are hard to bribe or threaten , you might as well have them run the election and leave the computers out of it.The argument that voting machines will give us the result of the election faster than paper ballots is true but irrelevant .
Do you want the wrong answer in half an hour , or the right answer in two days ?
A politician , once elected , will serve for three to five years , and unless he drops dead or gets a blowjob from the wrong person , it 's very hard to remove him before the next election .
You 'd better be damn sure that the guy you put there was the one the people actually wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voting machines are inherently untrustworthy.
Publish all the code you like.
Have it inspected by Donald Knuth.
The voters have no way of knowing that that code is what's actually running on the machines in the polling stations, or that the hardware will execute it in the way that the language spec says it should.
Attempts to give them a way to know are a sticking plaster over a gaping wound - there are too many things about the machine that are invisible to the naked eye, and too many ways in which the machine can be made to lie.Paper-based elections need a lot of people to run them.
This is a good thing, because someone who wants to rig an election has to bribe or threaten a lot of people.
The more people are in that position, the more likely one of them is to blow the whistle.
Someone who wants to rig an election that's run by voting machines has to influence far fewer people.
That's the whole point of computers - they do work that would otherwise have to be done by people.
If you want to bring in lots more people who are hard to bribe or threaten, you might as well have them run the election and leave the computers out of it.The argument that voting machines will give us the result of the election faster than paper ballots is true but irrelevant.
Do you want the wrong answer in half an hour, or the right answer in two days?
A politician, once elected, will serve for three to five years, and unless he drops dead or gets a blowjob from the wrong person, it's very hard to remove him before the next election.
You'd better be damn sure that the guy you put there was the one the people actually wanted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853703</id>
	<title>Vote...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for the first post!</htmltext>
<tokenext>for the first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the first post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853755</id>
	<title>Mostly Works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256310900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Early reports are now in on the software.  Though it runs faster than proprietary rivals, the power management doesn't work, its not yet configured to work with touch screens, and it can only be administered by grumpy self righteous technicians who insist that voters read the man pages before voicing questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Early reports are now in on the software .
Though it runs faster than proprietary rivals , the power management does n't work , its not yet configured to work with touch screens , and it can only be administered by grumpy self righteous technicians who insist that voters read the man pages before voicing questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Early reports are now in on the software.
Though it runs faster than proprietary rivals, the power management doesn't work, its not yet configured to work with touch screens, and it can only be administered by grumpy self righteous technicians who insist that voters read the man pages before voicing questions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853925</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256313960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> no switches, electrons, software, etc.</p></div><p>One would think you would have trouble forming paper ballots, or any macroscopic matter, without electrons....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no switches , electrons , software , etc.One would think you would have trouble forming paper ballots , or any macroscopic matter , without electrons... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> no switches, electrons, software, etc.One would think you would have trouble forming paper ballots, or any macroscopic matter, without electrons....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29858395</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1256412600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>only crooks will provide voting software.Aye! You get it.YOUR MY NEW FRIEND</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>only crooks will provide voting software.Aye !
You get it.YOUR MY NEW FRIEND</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only crooks will provide voting software.Aye!
You get it.YOUR MY NEW FRIEND</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855117</id>
	<title>Re:OK, why Linux, why Ruby?</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1256380860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>lso curious about the choice of programming language, Ruby, when Python is known to be more readable, and more easily audited</p></div></blockquote><p>Known by whom?  Python fanbois?

</p><p>I'm honestly not trolling and I'm honestly not trying to start a Python/Ruby flame war, but let's not try to hide opinions behind worthless statements like "Python is known to be," particularly when the metric is as subjective as "readb[ility]."

</p><p>Aside from the enforced nature of Python whitespace, I don't find there to be much of a difference between the two in terms of readability.  I prefer specified ending blocks, whereas Python seems to merely use a blank line and the indentation.  What jumps out at me (as a Ruby fan) more than anything is how stupid and unintuitive '"""' is as a commenting option.  Eesh.  But all of that is personal preferences, as it should be.  There's no substantive differences and certainly nothing measurable enough that we should bandy about statements like Python being known to be more readable.

</p><p>Chances are, by the way, that's your answer.  Why Ruby instead of Python?  The authors likely preferred it and were more familiar with it.  It needn't be any more complex than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lso curious about the choice of programming language , Ruby , when Python is known to be more readable , and more easily auditedKnown by whom ?
Python fanbois ?
I 'm honestly not trolling and I 'm honestly not trying to start a Python/Ruby flame war , but let 's not try to hide opinions behind worthless statements like " Python is known to be , " particularly when the metric is as subjective as " readb [ ility ] .
" Aside from the enforced nature of Python whitespace , I do n't find there to be much of a difference between the two in terms of readability .
I prefer specified ending blocks , whereas Python seems to merely use a blank line and the indentation .
What jumps out at me ( as a Ruby fan ) more than anything is how stupid and unintuitive ' " " " ' is as a commenting option .
Eesh. But all of that is personal preferences , as it should be .
There 's no substantive differences and certainly nothing measurable enough that we should bandy about statements like Python being known to be more readable .
Chances are , by the way , that 's your answer .
Why Ruby instead of Python ?
The authors likely preferred it and were more familiar with it .
It need n't be any more complex than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lso curious about the choice of programming language, Ruby, when Python is known to be more readable, and more easily auditedKnown by whom?
Python fanbois?
I'm honestly not trolling and I'm honestly not trying to start a Python/Ruby flame war, but let's not try to hide opinions behind worthless statements like "Python is known to be," particularly when the metric is as subjective as "readb[ility].
"

Aside from the enforced nature of Python whitespace, I don't find there to be much of a difference between the two in terms of readability.
I prefer specified ending blocks, whereas Python seems to merely use a blank line and the indentation.
What jumps out at me (as a Ruby fan) more than anything is how stupid and unintuitive '"""' is as a commenting option.
Eesh.  But all of that is personal preferences, as it should be.
There's no substantive differences and certainly nothing measurable enough that we should bandy about statements like Python being known to be more readable.
Chances are, by the way, that's your answer.
Why Ruby instead of Python?
The authors likely preferred it and were more familiar with it.
It needn't be any more complex than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854703</id>
	<title>Re:Programmer Thinking</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1256326740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Open Source Voting Software Concept Released"</p><p>Everybody read this again.  Only the concept was released.  No actual code is available yet...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Open Source Voting Software Concept Released " Everybody read this again .
Only the concept was released .
No actual code is available yet... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Open Source Voting Software Concept Released"Everybody read this again.
Only the concept was released.
No actual code is available yet... :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854717</id>
	<title>Re:Solving the problem wrong</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1256327340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking the same thing, then I went and looked at the code and saw this:</p><p>

<tt>
import os<br>
import json<br>
 <br>
from django.template import Context, loader, RequestContext<br>
from django.http import HttpResponse, HttpResponseRedirect, HttpRequest<br>
from django.shortcuts import render\_to\_response<br>
from django.conf import settings<br>
from django.contrib.auth import authenticate, login, logout<br>
from django.contrib.auth.decorators import login\_required<br>
</tt>

</p><p>Just as soon as I saw that, it was like, Ahh HELL NO!</p><p>I mean lets just throw in the entire kitchen sink!  There is not a snowballs chance in hell of this EVER getting certified.  JUST   the holes/kludges in http &amp; css will get you laughed out of the running!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing , then I went and looked at the code and saw this : import os import json from django.template import Context , loader , RequestContext from django.http import HttpResponse , HttpResponseRedirect , HttpRequest from django.shortcuts import render \ _to \ _response from django.conf import settings from django.contrib.auth import authenticate , login , logout from django.contrib.auth.decorators import login \ _required Just as soon as I saw that , it was like , Ahh HELL NO ! I mean lets just throw in the entire kitchen sink !
There is not a snowballs chance in hell of this EVER getting certified .
JUST the holes/kludges in http &amp; css will get you laughed out of the running !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing, then I went and looked at the code and saw this:


import os
import json
 
from django.template import Context, loader, RequestContext
from django.http import HttpResponse, HttpResponseRedirect, HttpRequest
from django.shortcuts import render\_to\_response
from django.conf import settings
from django.contrib.auth import authenticate, login, logout
from django.contrib.auth.decorators import login\_required


Just as soon as I saw that, it was like, Ahh HELL NO!I mean lets just throw in the entire kitchen sink!
There is not a snowballs chance in hell of this EVER getting certified.
JUST   the holes/kludges in http &amp; css will get you laughed out of the running!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29862975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29873915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29857525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29868969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29858447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29857093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2236252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29858447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29856317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29868969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29862975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29857093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29853841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29857525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29854079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29855749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2236252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29860771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2236252.29873915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
