[ale] OT: Voting machines cracked in California

[Thompson Freeman]

On 08/03/2007 10:53:52 AM, Jonathan Rickman wrote:
> On 8/3/07, tom <tfreeman at intel.digichem.net> wrote:
> Nicely said even if I don't quite agree with you.
> 
> Patching up a system adopted in haste with improperly
> understood
> characteristics doesn't seem to be a good use of taxpayer
> resources to me.
> I may be wrong, but backing out and trying again more slowly
> and along
> several different avenues of approach would ultimately be more
> robust,
> better tested, and therefor ultimately a better use of money.
> 
> In this forum, for the moment, we can thus agree to disagree.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> I agree with you, in theory. But in situations like this you
> have to accept
> the reality that the state isn't going to just box up all these
> systems,
> store them in a warehouse somewhere and go buy a whole new
> system. That
> said...


<<snip a most reasonable possible solution>>

I don't _expect_ any organization to just box up a probably  
flawed approach and try again fresh. Such will rarely happen, as  
most people are likely to throw good money after bad in hopes of  
saving the original investment. It is almost certain to happen  
here also.

I'm not sure patching with procedures and wrapping in legal  
bailing wire is _less_ costly in the short run even as opposed  
to backing out and trying fresh to apply the lessons available  
through the experiment.

'Course I'm weird politically. I expect government agencies to  
make errors, and expensive errors at that, because agencies  
employ human beings. People who don't make mistakes generally  
aren't trying to accomplish anything either, which is often an  
even bigger waste of time and money. (Which is not to encourage  
wasteful habits, but to realized that trying to do better  
doesn't always work.)

Hopefully I stated that clearly enough. Probably not. Sorry.