[–] ChickenDeath 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What is the biggest possible fuckup in coding that you could do to cause damage? Just curious cause I onced fucked up loading something on the cnc and it almost used the wrong tool for a function or something I dont remember but I got in shit.

[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I will have to get back with you on that... There are so many examples! I usually will have more safety checks in a program than actual moves, but only because I've seen (and done) some pretty impressive screwups. Everything from a supervisor completely doused in high-pressure cutting oil from a gun drill (I still laugh my ass off whenever I remember that one!) to massively wrecking a 108" dual-column VTL that had just been rebuilt and upgraded to a custom-installed Fanuc system.

[–] AngelofDeath 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

With voting machines, you're dealing with a network of computers that ultimately talk to an outside the loop of voting machines computer, which then displays totals. Many access points to alter things. The very scanner scanning the printed version can be manipulated.

THINK BIGGER. The system is designed to fail. Now, be aware, it may not be those for Biden doing this shit, but TRUMP to justify taking other steps like military intervention. Or it could simply be the cabal simply attempting to get the white man to react violently to then justify attacking the white man. I mean they deliberately stand by as the niggers burn cities down. They stand by as antifa Jews destroy statues. WAITING FOR THE WHITE MAN TO SHOOT ONE IS ALL THEY'RE AFTER, perhaps.

[–] screamingrubberband [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

With voting machines, you're dealing with a network of computers that ultimately talk to an outside the loop of voting machines computer, which then displays totals. Many access points to alter things. The very scanner scanning the printed version can be manipulated.

You are correct.

And that is a problem.

Networked

Why? Why does a machine that is counting things need to be networked to a different machine that is counting different things? The counts should be isolated from each other. That guy's vote went into that machine, my vote went into this machine. Why do the machines need to talk to each other?

that ultimately talk to an outside the loop of voting machines computer

Again, why? Why does the computer in the gymnasium/church/office building that counts things, need to talk to anything 'outside the loop?' It is demonstrably insecure regardless of the communication protocols used. Print the results, print a hash of the results database, deliver the machine and the printout to the BOE.

Many access points to alter things.

Why let them exist at all?

The very scanner scanning the printed version can be manipulated.

Then obviously that is a problem that should nullify that piece of equipment.

[–] AngelofDeath 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I still amazed at your 250 lines of code for CNC. I would love to see it. What language?

I'm old and haven't done any coding for decades, but used to do Assembly Level, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol, a little C and C+. Some of the coding I wrote was many thousands of lines.

[–] Hand_of_Node ago 

It's the system preferred by the cabal. Imagine any of our other systems working this poorly.

[–] peacegnome 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You would be a big fan of Bev Harris; she's been at this for many years.

I think that we should popularize an open source project for voting and have it be able to be deployed by a normal IT staff from a county (or a contractor if they don't have staff). If a county or state would like to use it then it would be free, and if it was even slightly popular then we could fund audits.

Right now everything is proprietary and when we have glimpsed what is going on it is always bad.

Also, it is 2020, we could easily do paper ballots, in person, with id, with complete chain of custody; then scan these ballots and put the scans online (torrent per county or precinct, or just aws, it wouldn't cost much), then the data people of the world could process them and find problems. Right now we get these blips of data with nothing backing them like "biden gains 140000, trump gains nothing, no comments attached for this delta", and until there is a recount even the party reps can't see what happened. They are obviously hiding something, this is how someone cheating acts. And really it should be a zero trust process, treating vote counting as anything else is ignorant and irrational.

[–] Hand_of_Node ago 

treating vote counting as anything else is ignorant and irrational.

I'm going to argue that this is incorrect on two counts. Firstly, we don't treat vote counting as anything else, which is the problem. Secondly, the implication that a cheat-friendly system is irrational is the opposite of reality. When the winners gain the ability to literally control the lives of the losers, and the larger number is the only criteria that matters, ensuring your sides ability to "think outside the box" (cheat) is very rational in a society composed of cultures and races at war.

You're correct about how to make the ballots more secure, and the count more accurate, but that is clearly not what the actual owners of the United States want.


A popular meme account on one of the chans said "It's all a show. You're watching a movie."

The cult followers interpreted it as intended, to only apply to a specific instance, but it was the literal truth about the operation of what we perceive as 'our society'. Few enjoy the idea of essentially being cattle on a feedlot, or even in a pasture with real grass, so the vast majority of us cattle focus instead on the minutiae of everyday life. How to make the distribution of hay more fair. Who gets milked first. Whether the electricity powering the milking machines comes from sustainable sources...

[–] yukon456 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

the fact it's not open-source is all the proof i need to know its malicious. common sense

[–] MadCatTimberWolf 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

As a Software Engineer I concur.

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I can't think of an honest reason why polling software shouldn't be that simple.

[–] DC92T 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Being a machinist myself I completely understand your analogy. It should be open sourced, it should be tested and verified again and again. November 3rd decides which way our country goes and should be treated as important as it is...

[–] Jammer78 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am of the opinion that software should be used for speed of results and convenience ONLY. The official tally should always come from paper tabulations, added from mechanical counters. Copies of all papers made and storied locally. Then if the computer result doesn't equal the official result, you have a paper trail to find the error. This is simple addition not anything you need computers for.

I will never trust any software even it is "open source", because how can a poll-watching observer look at a computer and know what computer code is running on it? Ok so you bring up an interface that gives you the code -- what if that is a fake interface giving you the wrong info? What if there is a chip soldered on the board that overrides the software?

So I respect your analysis but you are overthinking it way too much. Any computers touching voting results should be unofficial only.

load more comments ▼ (30 remaining)