MrVicchio

You seem to be able to know things the rest of us cannot.

9/11, the real story!

Your Votes Don't Count!

Seriously, you keep letting out these big secrets and you'll end up in Gitmo.

__________________
Us Navy Veteran. AerographersMate 2nd Class (AW) Mr.Vicchio, At your service!

"What's so great about the Constitution anyway?"-1069

Panther

You finally try to be short and concise and your post is illiterate.

It's harder than just copying and pasting whole pages at a time from the Communist Manifesto like you normally do, isn't it?

__________________
Anagrams: Joe Biden and Barack Obama =
A jerk and a bad, anemic boob.
- or -
Barack mad a babe joined on.

Pilots For 911 Truth

I'm concerned about that one too! I'm concerned about the entire disconnected, disparate, disjointed, uneven and often times irrational approach to holding all of our national elections. I'm saying the same thing that I've said about our current energy problem: We need a coherent, distributed, redundant, failsafe, protocol driven National Vote Tabulation System. That system does not exist today.

It is like walking into a global corporation where old archaic and disparate IT systems are mixed in with modern streamline cohesive systems and then wondering why the U.S. offices have difficulty working with the Asian offices, or the U.K. offices having difficulty working with the South American offices, or why Legal has difficulty getting access to appropriate Accounting data, or why Engineering can't seem to get its act together with Technical support. Poorly designed systems give rise to systemic problems for everyone involved and new systems that have not been properly tested, is pure insanity.

If I've seen this paradigm problem once I've seen it a thousand times before and we are doing the exact same thing with our Presidential elections.

But, hey - it is your Presidential election process. You can cry if you want to.

__________________
Max Range: 2,500 nm (normal)
Max Speed: Mach .83 (486 kts)
Max Ceiling: 49,000 ft (certified)

Pilots For 911 Truth

At this point, I think you are plain ole delusional.

You talk about cutting and pasting, yet you don’t even understand why that can possibly be true. It is almost like you are jealous and envious of your inability to post something of depth, clarity or substance. Get over it. However, I must say, you do look good wearing green.

I write for those with a brain, guy. Not the shallow among us – you. That’s what linear dialectic mediums such as this are all about. If you actually have something of note to say, it will come out. When you don’t, it won’t. It is just that cut and dry, not cut and paste.

BTW - smart guy. Have you even read the Project for The New American Century? Do you have any idea what it contains? Do you realize just how stupid it truly turns out to be? Do you know how it came to be, where it gets its inspiration?

If you only knew 'one quarter' as much as you think you do, you'd actually be 'half' smart.

JMak

Citing how something could be done theoretically is not evidence that there's a cause for concern. For me to be concerned about this I'd want to know if and how the states are attempting to mitigate this potential issue. As well, you alluded to some shenanigans in 00 and 04 but failed to identify what they were or why such shenanigans should further cause us to be concerned about your theory of tampering.

Yeah, you have to, you know, make an argument.

Furthermore, I find the requirement for 'proof' on a question that I'm presenting as a 'possibility', rather funny and certainly a bit odd.[/quote]

I didn't demand "proof" now did I.

And despite concluding that it's be impossible to detect (I disagree because as part of the agreement to develop the code the state could require the developer to release it in the first place and not have the State go after it after-the-fact), you're whining about something not being done.

BTW - yes, you alluded to some shenanigans in 00 and 04 but then note that it only "could have" happened. You cannot have it both ways. If you're going to suggest it did happen you cannot defend the remark by saying you only intended to say it "could have" happened.

I have read.

That's self-evident. If this is all you're saying, well, color me underwhelmed. We've been talking about this since at least 2000. "We" being laymen.

I dind't demand proof of this or even further explanation. I was simply following up on your point that we should be concerned and the allusion to possible tampering in 00 and 04. That's all.

I did, but it didn't address my questions to you. Did you eben read my questions?

Or are you one of these types who gets instantly irritated whenever questioned?

I already have.

You addressing a question that I didn't ask. Take it easy!! WRT to questions about using software in the election process, that's self-evident andthat's why I'm not questioning you on the theory you presented.

Ironic that you keep telling me to read but you fail to actually read my questions.

WTF is a liberal- or conservative-leaning company? It's refreshing to see that you're bieng up-front when you bashing unknown software programmers. At least you're not hiding it.

Uh, clown...that's precisely what you did say. Here, I'll quote you saying it...again:
I responded, "Wow, this comes out of nowhere. Asking you to provide a basis for your allusions and implications makes me liek Bush and McCain? Whoa!"

And you just replied, "Nobody is saying that, get your head in gear and learn to read."

Okay, I get it...words don't matter to you, right? You just post a bunch of words with no real intent of being responsibile for their clear meaning. I reveal my exasperation at being characterized as Bush-Cheney-like in response to a comment you posted saying precisely that and then you deny ever posting it.

You're a f'ing liar.

Irony knows no bounds.

Moron, I am not asking about your theory. I am asking you about your unsubstantiated allusions to similar problems (similar to the potential problem you present here) in 00 and 04 and ask you to go one step further and analyze whether this potential problem can be or has been mitigated by state and local governments (which would either worsen or lessen the concern about the potential problem you've presented).

Seems pretty simple to me...

Okay, that's one approach.

I wasn't arguing it one way or the other.

For all your ranting about me not reading your comments you sure seem to have totally ignored what I have posted.

Pilots For 911 Truth

And, you seem to not be able to provide any rebuttal to any of it. So, either you agree with it, or you can't deal with it - either way, you don't rank.


I think you are enlisted. I've got no problem with that - but I was not enlisted and I held certain access that I'm sure you would not know anything about. Places like Gitmo, should be for the fools who think that such places are necessary.

I'm not a stadium that you’ve ever played in - so let's just end this portion of the discussion. You don't know me. Get back to “civilian” politics – you are better suited for that.

MrVicchio

Excuse me.... did you just insinuate you're a former officer? I'd LOVE some proof of that bud. I'll post a copy of my DD Form 214 if you'll post yours (leave out your SS # of course)

Also, my job, you don't know what my job entailed, and let's be frank here bud, having a clearance doesn't mean you have access to anything outside of WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW. Furthermore one does not talk about how high one was cleared for. That makes you a SECURITY RISK.

Even saying "I held a high clearance and knew things you can't understand!" Just begs for a smack down, and perhaps a few phone calls...

So pony up your DD 214 or STFU and GTFO. I call bull**** on your claims.

MrVicchio

Further more, now you've gone and got me right riled up. I don't think you've ever flown an aircraft, maybe on one, but not at the stick.

What did you fly?
How long?
Squadrons you belonged too, bases stationed?

And I'll ask you to tell me the most important thing a pilot has to remember. Heard from my dad (F-4 Phantom II pilot), and most of the other fighter jocks I grew up around.
You get three tries.

BTW You are more then welcome to quiz me on Aviation Meteorology, which was my primary job in the Navy, but hardly my only one. And as a PILOT you should be VERY Familiar with my job, and how it relates to military aviation. Seeing as a pilot doesn't take off without hitting the weather detachment. Okay, now they go online and all up the center... but that's neither here nor there.

Pilots For 911 Truth

At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now you are really demonstrating a cognitive disconnect of serious proportions. I'll say it once again: Read the original post.

The first two links tell you exactly WHY you should have concern – go read them. If you read what the potential problems could be, then how can you possibly have a meaningful opinion about the subject matter? You continue to miss the point. Maybe you get-off on missing the point, I'm not sure and I don't care. But, I would strongly suggest that you pull your cranium from between your legs and at least pretend to understand what's going on here.

I’ll say this one more time ONLY:

If software is being used to tabulate votes and said software is being developed by a corporate entity behind THEIR OWN closed doors, then the technology being used by default produces potential conflict of interest. If you understood anything about software development, then the scenario that I gave would have rung a bell a long time ago. If you do not understand software development (compiling code, run-time algorithms, etc.), then that’s OK because the scenario I provided you with should help you understand what could potentially be a problem as a result of the technology being deployed as well as HOW said potential problem could manifest itself.

This is not rocket science, but you really do need to take the partisan blinders off before you will be able to both see and understand the potential depth, dimension and scope of the issues here. The rest of your rant, by definition (because you fail to understand the underlying premise) is absolute, 100% moot.

Now, go pick-up some books this weekend on distributed client/server systems, object oriented programming, networking (firewalls and protocols) - or - go take a couple crash courses in C/C++ (or) Java, J-Script or Pearl, building an RDBMS (preferably Oracle or SQL Server) and get up to speed on the potential problems associated with electing a President using such technology over what is essentially a piecemeal WAN. The very idea is insane to me. The idea that many precincts have NOT done full run-through POC testing is beyond comprehension stupid! No one knowing anything about what they are doing would even dream of deploying such technology with a full POC, at the very least. But, more important than that: no one in their right or left mind would even think about allowing a corporate entity to have full development lifecycle control, over the code that manages the vote tally process. That is just flat-out dumb!

Who is allowing this? Why are they allowing this? And, why is the public not pouring on to the streets of America demanding that the code development process be a fully bi-partisan professional engagement, with a very strict chain of custody protocol, wrapped around the entire engineering, production, testing, analysis, deployment and operations functions?

If you do not possess hands-on experience in this area, then how the heck are you going to criticize someone else’s questions? If you had direct hands-on experience in deploying such systems and/or technology, then you would not be making a total fool of yourself contradicting what is clearly a huge/massive potential problem with the selection of our next President - 2000 and 2004 included.

Pilots For 911 Truth

Not another internet troll. I knew you had all the ear markings. Someone who actually thinks that he can establish ‘credibility’ on the internet. How pathetic.

First, you don't call the shots in my information - I do.

Second, your posts are very unimpressive at best. So, in reading your prose, I can tell you've got limited experience and thus little to offer in the way of information the public can use. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that your attempts at pretending to have knowledge you don't are easily detected.

Third, if you think I'm stupid enough to post my DoD records here on this forum, then you are more of a pitiful fool than I originally gathered.

Fourth, when challenged by mental dwarfs to 'prove something' in an online environment such a public forum, I typically chuckle and count it all amusement.

Fifth, the very idea that you actually think that one can have 'credibility', on the 'internet', is the most telling thing about you - whether you know it or not.

Sixth, if I were to respond to any of your requests, I'd be just as tired, sick and hopelessly foolish as you.

Seventh, if you had been paying attention, you would already know what I flew, how I flew it and where I flew it, because I've already talk briefly about it, in other posts where it was relevant to rebuttal and/or contextual response.

Lastly, you bore me - now run along, little E1.