On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Essentially no one would argue that is is "quite expensive". I 
> suspect that nearly everyone in the country would be happy to pay an 
> additional $1/election for more reliable results.

Without seeing all of the expense (and likely inability) of securing
and ensuring the proper count from the machine, people look at the
problem and go "computers are good at counting things fast and people
aren't, so it must therefore be massively cheaper to have a computer
do the count".

If you're >just< talking about summing a few lists, that's true. But
of course, no one who doesn't work for a voting machine company is
just talking about summing a few lists.

The idea that after you factor in everything, it might actually be
cheaper to have people do it after all, is a very difficult one for
many people to even conceptualize. "Progress" demands that computers
do all menial tasks.

                                - Adam

** Expert Technical Project and Business Management
**** System Performance Analysis and Architecture
****** [ http://www.adamfields.com ]

[ http://www.morningside-analytics.com ] .. Latest Venture
[ http://www.confabb.com ] ................ Founder
[ http://www.aquick.org/blog ] ............ Blog
[ http://www.adamfields.com/resume.html ].. Experience
[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fields ] ... Photos
[ http://www.aquicki.com/wiki ].............Wiki

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to