text:
Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Chris Matthews, head case
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
Ars Technica's Jon Stokes on why it's important to recount New Hampshire's votes, even if you don't think the Clinton or McCain campaigns finagled the results:
It is a huge mistake to assume (like this DKos poster) that the optical scan machines used in NH are somehow more secure than the much-maligned touchscreen machines, which didn't seem to be that widely used in the primary. Optical scanners can actually be less secure than touchscreens, because they're just as easy to tamper with (sometimes more so) as the touchscreens, but there's typically only one per precinct—an attacker therefore has a single point of failure to manipulate. The fact that optical scanners leave a paper record is totally irrelevant if a random audit of the results is not mandatory by law after every election. And in New Hampshire, there are no mandatory audits. As I've said before, mandating a paper trail without also requiring post-election audits is like buying a security system for your house and then not turning it on.Stokes goes on to point out that, if anything, Clinton and her supporters ought to be getting out in front on these issues, since it's entirely easy to imagine a situation where Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the general election by a hair. Under such circumstances, do you think the modern right wing is going to miss any opportunity whatsoever to call the election results in question? As Stokes says, we could wind up with a standoff that makes us look back with nostalgia on 2000.
Ron Paul and his supporters may be a bit loopy, but they are 100 percent correct in insisting on some type of audit of the NH results—not because Hillary hacked the vote (I currently think there are better explanations for the results than vote hacking), but because such audits should always occur as a matter of course. Again, when you use an electronic voting system, you must audit the results if you want to have confidence in them.
Second, I want to congratulate lefty blog stalwart Josh Marshall on his apparent clairvoyance. Clearly, he has access to information about the integrity of the NH elections that has been denied to the public. In a post entitled "Enough," Marshall decried "the notion that public opinion surveys and even exit poll data is so reliable that any substantial discrepancy between those numbers and the official result is prima facie evidence of tampering. That is simply absurd."
He went on insist that "the possibility or danger of tampering is not a license to assume it or imagine it—in the absence of any evidence—any time the vote doesn't go how we'd like."
I single Marshall out not just because I'm a daily reader of his blog, but because the attitude exemplified in this post is typical of well-intentioned journalists who don't really grasp what's at stake in the e-voting debate. So let me clarify, for the benefit of Marshall and the others:
In a truly democratic election, the burden of proof is on the state to provide evidence of the election's integrity. This sentiment is behind the idea that ballots should be counted under the watchful eyes of the public's representatives. So elections are held to a much different standard than criminal proceedings, where the burden of proof is on the one who brings a charge of wrongdoing.
Right now, in the absence of an audit of the New Hampshire results, the state has not met the requirement that it prove to the public that the election was fair. This is what the fuss is about. New Hampshire does not have the manual audit requirement that is necessary to prove that an election was fair, so that state's ballots were effectively counted in secret by closed-source machine code. When ballots are counted in secret and it's up to the voters to prove that the election was rigged when they're surprised by the results, that's not the kind of democracy that the Founders had in mind for us.
"New Hampshire does not have the manual audit requirement that is necessary to prove that an election was fair, so that state's ballots were effectively counted in secret by closed-source machine code." Please, political bloggers, get this point straight. The central problem isn't touchscreens or Diebold, and moreover it doesn't matter if the machine-counts generate paper printouts if we don't know what's going on inside the machines when they "count". The central problem is closed-source, secret, unaccountable code—machine procedures that can't be audited by independent outsiders. Voting-machine merchants typically defend the closed-source code inside their devices on patent and competetive grounds. We shouldn't give a dime for this argument. We need our elections to be fair and to be perceived as fair far more than we need a voting-machine industry.
There are a bunch of fun attacks on opscan systems, including pretty high-end stuff like hacking the scanners to misreport results, medium-complex stuff like selectively monkeying around with the ballot definition files (so that in heavily Obama-leaning precincts, the file swaps Hillary and Obama) or misprinting ballots used in some places (so that Hillary and Obama are swapped, or so that votes for Obama are more likely to be counted as undervotes (because they're apparently out of the area that's supposed to be marked).
Paper isn't a magic election-cure. In fact, it kind of sucks for elections. Its one advantage is that we can actually come up with and run procedures that let us check up on the electronic voting machines, with varying levels of confidence.
Indeed. Many people have been working since 2000 to move the problems with electronic voting and tabulation into the public's and more importantly the media's consciousness. If it takes exploiting the media's insane hatred of Hillary Clinton to do it, then so be it.
The change to voting technology with shrouded mechanisms is a recent thing. Even with voting booths (which seem to exist only in NY and no where else), you can follow the mechanisms to verify that when a voter pulls the lever, the booth has registered the vote for the correct candidate.
Voting machine manufacturers didn't need to shroud their mechanisms to be competitive before. They don't need to now.
The whole process needs to be auditable - and that includes identifying who voted (not who they voted for but whether people voted at all) and ensuring that they onöy voted once. I.e. a voter has to show a reasonable ID.
It is utterly beyond me why Diebold and other vote machine makers do not use open source software and publicise their code so that it can be subject to proper analysis. This applies just as much to optical scan stuff as to more electronic ones.
[Aside: It also blows me away to learn that these machines tend to run an entire windows OS and dedicated stack. What is wrong with a web browser session? ]
These aren't new machines - they're the same scanners that have been used in all the past elections that I remember, going back to the mid '90s. They're freestanding optical readers (they don't hook into some central computer) that read the black dots like SAT tests, as the physical cards are slid in, and the ballots are done in large type with large ovals to fill in and lots of space between them, making it very difficult to have any kind of visual "hanging chad" situation.
The last presidential election, the turnout was (again) vastly higher than expected, and a number of townships had to do manual counts anyway, because they ran out of preprinted ballot cards and had to photocopy more, which were then too thin and flexible to be run through the readers. Most local election years at least one town and usually more has a manual recount, usually not changing results, but in the smaller towns it can come down to a single ballot making the difference, so IIRC it has happened.
In the biggest city in the state, the wards are still small enough that you almost always run into someone you know, either doing the honors (familiar faces every year, graying) or voting, or (during local elections) trying to convince you to vote for them (embarrassing when it's someone you babysat for, to say the least). There's a reason why the Republicans' attempts at vote fraud here - rather famously - involved Keep In The Vote phone jamming conducted from Virginia, rather than the methods employed elsewhere in the country like bizarre ballot designs, intimidation, etc. For one thing, it's AFAIK the only crime in the state that can cause you to lose your own voting rights permanently, if you get caught doing it.
In terms of energy and enthusiasm levels (and on the part of the Paulites, stupidity levels), the Kucinich and Paul supporters (staked out on opposéd corners of Elm St most days, ironically) far outweighed anyone else's for any other candidate, which may have given them the idea that they had more support (and, importantly, name recognition) than they really did. If they're paying for it, fine - but they have yet to realize that if wishes were horses, imo.
Thanks to Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, the accusation "The election was hacked" is going to be with us for a long, long time. That's as much a threat to democracy as having a bozo in the Office of the Vice President who uses the Constitution for Kleenex.
Voting is one of the basic mechanisms of democracy. If people lose faith in the voting process, then they lose faith in the legitimacy of the winners; and legitimacy is always in doubt, there is room for the truly illegitmate to take power.
I'm missing something. If the count has flaws that the recount lacks, why do the count at all? How about we just begin with a recount?
Laertes @7:
Well, the British still do manual ballot counts. It's not impossible, it's just a lot of hard work, and harder work yet to make them fair.
Laertes #7: Good question, if by that you mean, why don't they hand-count all the ballots in public in the first place?
As far as I can tell, it's because the media have trained people, by now, to want the election results fast far more than they want it to be right.
Old-fashioned cheating methods via ballot box stuffing and/or destruction can be prevented with proper procedures, which were worked out a long time ago. With hand counts, the number of errors (absent the possibility of deliberate fraud) will necessarily be small.
But even when no-one is trying to cheat, people do make genuine mistakes when counting. If the vote was counted by hand but is very close, you still need to allow for a recount.
As far as I can tell, this is an argument for an AUDIT (random checks of random districts or precincts to verify the system), not a RECOUNT, which would be manually rechecking every vote.
abi @8:
Harder work - obviously right, in the same way that any form of manual work is harder than having it done by a machine. But harder work yet to make them fair - on the contrary, it is the easiest thing in the world to make a manual count fair, and that's one very good reason for continuing to do them.
In UK elections, counters count in an open room, to which representatives of the candidates have access. The votes are bundled by selected candidate so that everybody has a very visible sense of how its going. If the margin is close, everybody stays on and counts again. In the last UK parliamentary election, the smallest majority was 37 votes, settled after three counts - two overnight, and the third the following afternoon after everybody had had a rest.
Is it absolutely 100% accurate? No, almost certainly not. But it is very hard to introduce systematic bias into the counting, so the answer to the more important question, does the candidate who got most votes win the election, is a simple yes. I can't remember a single serious accusation of unfairness introduced by the counting process at a UK election (there have certainly been other kinds of accusation, particularly over the fraudulent use of absentee ballots, just none to do with counting).
I agree that an audit should be done if there is a lack of confidence in the system. It is not enough for an election to be fair; it must be seen to be fair to work. People feel far more confident voting if they feel that their vote is properly counted.
As a side note, I can't remember my county ever having an election scandal, because they have very carefully set things up to be both efficient and auditable. The requirement that a poll board not have a majority of any party members speaks to one issue; the fact that ballot delivery must take place with two workers in the car speaks to another. (They don't have a problem with those two being relatives, though; I can see where that might be an issue at some point in the future.) Every ballot has a barcoded receipt so that a voter can check after the election that the specific vote was tabulated. I wonder how many people actually do.
There's manual counts of the numbers of ballots done at three points, at least, receipts and paper trails all over the place. The voter feeds the ballot into the machine him- or herself. Seriously, the only thing I ever saw at a polling station was an honest-to-goodness case of "electioneering" within 100 feet of the polls— somebody passing out a "voter's guide" to people in line. We told her off and she left and we showed the voters the trashcan if they wanted it.
It's not hard to have an above-board election, but it requires one thing, and that is a group of people who care that the election be run fairly. I had much rather mentally roll my eyes as people vote something truly stupid into law* than even think of tampering with the process.
You know, that whole integrity thing.
*I'm in California. It happens a lot.
Another amen from here. Particularly for this:
"The central problem is closed-source, secret, unaccountable code—machine procedures that can't be audited by independent outsiders. Voting-machine merchants typically defend the closed-source code inside their devices on patent and competetive grounds. We shouldn't give a dime for this argument. We need our elections to be fair and to be perceived as fair far more than we need a voting-machine industry."
Sigh. Folks, I'm all for an accurate count, but I think the focus on technical details of the count obscures the reality that, even a perfectly honest ballot under standard US procedures is a semi-democratic thing at best. The majority vote system isn't very good. On top of which we're getting a count of a self-selected sample--that's below the standard of opinion polling, and surely most of us would want votes with actual authority to be above that standard? This is about to become a very serious problem; it looks like the Supreme Court is about to validate state voter-id rules, and the statutory deadline for Real-ID is May 11th. I predict turnouts back to pre-1960 levels in some states, and a majority of the people turned away in those states will be Democrats.
Marshall decried "the notion that public opinion surveys and even exit poll data is so reliable that any substantial discrepancy between those numbers and the official result is prima facie evidence of tampering. That is simply absurd."
True but misleading. It isn't prima facie evidence; however, it does increase the probability that tampering occurred (see Bayes' Theorem), raising a reasonable suspicion of tampering.
He went on insist that "the possibility or danger of tampering is not a license to assume it or imagine it—in the absence of any evidence—any time the vote doesn't go how we'd like."
"assume or imagine" is a state of mind. In this country, we don't need licenses for states of mind (yet, anyway).
We need our elections to be fair and to be perceived as fair far more than we need a voting-machine industry.
And note that "perceived as fair" is the key point; they can't be proven to be fair. At best, you can give an upper bound on the probability that the reported result is incorrect.
@7 laertes - allow me to recommend Bruce Schneier on the inherent inaccuracy of voting.
"There are two basic types of voting errors: random errors and systemic errors. Random errors are just that, random. Votes intended for A that mistakenly go to B are just as likely as votes intended for B that mistakenly go to A. This is why, traditionally, recounts in close elections are unlikely to change things. The recount will find the few percent of the errors in each direction, and they'll cancel each other out. But in a very close election, a careful recount will yield a more accurate -- but almost certainly not perfectly accurate -- result.
Systemic errors are more important, because they will cause votes intended for A to go to B at a different rate than the reverse. Those can make a dramatic difference in an election, because they can easily shift thousands of votes from A to B without any counterbalancing shift from B to A. These errors can either be a particular problem in the system -- a badly designed ballot, for example -- or a random error that only occurs in precincts where A has more supporters than B."
Folks are worried about systemic errors in NH (if I understand properly - bias in the ballot readers used in NH's 'big' cities) - a recount will tend to uncover/eliminate the bias. If, instead, there's no systemic error, the recount will yield slightly more accurate numbers (maybe), but the percentages won't change much. HTH
Oops, looks like I screwed up my linky. It's here:
I like the idea of post-election audits, but I don't think the Powers That Be are going to open that can of worms. Right now, US elections are perceived as far because they're declared to be fair (proof by emphatic assertion), and any actual examination of the process runs a risk of invalidating that perception.
FrancisT @4 - I emphatically agree re: running a Windows OS, and I'd go farther and demand a dedicated system. The vetting process for Nevada slot machines is a good model for voting hardware.
I disagree that voter ID is a priority. As far as I can see, multi-voting is a much lower threat to democracy than: gerrymandering, media coverage of elections that avoids issues, caging, voter intimidation, ballot box stuffing, push-polling...
The recent Supreme Court case on voter ID was a clash between a broken remedy for a non-existent problem and vote suppression that hasn't happened yet. The disappointing thing is that this court may rule that actual vote suppression has to occur before the Supreme Court will step in - so one new illegal method every four years can tilt close presidential elections. Joy.
Randolph Fritz @14 wrote I think the focus on technical details of the count obscures the reality that, even a perfectly honest ballot under standard US procedures is a semi-democratic thing at best.
Quoted for truth.
Laertes @7 and abi @8:
I'm missing something. If the count has flaws that the recount lacks, why do the count at all? How about we just begin with a recount?
Well, the British still do manual ballot counts. It's not impossible, it's just a lot of hard work, and harder work yet to make them fair.
Is there any country other than the US that has moved away from paper ballots and hand counting?
This doesn't apply to primaries, but with general elections, I guess hand counting as standard is more difficult than in most countries because voters get to vote on so many different things at the same time in US November elections. If there are ballots from dozens of voting decisions to count on the same night, of course that takes longer by hand than if there are normally just one or two, or at best a handful, of different counts to do.
Sylvia Li @9:
Laertes #7: Good question, if by that you mean, why don't they hand-count all the ballots in public in the first place?
As far as I can tell, it's because the media have trained people, by now, to want the election results fast far more than they want it to be right.
A possible solution to that: Keep the electronic scans, but don't give them any legal status as official results- just give them the status of an information service for the interested public. Give only hand count results any official standing.
The reason (I'm certain) that lots of people think the recount is a stupid thing is because it started as a wingnut attack on Clinton.
Wingnut attack on Clinton = stupid. Q.E.D.
Elections got stolen long before the arrival of electronic voting machines. This is not to say that there shouldn't be accountability and paper trails, but the electronic machines should not be the only focus. There's a reason Harry Truman was known as the "Senator from Pendergast"
I note that Stokes suggests that no Republican candidate would "roll over" for Clinton the way the Dems did for Bush.
But I'm not so sure. There were a number of close races in 2006 where the Republicans didn't contest, much to the surprise of Democrats.
And my best guess for the reason is that they already knew that a hand-count would show that, in fact, the race wasn't close at all, and the Democrats had beat them in a landslide.
But that doesn't mean the noise machine won't use it throughout a Democratic victory (by any Democrat) to say that they don't believe the Dem won and that the vote was hacked. They'll just wait until it's too late to call for a recount to smear the winner for four/eight years.
Unfortunately -- I'd guess that a hand-recount in NH would reveal only trivial and random errors.
This result would then be cited as conclusive evidence that the electronic vote-counting system is accurate.
It would, of course, be no such evidence at all; it woud indicate only that the system _can_ be (reasonably) accurate, and that there was no tabulating/reporting fraud in _this_ election.
And yes, now that you mention it, I do seem to have lost my life-long conviction that (possibly aside from a few places such as Chicago) American elections are conducted fairly and honestly. Counting the votes electronically in a black box is no better than having The Authorities take the ballots away and count them in secret. As Stalin is reported to have said, "Who votes doesn't matter; what matters is who _counts_ the votes".
For my money, the counting of the paper ballots should be done at the polling stations, as soon as they are closed, under the close observation of representatives of any of the interested political parties. Failing that, random spot-check manual (re-)counts should be mandatory, with provisions for a total manual recount if significant discrepancies are discovered.
Mind you, I'm sure The American Voters will continue to elect, occasionally, some really dreadful people to high offices, but it's necessary to know that they _did_ elect those people.
Some of this stuff has been going around in fannish circles since 2000.
It looks as though the NH Primaries are of comparable complexity to a UK election, and so amenable to hand-counting, either as the primary count or as a check.
For me, the shocking difference is that the management of American elections is so overtly partisan. How much of the difference is law, and how much tradition, I don't know, but we don't give elected politicians the direct control that they appear to have in the USA.
In some ways, our system still has traces of the divine right of Kings, while the equivalent American political magic is the election. And mixed in with that is a strange echo of the Sublime Porte, with so much done by the political eunuchs of our professional civil administration.
Neither election nor apolitical appointment makes an honest man out of a rogue. It's not English gold, not this time, but it's Parcel of Rogues time.
That's why the checks are needed, rather than relying on the magic ballot box.
The US is not the only country having problems with voting machines. In the Netherlands in 2006 and 2007 considerable doubt was thrown up about the security of the voting computers to the point that one particular brand was disqualified for use, with a voting commission going so far as to recommend abandoning all existing machines entirely in favour of a two stage system. That would mean using a computer to vote, which prints a ballot which is then scanned in using OCR in another computer, with the physical ballots there as a safeguard.
But the point, Martin, is that they physical ballot is not a safeguard unless it is actually counted by hand.
"physical ballot is not a safeguard unless it is actually counted by hand."
Uh, and not even then.
Fungi #18:
A bunch of states currently mandate post-election audits, and one congresscritter (Rush Holt) has been repeatedly trying to push a national standard for paper records and post-election audits through, so it's not like this is some wild-eyed idea that the PTBs will never let happen. I believe some people in Ohio went to jail over gaming these requirements in 2004, and an independent review more-or-less concluded that the equipment being used there didn't really support proper post-election audits. (You could count the paper records, but you couldn't reliably link them back the the right set of electronic records.)
One thing to understand about elections in the US is that they're run locally--federal law has some impact, but mostly the relevant law is state law, and local officials are actually running the election, typically are choosing which equipment to use within guidelines given by the state, designing the ballots, etc. There are *huge* variations between how the same election using the same equipment is run, county by county and state by state.
elise #13:
The issue isn't whether the voting machine is open source. Plenty of open-source software with lots of expert scrutiny turns out to have bugs, which is one reason why (say) Firefox is constantly getting software updates. The issue is that even given the source code for a complicated system, I can't prove to myself that there's not a trapdoor or security-relevant bug in there somewhere. So you need some mechanisms to keep that software honest, in the sense that you can independently check up on the results. Paper records are far from perfect for this (there are attacks they don't help you detect, and it's not clear that enough people check the paper records carefully enough to catch a lot of practical attacks), but they're what we have that we can field today. (In fact, that we could field many years ago.)
Thank you.
Albatross, who claimed that open-source software doesn't have bugs? That's a complete red herring relative to anything that's been said here.
The point is that open-source software can be examined. Of course it can be made deliberately confusing, but there's nothing so thoroughly obfuscated as code that can't be examined at all.
I'm not an open-source purist by any means. But it seems to me that the administration of public elections is exactly the sort of task for which all procedures, including electronic procedures, should be as transparent as possible.
#30 Patrick:
Elise's quoted comment in #13 said that the central problem is that the source isn't disclosed. But that's just wrong, that's not the central problem, that's a secondary, annoying additional problem. Of course, voting machine software ought not to be secret, but opening it up would not make DREs a sensible way to capture and count votes!
My point is that disclosing the source code and other internals is a good thing to do, but neither necessary nor sufficient to get good elections. It's not sufficient, because code review isn't a reliable way to find either security-relevant bugs or intentionally-installed weaknesses (good luck telling them apart). It's not necessary, because even with full disclosure of the internals, you still have to audit the results in some meaningful way to trust the result. Even disclosing the code, you *can't* trust it.
There is no way to make any kind of electronic vote tabulation system acceptable because electronic vote tabulation includes invisible state changes.
Paper ballots, counted by hand in public, just isn't very difficult to do, and the ballot, assuming relatively straightforward care in marking mechanisms, is hard to make undergo undetectable state change.
Getting the total to be reported accurately is more difficult, but not that difficult. (More difficult because fewer people are involved.)
Note that the current media situation in the States makes having an accurate count relatively useless, because it's clear that the reported count will be decided by a very small number of people inside a small number of media organizations, and that local protests to the effect of "those are not the totals we reported" will take months or years to receive significant attention.
The key is completely open public scrutiny at ever step; none of this 'member of the political party' nonsense, all it takes is citizenship.
The other key is not to optimize the process for things that don't matter; the measure of efficiency for voting systems is not speed or effort, but the perceived probity of the mechanism.
Tangential note -- Elections Canada -- a non-partisan permanent part of the Canadian Civil Service -- uses rather complicated paper ballots, where the ballot tears off a serial number slip, serial number blocks are assigned time ranges at the polling place, random assignment of serial number ranges is made by polling place by people who the poll workers can't identify, and there are substantial anti-tamper and anti-forgery measures in the ballots.
It's not perfect, but then again nothing will be. It seems to work pretty well.
The point is that open-source software can be examined. Of course it can be made deliberately confusing, but there's nothing so thoroughly obfuscated as code that can't be examined at all.But open source is no real protection against deliberate tampering, either.
Anyone who doesn't understand why that's true should go read Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust, one of the seminal works in the field of computer security.
The short summary is this: malicious code can be invisibly inserted into compiled software by hacking the compiler (or assembler or linker or other tool) used to convert the human-readable source code into machine-executable binary code.
Even recompiling the compiler itself from clean source is no guarantee, since a hacked compiler can also propagate its own malicious code by inserting it into any newly-compiled instance of the compiler.
And no, the approach suggested by David A. Wheeler, cited by Bruce Schneier in Countering "Trusting Trust" isn't any help, either.
Schneier may be an expert on computer security, but he clearly doesn't understand how compilers work; the idea that two different compilers should produce bit-for-bit identical binary code from the same source code (and that any deviation is an indication of tampering) is laughably incorrect, as anyone who has ever built a compiler can tell you.
(In addition to that, his remark that "...if you're really worried about "turtles all the way down," you can write Compiler B yourself for a computer you built yourself from vacuum tubes that you made yourself" is one of the most fatuously stupid things I've ever heard anyone say on the topic.)
Open source is no guarantee of anything.
But Alan Bostick's point above is crucial: no matter how convoluted you get in trying assure that an e-voting system is secure, the most damaging aspect is that it destroys trust in the system.
It makes it easy for anyone to claim that election results they dislike are the result of tampering; and it makes it virtually impossible to convincingly refute such claims.
Even if no actual hacking ever occurs, that destruction of trust is pernicious. It casts doubt on the legitimacy of any and all elections, no matter how scrupulously clean they may be.
And that's a real problem for any democracy.
With regard to Graydon@32; there are many copies of Reflections on Trusting Trust available through Google Scholar; the link you posted goes to the access-controlled ACM repository. I mention this only because it's one of my favorite papers ever (along with Life at Low Reynolds Number. Go read that one too! It's got nothing to do with elections but it's really really interesting even if you have to skip over the particularly technical bits.)
Graydon #32:
One complicating issue for doing hand counts in US elections is that we often have really long ballots, as a result of holding the federal, state, county, city, and school district elections together. I believe that a couple years ago, there was an Arizona opscan ballot that ran to four pages. That doesn't mean it's impossible to hand count, just that it's more of a pain than you'd think. These long, complicated ballots also probably don't do a good job of getting informed participation by voters, since by the time you're on page four, your eyes have probably glazed over.
Graydon #32:
Paper ballots, counted by hand in public, just isn't very difficult to do, and the ballot, assuming relatively straightforward care in marking mechanisms, is hard to make undergo undetectable state change.
Getting the total to be reported accurately is more difficult, but not that difficult. (More difficult because fewer people are involved.)
Getting correct reports there should be easier now than it used to be: With the availability and price of consumer electronics today- not to mention what we'll probably get there in five or ten years- it shouldn't be too difficult to require vote counters to videotape the entire process, uncut, and then publish the videos on votetube.gov or somewhere. Same, if you want, for the going-ons at all places where reports from individual polling stations are received and added up. Allthough instead of the latter, you could as well have a large page on the web that shows all polling station reports and how they add up, with each report linking to the respective video. And if you don't trust the 'official' videos, let representatives of all candidates peacefully enter the rooms where the votes are counted and tape their own ones. One of the many possible applications of Charlie Stross' 'livelogs', if you want.
albatross #35:
Wouldn't hand counts be easier with one ballot for each vote- even if they're filled out at the same time- than with one ballot for all the votes on a given election day?
Raphael @ 37: That's the way we usually do elections around here (i.e. Canada): different ballot sheets for different items being voted on. Though there would obviously be problems if there were many different things to vote on -- I don't think I've ever had more than three or four sheets to deal with.
Paper ballots aren't a panacea, but they have the huge advantage of putting the primary data in an auditable form.
The other thing about voting machines that hasn't really been commented upon is that, in the end, the task they have to accomplish is pretty much what Herman Hollerith used punch cards for in the first place. The complication, such as it is, rests in being fanatical about making sure that each input is valid. 99% of the code in an electronic voting machine is about simply presenting the images and decoding the responses. There's still some decoding to do with punch card ballots, to be sure, but it's much simpler; and the separation of the record from the decoding means that if you do the latter incorrectly, you can go back and do it again right.
Albatross, #31: Huh, okay, I see what you're saying. You're right.
While there's lots to to said in favor of opening the source of any computerized election system, suggesting that if the system was open, that the results would not need to be audited is nonsensical.
We have an experiment that can not be repeated. There are just too many ways that the count could be incorrect, while on the other hand, the correctness of the count is critical to the perceived fairness of the election. Elections must not just be fair, they must be perceived to be fair.
There should always be some kind of audit recount. And if the outcome of the audit doesn't meet the .99 confidence test, there should be a larger recount.
And running SELECT candidate, sum(*) FROM votes GROUP BY candidate
again is not a valid audit.
Martin Wisse: What keeps the optical reader from being corrupted? It seems to me the machine which makes the ballot isn't adding any security to the system.
Sebastian #something or other
...(along with Life at Low Reynolds Number. Go read that one too! It's got nothing to do with elections but it's really really interesting even if you have to skip over the particularly technical bits.)
Are you talking about Maching Slow Light?
That we are suspicious of the results is not a good reason for an audit.
That there has been a vote is a very good reason for an audit.
One possible procedure: the optical count should be done on numbered bundles of votes, say a thousand at a time. Then, under the watchful eyes of the candidates and/or their observers, a random subset of the numbered bundles are chosen for a manual recount, which is compared to the optical scans for each bundle. I can describe a procedure by which the bundles can be chosen such that everyone can be confident it's random, if anyone's curious. This is cheap and rapidly lends high confidence to the optical scan - now the only way to throw the election is to add or remove paper ballots.
I can't believe this isn't what is always done, no matter what the results, when optical scanners are used to count votes.
I think you misquoted the link "sometimes more so" - or possibly quoted from AT when they had it wrong: it leads to the article quoted, while obviously it should be another, 1,000 pages of bad news: Ohio e-voting report released
THis just in: MARYLAND: State to abandon touch-screen voting
#33 the approach suggested by David A. Wheeler, cited by Bruce Schneier in Countering "Trusting Trust" isn't any help
Yes it is. Try reading the explanation again more carefully. The idea isn't that "two different compilers should produce bit-for-bit identical binary code from the same source code", it's that the same compiler, built in two different ways from the same source, should produce bit-for-bit identical code (or at least that the differences should be small enough to be anlaysable and explicable).
The binaries X and Y, built from the same source by different compilers, are expected to be different.
The "vacuum tubes" are obviously hyperbole, but the sufficiently paranoid might try an approach like VIPER
But arranging self inserting backdoors in multiple versions of gcc on different platforms with crosscompiling and pcc is not going to be practical. Ken Thompson was writing about a time when there was only one C compiler.
While this is the first state-wide recount since 1980, darned near every election here that I recall has included a recount of some race in some town or another.


text:
Reflexology, Reflexology for Fertility Support, Maternity Reflexology, Reiki, and Colour Therapy in Muswell Hill and Crouch End
AMBER WHITE Dip COT, ITEC, RZT, Member of Assoc. Reflexology, Assoc. of Reproductive Reflexologists ,
CHTA Member, Embody Insured
I offer the following treatments:-
Reflex Zone Therapy of the Feet (or Reflexology)
Reflexology for Fertility Support ( Currently a special offer)
Maternity Reflexology
Mental Colour Therapy
Reiki 1 and 11
If you are experiencing conditions such as unexplained infertility, menstrual irregularity, stress etc. then please feel free to contact me, as I may very well be able to help.
My practice is based in PROJECT ME, 84 PARK RD, N8 8JQ. 0208 348 4577 www.project-me.co.uk
Tuesdays 10 to 7pm
Saturdays 10 to 3pm
PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY AMBER WHITE ON 07799077205 or by E MAIL [email protected] Many thanks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Best Boardriders Clubs Ready For Australian Boardriders Battle Final
Snapper Rocks and North Narrabeen head a powerful line-up of Australia's best boardriders clubs to contest the National Final of the Be the Influence Australian Boardriders Battle at Cronulla on January 25-26.
Both clubs are stacked with some of the country's best surfers including five-time World Champion Stephanie Gilmore, 2012 World Champion Joel Parkinson and ASP World Tour competitor Laura Enever.
They are just a selection of the top names who could compete for their clubs including World Champion Mick Fanning (Kirra), Tyler Wright (Werri), Adrian Buchan (Avoca), Taj Burrow (Yallingup) and Mark Occhilupo (Cronulla).
The clubs to contest the final are:
New South Wales: Merewether Surfboard Club, Avoca Boardriders, Werri Beach Boardriders, Elouera Boardriders, North Narrabeen Boardriders, Queenscliff Boardriders, Cronulla Sharks Boardriders.
Queensland: Snapper Surfriders, Kirra Surfriders, D-Bah Boardriders
Victoria: Torquay Boardriders, 13th Beach Boardriders
Western Australia: Yallingup Boardriders, Margaret River Boardriders
South Australia: Seaford Boardriders
Tasmania: South Arm Boardriders
In total, $105,000 is up for grabs across the entire National Series including the National Final. There was $30,000 available across the seven State qualifying events, while $75,000 will be split between the 16 clubs that make the National Final. The final includes a $10,000 Skins event with $1000 winner-take-all up for grabs across 10 heats.
The event will be televised live both days on Fuel TV and will also be streamed at www.australianboardridersbattle.com.
This event is supported by the Be the Influence – Tackling Binge Drinking initiative, part of the Australian Government's National Binge Drinking Strategy addressing youth binge drinking and raising awareness of the long and short term impacts of harmful drinking among young people through sport sponsorships and other activities.
The Be the Influence Australian Boardriders Battle is proudly supported by Be the Influence – Tackling Binge Drinking, Billabong, Toyota, Nikon, Surfing Australia, Surfing NSW, Destination NSW, the Association of Surfing Professionals and Milwaukee.
Beau - Avoca Boardriders, NSW.
Stephanie Gilmore - Snapper Surfriders, QLD.
Mick Fanning - Kirra Surfriders, QLD.
Joel Parkinson - Snapper Surfriders, QLD.
Avoca Boardriders, NSW.
Merewether Surfboard Club, NSW.
Laura Enever
Seaford Boardriders, SA.
South Arm Boardriders, TAS.
Taj Burrow - Yallingup Boardriders, WA.
Tyler Wright - Werri Beach Boardriders, NSW.
Yallingup Boardriders, WA.


text:
"I will not celebrate meaningless milestones"
Bart Simpson
Yes, just a few months ago, I reveled in the fact that I had reached one hundred posts. And now here I am, once again accepting cyber slaps on the back and toasts of virtual champagne.
You see, today is the one-year anniversary of the Hispanic Fanatic. In that time, I have written 123 posts, received over 200 comments, and deleted 17 quadrillion pieces of spam from the site. My readership has gone from the low single digits to… well… let's not talk about how high it's gotten – just know that it's gone up.
Thanks to all of you for reading and commenting over the year. I hope to make the second year even more fanatical.


text:
Out-of-School Performances
Fahrenheit 451
Sinclair Theatre Department
Fri, Feb 9, 8pm • Sun, Feb 11, 2pm* • Blair Hall Theatre
Early estimated run time TBA • Last date to order tickets 12/12 (no returns)
In the 24th century, Guy Montag takes pleasure in his profession as a fireman, burning illegally owned books and the homes of their owners. However, Montag soon begins to question the value of his profession and, in turn, his life. Montag struggles with his existence, eventually fleeing his oppressive, censored society and joining an underground network of intellectuals.
Tickets reserved for Sinclair shows are confirmed at the time of reservation and cannot be returned. For this reason, we recommend that advisors initially reserve a modest number of tickets for Sinclair events. If you want to increase your ticket number after your initial order, those requests will be honored if ticket supplies can accommodate the request.
* Sunday's performance of Fahrenheit 451 will have shadow interpreting, in which interpreters "shadow" the actors, following them onstage while interpreting with sign language.
Director François Truffaut discusses the novel Fahrenheit 451 with its author, Ray Bradbury


text:
Bertram Yuh, M.D., M.S.H.C.P.M., M.I.S.M.
- Associate Clinical Professor, Division of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgery
- Urologic Oncology Surgeon
- Director, Urologic Oncology and Robotic Surgery Fellowship
Bertram Yuh, M.D., M.S.H.C.P.M., M.I.S.M.
- Urologic Oncology
- Urology
- Robotic Surgery
- Prostate Cancer
- Bladder Cancer
- Kidney Cancer
- Complex Oncology Surgery
- Bladder Overactivity
- Outcomes and Epidemiology
- Robotic Surgery
- Prostate Cancer
- Bladder Cancer
- Spanish
- Mandarin
Dr. Bertram Yuh specializes in robotic surgery to treat prostate, bladder and other urologic cancers. He received his medical degree from Case Western Reserve University as well as master degrees in Information Systems Management and Health Care Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University. He completed a urology residency at State University of New York in Buffalo, N.Y. He joined the City of Hope division of Urologic Oncology in 2010.
He has been invited to speak nationally and internationally, and also joined in missions work in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.
His clinical research focuses on improving outcomes for robotic surgery, particularly achieving better quality of life, cancer control, cost control and process flow. He is passionate about the benefits of robotic surgery compared to other treatments for prostate, bladder, and kidney cancer. He has authored over 40 peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and chapters.
- 2018-present, Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
- 2011-Present, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Surgery, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
- Urology and Urologic Cancers
City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010Get Directions
Phone : 626-256-4673
630 S. Raymond Ave., Suite 220, Pasadena, CA, 91105Get Directions
Phone : 626-218-9500
- 2001-2005 - Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, M.D.
- 2000-2002 - Carnegie Melon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Master of Information Systems Management and M.S., Healthcare Policy and Management
- 2000 - University of Akron, Akron, OH, B.S., Natural Sciences, Summa Cum Laude
- 2010-2011, Fellow, Urologic Oncology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
- 2006-2010, Resident, Urology, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY
- 2005 -2006, Resident, General Surgery, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY
January 11, 2019
July 31, 2018
- Member, American Urological Association
- Member, American Association of Clinical Urologists
- Member, Endourologic Society
- Member, Chinese American Medical Association of Southern California
- Member, AUA Western Section
- Member, Society of Urologic Oncology
- Medical Society of the State of New York (2010)
- AUA Northeast Section (2006-2010)


text:
2 GunsDVD - 2013 | Widescreen edition
From the critics
Community Activity
CommentAdd a Comment
Not one of his best movies, kind of simple and dumb. But worth the time watching.
Denzel and Mark showed great chemistry in this movie kind of like the chemistry shown in the old Lethal Weapon movies but instead the guys are undercover as bad guys. These guys should be put in more movies together. If they ever do a reboot of the Lethal Weapon movies I feel that they shouldn't but you know Hollywood probably will since they have a Tv show Denzel and Mark should be cast as the main characters. There are some parts of the movie that are not that great but like I said I love the chemistry of the actors. This movie is a much watch.
This is a buddy guns and action film, meaning there is nothing serious going on here. Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg are the buddies. The bad guys are Bill Paxton and Edward James Olmos. A bonus is a very old Fred Ward. Not every movie I watch has to be a serious one. I enjoyed watching it this one time.
Non-stop senseless violence. Each scene seems to be more depraved than the previous one. I could not bring myself to watch to the end. Happy am I not to have spent my money and time going to the theater for this loser of a movie. "2 guns to" was not considered a success.
Loved it. Lots of action. Wife even enjoyed it.
Didn't finish watching. Extremely boring and can't believe Denzel did this movie.
Good action movie with some hilarious dialog. Wahlberg and Washington have great chemistry and it makes this a very enjoyable film.
Pretty good mix of comedy and action. Good cast and chemistry. Better than I thought it would be. A few good twists thrown in too.
QuotesAdd a Quote
Watched this movie again last weekend; then heard Bill Paxton passed away and I CANNOT get this quote out of my head:
"Red Rover, Red Rover, whoever's got my $43.125 million dollars better get the f*** on over!"
This may not be a great movie; but Bill Paxton IS Great in it. Bad guys have all the fun (on screen).
mark wahlberg to denzel washington: you're D.E.A.!!! then he shoots Denzel Washington in the left shoulder.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." ― Martin Luther King, Jr
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." -Winston Churchill
AgeAdd Age Suitability
There are no ages for this title yet.
SummaryAdd a Summary
There are no summaries for this title yet.
NoticesAdd Notices
There are no notices for this title yet.


text:
- Date
- All
- Past Day
- Past Week
- Past Month
- Past 6 Months
- Past Year
- Post Type
- All
- Question (46)
- Announcement
- Article
- Post State
- All
- Recommended (1)
- Answered (46)
- Unanswered
- Product
- All
- Intuit Online Payroll
- Intuit Tax Online
- QuickBooks
- QuickBooks 2014 & Older
- QuickBooks Accountant Desktop
- QuickBooks Accountant Desktop Enterprise
- QuickBooks Desktop
- QuickBooks Desktop Enterprise 2017
- QuickBooks Desktop Enterprise 2018
- QuickBooks Desktop Enterprise 2019
- QuickBooks Desktop Payroll
- QuickBooks Online
- QuickBooks Online Accountant
- QuickBooks Online International
- QuickBooks Online Payroll
- QuickBooks Payments
- QuickBooks Point of Sale
- QuickBooks Self-Employed
- Sync with PayPal
- Platform
- All
- Online (46)
- Edition
- All
- GoPayment (46)
- Country
- All
- United States
- Oman
- New Zealand
- Nepal
- Norway
- Netherlands
- Nicaragua
- Nigeria
- Namibia
- Mozambique
- Maldives
- Mauritius
- Malta
- Macao
- Myanmar
- Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic Of
- Marshall Islands
- Libya
- Luxembourg
- Lithuania
- Liberia
- Sri Lanka
- Saint Lucia
- Lebanon
- Lao People's Democratic Republic
- Cayman Islands
- Kuwait
- Korea, Republic of
- Cambodia
- Kyrgyzstan
- Kenya
- Japan
- Jordan
- Jamaica
- Jersey
- Italy
- Iraq
- Israel
- Ireland
- Indonesia
- Hungary
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Guatemala
- Greece
- Gibraltar
- Ghana
- Georgia
- Grenada
- Finland
- Spain
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Ecuador
- Algeria
- Dominican Republic
- Dominica
- Germany
- Czech Republic
- Cyprus
- Curaçao
- Costa Rica
- Colombia
- China
- Cameroon
- Chile
- Côte D'Ivoire
- Switzerland
- Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The
- Belize
- Belarus
- Botswana
- Bahamas
- Bolivia
- Bermuda
- Bahrain
- Bulgaria
- Belgium
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Aruba
- Argentina
- Angola
- Armenia
- Albania
- Anguilla
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Afghanistan
- United Arab Emirates
- South Africa
- Singapore
- Malaysia
- Mexico
- India
- Hong Kong
- United Kingdom
- France
- Canada
- Brazil
- Australia (show less)
From the community
How do I get a report of item sales? I have several items in my GoPayment App. I should be able to get a report on sales of each item. Seems like basic bookkeeping.
From the answer: Hello there, eatsnbeats , Pulling up a sales report will provide you a view of your items' sales.... I'm here to help you how.
From the community
QB payments consolidated into one deposit in QB but split into two deposits in reality
From the answer: Hello, safariguy.... You can modify the transaction in QuickBooks payment to match it with the actual bank.
From the community
I have used Go Payments service in the past. Is it possible to turn on this app temporarily and just pay for it when I need it?
From the answer: Quickbooks Payments has a pay as you go option with zero monthly fee.... Your choice of that or a monthly flat rate fee with lower % fees but it takes high volume to recoup the difference.
From the community
From the answer: Hello there, .... Thanks for reaching out to the Community.... I can walk you through the steps for updating the W4 information.
From the community
How to I switch my account from "Pay as you go" to "Pay Monthly and Save?"
From the answer: Hello there, emily.harris... , Let me direct you to our support who are equipped with in switching your QuickBooks GoPayment options.
From the community
Merchant Services
From the answer: Greetings, .... I'm pleased to furnish you with some information about receiving customer payments.... When you sign up for the ability to received credit card and eCheck payments , you'll receive an email notification to inform you about the status of your
From the community
I would like to deactivate my Go Payment for May thru December. Then re-activate it for Jan 2020. Is this possible? I don't want to pay the $20 monthly fee May-Dec
From the answer: Thank you for posting, tam0594 .... Let me share some information about canceling and reactivating QuickBooks GoPayment.
From the community
Merchant Center Transaction Link - Error
From the answer: Hi, afixia .... I want to ensure you'll be able to access the link to the production system via Merchant Services Center.
From the community
How do you import Cash payments from GoPayments to Quickbooks Online? Specifically for tracking sales tax paid on Cash transactions? Thanks!
From the answer: Good day, wrfguides, You can integrate your GoPayment account with QuickBooks Online.... Here's how: Click the Gear icon .
From the community
How do I incorporate Shopify
From the answer: Hi there, .... Let me share some insights about accepting payments through Shopify in QuickBooks Online.... To accept payments via Shopify in QuickBooks Online, you'll need to integrate with the E-commerce app to process, track, and deposit your transactions


text:
And now, the end is near. Apt enough words for the six Filipino karaoke singers for whom they formed the first line of the last song they would ever sing. I was wholly captivated by the news on Thursday that there have been at least half a dozen murders in the Philippines in recent years triggered by people singing "My Way" so badly in the country's many karaoke bars. The local media has apparently dubbed the slayings (because that's what media do; they dub, after someone has, um, slayed) the "'My Way" killings".
Well, you know me, and you know yourselves, and we're not normally at home to Mr Gratuitous Violence, but I can at least begin to understand some of this, in the diametric opposite of the way I truly can never comprehend: the likes of scart leads; why I'm always in the wrong; Formula 1; Yorkshire chippiness; Wednesday afternoons; continuing tolerance for scallops, Microsoft, Dubai, royalty or Alan Yentob; or why the producers of the film The NeverEnding Story (running time 102 minutes) were never done under the Trade Descriptions Act.
But violence offered against perpetrators of bad music? Yes, I can begin to understand. According to the New York Times this week, many karaoke bars in the Philippines have removed "My Way" from their lists to avoid further violence, and I can see why.
Partly, it's the song. The sainted Clive James, writing as TV critic for this paper an aeon or two ago – or, as anyone who currently wants to be offered some sudden karaoke-style violence might infuriatingly prefer to refer to it, "back in the day", as if we were a nation of deathbed mafia dons, grizzled of chin and drizzled in sepia, rather a nation of, essentially, twits – Mr James once rightly pointed out, writing about Sid Vicious, that he was possibly the only person truly entitled to sing those lyrics. He had indeed done it his way, unto death. The resonance of the lyrics pales a little, perhaps, when being slur-belted by, say, a pleasant Edinburgh accounts reviser (comfortable slacks, those grey BHS shoes that look like Cornish pasties, thin-lipped angry wife back at the Aga, regretting choices), or a Tokyo hedge-fund manager (Hugo Boss needledick greedsuit, pointy shoes made from a rare narwhal, thin angry wife in someone else's bed). "The record shows/I took the blows… I've lived/A life that's full/I've travelled each and every highway… But through it all/when there was doubt/I ate it up and spit it out/I faced it all/And I stood tall/And did it…" the way everybody else did it. So: the contrast between maverick dreams and bathetic reality can hurt, and can hurt the listener, and gothically -awful renderings can seriously hurt, to the extent that, as we see, at least six are now dead. And I can, almost, see why. But is it right? Can music justify murder?
I am far less Nazi about it all, now. I used to bore friends in bars by getting them to list the CDs which, if they found them in a girl's flat, would result in the (courteous, thoughtful, but still early) ordering of a taxi. Then, of course, I met someone who possessed Simply Red and Dire Straits and liked to listen to Aled Jones on Radio 2 on a Sunday morning, but I had fallen in love, so blitzed my prejudices. And I was immensely impressed and heartened by David Mitchell's recent admission in the Observer that he owned only two (two, two, count them, two) CDs: Phil Collins and Susan Boyle. What guts. What self-confidence. What a dilemma, were you to be in the car with him on a long journey and the music playing: half of you fascinated by his humour and honour and life-affirming zesty intelligence, half of you trying to twitch the steering-wheel into oncoming traffic.
Still. There are. Still. Some crimes against music. I like to think that there's a kind of parallel-world Dante's Desert Island Discs, wherein you had to listen to the eight songs that would, authentically, drive you to instant bloodied machete violence, were you to be stuck in a room close to the person forcing them at you and close to also, of course, a machete.
Oddly, as much thought has gone into this as goes into the times I dream of the time I'm on the real DID. It'll change, next week, but at the time of writing, and in no particular order, we would have to have:
■ Mungo Jerry: "In the Summertime".
■ Eurythmics: "Thorn in my Side".
(I hate these both for the same reason. Good music has an underlying rhythm and harmony, and an overlying melody, which works differently, and brings synergy, but is crucially, as I said, different. Now think of these two lazy efforts. Hum the underline. Now hum the melody, the singy bit. They are both exactly the same. How damned difficult was that to write?)
■ "Summertime". Not wholly its fault but, still, yawn, the "My Way" of the jazz age, and anyone who thinks it (or anything else really) "speaks personally" to them quite deserves what's coming.
■ The entire Lloyd Webber canon of vapidity.
■ Cliff Richard: "Bachelor Boy". Prescient enough, Cliff, but some sins of omission in the reasons for the perennial "bacherlordom", eh, Cliffy, eh?
■ The ones you can't dance to, but feel you have to try. All of U2; the faux-opera stuff from Queen; all of Meatloaf; Coldplay, of course.
■ Any cover of a Steely Dan song by Peter Andre. I don't think it exists, but the possibility haunts my unhappiest dreams, like seeing a unicorn in a mincer.
■ The ones you can't do anything but dance or at least wiggle to, and yet will still look a twannie. You certainly can't enjoy the music, or listen to the lyrics without wanting a shower. I suppose I mean rap.
■ That one that utterly ruins the best film of all time, Armageddon. It might be by Bryan Adams, but certainly is by someone who will look like him (whatever he looks like, but I think I can guess).
Oh, no, already at nine or something. This is too easy. Stop me now: otherwise my heart will go on…


text:
Thursday, October 28, 2010
~Sad news~
Who said it? Unknown at 3:39 PM
11 Dirty Comments:
- Debra said...
So sorry to hear you are leaving I just found you! But I understand and wish you well with your health and family.
- October 28, 2010 at 4:35 PM
- Khristen said...
Good luck to you, this was a great challenge site :( I'm hoping someone can step forward and take over, I just know it won't be the same without you!
- October 28, 2010 at 4:38 PM
- melody said...
oh pinky ~ i am SO sorry to hear that you're not doing well and that 'dirty scraps' is closing! but ~ totally understand! you're in my thoughts and prayers chickie ~ i wish you all the best in life and whatever endeavors you pursue ~ but above all ~ best wishes for 'good health'! your family and you are of upmost importance!
big hugs and thanks for ALL your inspiration! xoxo
i hope someone can step forward, too ~ before the closing time ~ so 'dirty scraps' legancy can continue!
- October 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM
- Melissa said...
So sorry to read this, but you are certainly doing the right thing by putting your health and family first! Take care of you!
- October 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM
- *Nikki* said...
i like the concept of this site..and i would love to have a site like this..but i dont think i could run it like you..
i sure hope someone that has been here a while steps up and takes over so we can still be dirty!
- October 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM
- Nikki Love said...
I know everyone understands. Hoping that all is well with u and ur family {hugs}
- October 28, 2010 at 9:19 PM
- Sandi said...
wow...I was just hoping to get back into doing Dirty Scraps and I find out this news. :(
Take care of you, see you over at SFTIO!
- October 28, 2010 at 10:50 PM
- Jodi said...
sending lots of prayers and hugs your way. I know that this was a very difficult decision for you but you must take care of yourself above all else.
- October 29, 2010 at 1:03 PM
- Kray said...
I don't always respond to this site, but I always love to come and look at the work from y'all. A lot of inspiration. I understand that health and family needs to come first and will be sad to see this site go.
- October 31, 2010 at 1:05 AM
- Lindy said...
So sad to hear this news Pinky. I just found Dirty Scraps not long ago and love it. I totally understand and I'm sending well wishes and hugs to you and your family.
Hugs ~ Lindy
- November 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM
- fairyrocks said...
You did this 'First and you did it Fabulously'
I know I am not alone when I say thankyou for sparking the places in my being I don't travel to, and making it ok to do so.
I will miss stopping by.
Take care of You.
- November 11, 2010 at 8:52 AM


text:
we have got our testers for the urban weekender coat, they are:
April, janel – 12m
Tamara, sara – 18m
La inglesita, maria – 2T
Nikki, susanne – 3T
Loveineverything , Alfonsiene– 4T
Micalah, Bethany– 5T
i have sent you all the pdf file today along with all the info about testing the pattern. Please let me know asap if you did not receive it or if you need it sent to a different email address.
thanks again
have fun sewing!


text:
Home secretary Theresa May faced a storm in the House of Commons in response to the Olympics security shambles around the huge shortfall in staff numbers.
May admitted in Parlimant that army troops would be sent in during the Olympics because private contracters G4S were struggling to meet demand.
"Concerns have arisen about the ability of G4S to deliver the required number of guards for all Olympic venues and within the time-scales available. The Defence Secretary and I, along with other ministers have been constantly monitoring the situation and the contracts over many months. And in consultation with Locog and G4S, we have now agreed that it would be prudent to deploy additional military support to provide greater reassurance. I have therefore requested additional MOD support and the Defence Secretary has authorised the deployment of a further 3,500 military personnel."
Keith Vaz, Labour MP and Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, was concerned over the safety of spectators to the sporting event.
"G4S has let the country down and we have literally had to send in the troops. Can the Home Secretary give the House this assurance: That she is now satisfied that all the changes that she has announced today will mean that what we hope will be the greatest Games ever staged will be done securely for the safety of the visitors and the British people."
Shadow Olympics minsiter Tessa Jowell stated that the issue needed to be resolved as soon as possible.
"It is a serious problem, but I think it is a serious which has got to be sorted. And so all our energy and focus should be on solving this, putting in place a solution which will be the deployment of extra staff from the military and obviously making sure that the G4S contract reflects the fact that they delivered less than they promised."
Written by Alfred Joyner


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
Magento Tier Prices v1.2.1 is Released
Hi to everyone,
Today we release Tier Prices 1.2.1 where we've fixed a bug in the Cart. It happened when a customer added the required number of products for getting a tiered price and proceeded to Checkout. After changing the currency, an error appeared. Now we're glad to say that this bug is fixed.
We released the updated Tier Prices 1.2 two weeks ago. The extension has got some new features and its work has been enhanced. We hope that our extension will help you manage Magento tier prices more efficiently.
Best regards,
Anastasia Pletneva


text:
Model 3903T, 3906Tgear measuring centres can accomplish a variety of gear measuring tasks including the inspections of tooth data on cylindrical gears ( external spur and helical gears: standard measuring module ), shaping and shaving cutters, as well as on gear and worm hobs (optional). In addition, the range of application also extends to inspection of worm and worm gear, spiral, straight and helical bevel gears (optional). These gear measuring centres are widely used in automobile, machine tool, instrument industries, as well as inspection laboratory and modern factory environment.
- Compact construction of basic machine, high measuring accuracy and reliability. The basic units of these gear measuring centres are pro- vided with four axis measuring systems. With the aid of rigid multi- row rolling guides, Germany-made linear and angular encoders, high measuring reliability is guaranteed.
- Complete measuring of tooth data and wide range of application. The functions of the measuring software include evaluations of tooth profile deviations ( Fα, ffα, fHα), helix deviations ( Fβ, ffβ, fHβ), pitch de- viations ( Fp, fpk, fpt ). And run out (Fr). Also available are evaluations of tooth data on hob, shaping and shaving cutters, worm and worm gear, straight and helical bevel gears as well as on spiral bevel gear.
- Fully automatic measuring cycle with fast measuring speed. This measuring centre permits automatic checking of all test items such as profile, helix and pitch deviations and run out in one set-up. The measuring cycle is automatically controlled by microcomputer.
- Powerful measuring software functions with simple operation. The measuring item can be selected according to the workpiece to be tested. This user friendly measuring software provides automatic evaluation of cylindrical gears in accordance with ISO1328(GB/T10095、DIN3962、JIS B1702、AGMA88). The special function in the measuring software includes evaluations of K chart, pro- file barreling Cα, and tooth crowning Cβ.


text:
Looking to enhance your smile? We are proudly offering a free Implant and/or Denture Consultation including Cone Beam for our patients. (Value $350)
Smile Makeover
Get the smile you have always dreamed of with a Smile Makeover!
Do you have multiple cosmetic issues affecting your smile? A smile makeover from Advanced Dentists in Las Cruces may be just what you need.
A smile makeover is a way for Dr. Reiter to address a number of cosmetic dentist problems with a single treatment plan. The reason one treatment plan is beneficial is that it allows us to do the treatments you need with no repeat or unnecessary services. This means less time in the chair for you, which equates to less of a wait before you get to show off your new smile.
Any available cosmetic treatment is on the table when it comes to your smile makeover. Here are some of the more common ones that we use.
- Dental Veneers– Dental veneers are very useful when it comes to fixing problems that are affecting the appearance of your teeth. Whether you need to fix a chip, crack, or an oddly shaped tooth, dental veneers are a wonderful option to consider.
- Teeth Whitening –Dental whitening will help you get the bright, white smile you want in the amount of time you need. Don't wait weeks for poor results from an OTC solution when you can have teeth that are up to 16 shades whiter in a single treatment.
- Orthodontics – We offer two forms of orthodontic treatment. Invisalign will help you realign all your teeth in less than half the time that traditional braces take. They are also more comfortable and nearly invisible. Our Six-Month Smiles' braces can properly align your front teeth and remake your smile's appearance in an average of just six months!


text:
Libertas – An Epic Journey into Roman Hispania
Rating: 5 of 5, TMBOA Recommended!
Author: Alistair Forrest
Format: Paperback, Kindle
High atop the Iberian Peninsula Mountains in the small somewhat forgotten village of Munda, young Melqart struggles in his sword play practice against the much larger and athletic Arsay. Though boys will be boys, their early conflicts of brain versus brawn escalates as the two boys age. Arsay becomes increasing jealous of Melqart who along with the help of a young girl – Leandra – ingeniously trap and kill wild bore for their village infuriating Arsay. As the tension grows between these two, so does the faraway conflict between generals warring for control of the Roman Empire; Munda suddenly finds itself a very strategic location for these generals. Melqart, Leandra, and Arsay's lives are never the same as they all struggle to find their way in a rapidly changing dangerous world.
Alistair Forrest's novel, Libertas, is an epic journey through Roman controlled Hispania in the First Century BC. Forrest develops the characters, their desires, their motivations, and all that they are forced to give up as a result of the world events that so disrupt their lives. One wonders what life would have been like in this quite small mountain village had the bloody Roman civil war not occurred. Clearly their lives would have been much simpler and less painful, but would they have reached their potential for leadership, ingenuity, love, honor, and in some cases evil? In this way, Forrest subtly explores a truism that it is in the times of genuine hardship and struggle that one's true self and character comes forward.
I enjoy historical fiction probably for the same reasons I enjoy traveling. Both immerse one in the local culture, an experience which greatly impacts one's view of the world and as such broadens the mind. Libertas was such a journey for me. For those who enjoy this genre you will not be disappointed!


text:
There are many free patterns available on the Internet for crocheting an afghan, but if one wants to quickly crochet a thick one, they will need at least three skeins of yarn, a Q-size hook and tapestry needles. The pattern uses a 50 chain.
The first row consists of a half double crochet into the second chain from the hook and then in each chain across, and then with a chain two and turn. This should equal 48 half double crochets. The subsequent rows follow this pattern where there should be 48 half double crochets for each row. This pattern can be repeated as many times as one likes, but it should be noted that this pattern uses a very large amount of yarn, because it results in a very thick afghan. One can also experiment with colors and length. To finish the afghan, one just needs to tie off and weave in the ends. Because the afghan in this pattern will be very thick and warm, it makes for a perfect pattern for a winter setting. There are also many other patterns for afghans available online, although some have very complicated patterns and shapes.


text:
Material Handling / Conveying
The fast-paced world of material handling touches all our lives in many ways we often take for granted. In today's highly connected marketplace, it is imperative that material handling operations move rapidly and with the utmost efficiency. This affects packaging and transit operations, food processing, medical products, and many other industries. Innovative solutions such as plastic liners help packages move through conveyors, chutes, and sorting machines easily without jamming issues. Our plastic materials also improve material handling operations by helping to reduce noise, enhance employee safety, and keep conveying environments contaminate free. Plastics can be found in many additional applications including sprockets, gears, rollers, augers, bearings, guards, silos, and tanks.
Inquire About Material Handling / Conveying