Re: Polling Place conditions, reframing the issue

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 17:12:11 CDT

At 3:15 PM -0400 5/14/04, David Mertz wrote:
>On May 14, 2004, at 2:51 PM, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>>Redundancy is good as long as there's only one definition of
>>"true". In this case, having both OCR and barcodes is great so long
>>as we're clear that the OCR (that people can read) wins in the case
>>of any conflict between the two. (Sorry to state the obvious, but
>>sometimes it's not obvious).
>
>Don't be sorry, this is important.
>
>But also, redundancy is in conflict with the KISS principle. Each
>redundant system introduces possibilities of programming errors. To
>repeat my favorite quote one more time:
>
> The cheapest, fastest and most reliable components of a
> computer system are those that aren't there.
> --Gordon Bell, Encore Computer Corporation

A man with one watch knows the time. A man with two watches is never
sure. Redundancy increases auditability. Remember triple modular
redundancy. It can be overdone, but you really want independent
stored records, so that you can cross check them. And you need a way
to handle it if they don't match. And that way may involve a
decision by an election judge.

Remember, failure to match is a problem that should be reported.
It's a discrepancy to figure out the cause, not sweep under the rug.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:43 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT