The compiler will almost certainly point to AB and CD and invoke a runtime library which will interpret your ADD verb for you. This involves determining the type of variables, fetching both conversion to a common type, putting into machine registers, executing the add instruction, converting the sum back to the type consistent with the storage target, then transferring it to that target. At each step of the way there is error checking to be sure the data types are compatible, that they exist, that overflow did not occur and that the target is actually addressable.
Yep, and the output of those compiler operations are stored in a binary file with machine instructions, or rather the OS choice of representation of machine instructions (wow! more interpretation!). While we all see your point I believe you, Sir, is missing ours. The law does not consist of ADD, MOV etc. It is concerned with semantics. A very reasonable meaning of section 4.2.2 in the Voting System Standards Volume I is that they are referring to code being interpreted at runtime by other means than the CPU. Such as a VM, or an interpreter, that is, machine instructions that take non compile-time code (regardless of format) and executes it. Yes, that means you won't be able to bundle gcc or python on your voting box, it also means that you can't write your own little interpreter and include it. If you like you could probably argue that the text states that all code on the system has to be statically linked as well.
A less reasonable interpretation of the law is that no code can run on the system, 'cause if we're splitting hairs, all code can be described as interpreted
I've been messing with computers longer than you have been alive, and I'm here to tell you everything you learned about how things work is a simplification to avoid overwhelming you with the facts.
You seem to be having a bad day Sir, may I suggest a massage or a sauna?
Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or interpreted code is prohibited, except under the security provisions outlined in section 6.4.e [sic - see note below]. This prohibition is to ensure that the software tested and approved during the qualification process remains unchanged and retains its integrity. External modification of code during execution shall be prohibited. Where the development environment (programming language and development tools) includes the following features, the software shall provide controls to prevent accidental or deliberate attempts to replace executable code:...
IANAL, but that seems pretty clear cut. Maybe not in regards to the SQL, but as far as to what they mean.
Sure, but does compiled languages generally allow run-time modification of the code? IANAL, but it seems pretty obvious that they are referring to interpreted code as in interpreted languages.
All computer code not written in binary is interpreted code.
Isn't that the job of the compiler? To turn the written code into "binary" or rather machine instructions, ergo assembler. You have a point in that all languages are interpreted into machine code, but that is not what interpreted refers to in this case. This is what it refers to.
Presumably the law is there to make run-time modifications to the code harder, as well as allowing static analysis of binaries. I'm crap at SQL, but AFAIK stored procedures can be replaced at run-time.
Well, it's inappropriate to make the call while at work (or at least, while you can be overheard) but otherwise it's very responsible to tell previous partners they might be at risk. All they have to do is get a test.
And in some parts of the world, considered quite appropriate. If I remember correctly, if you test positive over here in Sweden the first thing they ask you is for who you may have inflicted the disease upon. And by association who you may have acquired it from. Not sure if they ask for phone-numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, my guess is that a lot of other carriers etc. interested in Microsoft products and storage solutions might be a bit more... ehm... critical before they go to bed with them. But on the other hand most people I've met who have used Windows Mobile hates it with a passion, so maybe most carriers aren't looking that way anyway.
And, no it won't raise their taxes. It might raise their broadband bills a bit, but given that they pay about $35/month for 100/100Mb/s they probably wont bitch too much about it. You see that's how this kind of regulation works. Law tells commerce to do something. Commerce does it and profits.
Slashdot Mirror
The compiler will almost certainly point to AB and CD and invoke a runtime library which will interpret your ADD verb for you. This involves determining the type of variables, fetching both conversion to a common type, putting into machine registers, executing the add instruction, converting the sum back to the type consistent with the storage target, then transferring it to that target. At each step of the way there is error checking to be sure the data types are compatible, that they exist, that overflow did not occur and that the target is actually addressable.
Yep, and the output of those compiler operations are stored in a binary file with machine instructions, or rather the OS choice of representation of machine instructions (wow! more interpretation!). While we all see your point I believe you, Sir, is missing ours. The law does not consist of ADD, MOV etc. It is concerned with semantics. A very reasonable meaning of section 4.2.2 in the Voting System Standards Volume I is that they are referring to code being interpreted at runtime by other means than the CPU. Such as a VM, or an interpreter, that is, machine instructions that take non compile-time code (regardless of format) and executes it. Yes, that means you won't be able to bundle gcc or python on your voting box, it also means that you can't write your own little interpreter and include it. If you like you could probably argue that the text states that all code on the system has to be statically linked as well.
A less reasonable interpretation of the law is that no code can run on the system, 'cause if we're splitting hairs, all code can be described as interpreted
I've been messing with computers longer than you have been alive, and I'm here to tell you everything you learned about how things work is a simplification to avoid overwhelming you with the facts.
You seem to be having a bad day Sir, may I suggest a massage or a sauna?
Show me the section in federal law that cites wiki!
OK, I'll quote this instead:
"4.2.2 Software Integrity
Self-modifying, dynamically loaded, or interpreted code is prohibited, except under the security provisions outlined in section 6.4.e [sic - see note below]. This prohibition is to ensure that the software tested and approved during the qualification process remains unchanged and retains its integrity. External modification of code during execution shall be prohibited. Where the development environment (programming language and development tools) includes the following features, the software shall provide controls to prevent accidental or deliberate attempts to replace executable code: ...
IANAL, but that seems pretty clear cut. Maybe not in regards to the SQL, but as far as to what they mean.
Sure, but does compiled languages generally allow run-time modification of the code? IANAL, but it seems pretty obvious that they are referring to interpreted code as in interpreted languages.
All computer code not written in binary is interpreted code.
Isn't that the job of the compiler? To turn the written code into "binary" or rather machine instructions, ergo assembler. You have a point in that all languages are interpreted into machine code, but that is not what interpreted refers to in this case. This is what it refers to.
Presumably the law is there to make run-time modifications to the code harder, as well as allowing static analysis of binaries. I'm crap at SQL, but AFAIK stored procedures can be replaced at run-time.
Ehm, Active Directory /is/ LDAP, with Kerberos on top.
Well, it's inappropriate to make the call while at work (or at least, while you can be overheard) but otherwise it's very responsible to tell previous partners they might be at risk. All they have to do is get a test.
And in some parts of the world, considered quite appropriate. If I remember correctly, if you test positive over here in Sweden the first thing they ask you is for who you may have inflicted the disease upon. And by association who you may have acquired it from. Not sure if they ask for phone-numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, my guess is that a lot of other carriers etc. interested in Microsoft products and storage solutions might be a bit more ... ehm ... critical before they go to bed with them. But on the other hand most people I've met who have used Windows Mobile hates it with a passion, so maybe most carriers aren't looking that way anyway.
Nope, it has nothing to do with liberalism.
And, no it won't raise their taxes. It might raise their broadband bills a bit, but given that they pay about $35/month for 100/100Mb/s they probably wont bitch too much about it. You see that's how this kind of regulation works. Law tells commerce to do something. Commerce does it and profits.