What I am saying is that if you want to determine if the courts are going to support what you do you go read the case law and see what it says. The case law supports the Presidents interpetation at this time. It is not written in stone, the SCOTUS could rule against it and that's that.
BTW, you are mistaken on the case of cops not being able to make the determination if a search is resonable or not.
If they pull you over, they can search your car if they have probable cause and they are the sole authority at that time, no court is involved. Same if they are in persuit and you enter your house, you no longer have that protection.
The question if the search is admissable or not is determined at a later date by the courts, but it is STILL a legal search.
Note that NONE of the information culled in these intercepts can be used for legal proceedings, it is STRICTLY for intellegence and to identify threats as they happen.
Criminals seek to break laws for their own gain. The guy who killed little girls this week is a criminal.
Terrorism is when they have the aim of not only their own gain but the replacement of the current governments with their own. In the case of Muslim terrorist, a world wide Caliphate.
Other terrorists, such as the Unibomber, wanted to remove ALL forms of government, but he is still a terrorist. McVey was another domestic terrorist, he wanted to overthrow the Administration at the time, not for personal gain.
Yes, they are sometimes proscuted under criminal law, because their acts are crimes against society.
"Sure, but you are assuming that this warrantless spying program is not being used otherwise. I have seen no evidence to prove either and neither have you. That's the whole issue here."
Let's be clear here, NOBODY can prove a negative. One can prove a positive, that it HAS happened, but one can not prove it DID NOT happen.
Show me it happened. If you're arguement is "It is going on, but there is a coverup!" then you fall into the Roswell folks arena of logic.
What I can show you is that members of congress on the intellegence committee, including Feinstien and Wyden who are very opposed to the war and the President, saw the full breifing. While not proof that there is nothing going on, it lends credence that there is nothing illegal going on. I have every condfidence that if they could have pinned something on Bush for what was going on, they would have.
1) Since there have been electronic communications the courts have held intercepting them does constitute "search and sezure"
Yes, I agreed that it can cover such things.
2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.
Ok, show me case law against this interpretation, I showed case law for it. OTHER than the one in this article by a lower court.
3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)
Right, and as the case law shows, there is ample evidence that the President can wiretap international calls for foriegn intellegence.
4) To use the war powers act we need to be at war which only the Congress can declare. This is the sticky part as the congresses approval to go after terrorists wasn't an offical declaration of war, it may by reasonable people certainly be viewed as much the same.
Yes it was, the supreme court said it was, has said other AMUF are declarations of war and envoke the War Powers Act. It is cited in my case law. That you disagree is interesting, but it is not case law.
Finally, the War Powers act was written and passed in 1973, not by the founders or framers. It was passed to prevent another Korea or Vietnam like "war" where we get into the war without any approval for action. I.E. the "police action" crapola.
People are not as important as the document?! I am assuming you mean any one individual, not We The People.
You do realize this is an arguement based on the First Amendment primary, brought by news reporters:
The ACLU had brought the case on behalf of a group of reporters, academics, lawyers and activists who believed that their communications with clients, sources or others might have been monitored by the National Security Agency as part of the program, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches, and chilling their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
They haven't proved they were prosecuted by facts found by being tapped, they are saying they might have been tapped and that it is keeping their sources from being frank with them.
It is a pretty weak standing, and likely the first thing that will go on appeal, did they have standing to bring a suit? Lower court, probably. Higher court? Unlikely.
You are flat out wrong, and the supreme court says so:
The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].
President Bush was given AUMF in 2001 by Congress. That gives him War Powers Act powers as defined in the war powers act of 1973. End of story.
So it is a fact they issued ruling, but that ruling has been suspended and is on appeal.
Many more opinions have been given that contradict this one, i.e. case law is AGAINST this ruling.
Pendantic reciting of case law follows:
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the defendant was convicted of espionage. The court wrote:
In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977), a firearms prosecution. The court said:
Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement....
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant's spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch's inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court agreed with the government's position:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the "object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators," and the search is conducted "primarily" for foreign intelligence reasons.
The state of the law was summed up by the Second Circuit in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984), a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted in 1981. The court wrote:
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break do
I have read it and there is nothing in the fourth amendment that says they cannot do this.
It says no UNREASONABLE searches and sezures. There are no sezures here and if you want to make that leap that a communication is a search and sezure then do remember that in these cases the OTHER PARTY is not a citizen and not covered by the 4th amendment.
The current arguement is that during previous wars the president has been able to tap into communications (paper and electronic) in and out of the United States as established by the Supreme Court. Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.
Thus, the warrentless wiretaps are not Unconstitutional as they fall under war powers as granted by Article 2 of the Constitution.
See? Not only did I read the consititution, I read ALL of it, not just the parts that fit my opinion.
Stipulation: Using the data gathered against the parties involved in a normal court of law would be hard to pull off. Using it to stop an attack or kill/capture a legitimate target is OK.
Well, I thought he was pointing out the unwarrented behavior of editoralizing in a news post. He has already decided that they must be "unconstitutional and controversial".
Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
It really is getting depressing, I mean we are supposed to be slogging it out here in the comments, not in the post. Heck, what's the point in coming here? You can get all this news in other formats, it is the discussion that is interesting.
Let the post speak for itself and if you want to argue about it, do it here NormalVision.
CowboyNeal should have edited and excisized the editorial comments from the posting.
Any company that spends that much on PC is just stupid. Our current kit is a ~3GZ P4 with 1GB of ram. 1.5GB. It costs about $750 per with a 19 LCD in bulk, i.e. per 1000.
They are on a 3 year lease, we get a new kit every 3 years. Will it run Vista? The desktop guys say yes, but it is not pretty.
But then, this is a business, it doesn't have to run pretty.
Well, looks like George Soros is not funding MoveOn anymore and AirAmerica is going off the Air, so Slashdot seems like the perfect place to move to...
You are clearly unable to follow a simple argument. Saying pointing a laser into someones eyes is not a crime (without specifying a country) means if I can show ANY instance of it being a crime I have refuted his point. I used the US because I can understand what the law says and it is easy to google.
I was refuting your assertion that it was legal to shine a laser at somebody, thus my analogy holds regardless of where the law exists.
So...
Are you suggesting that attacking a US asset electronically such as a ship in international waters is not an assault because US laws do not apply in International waters? Just because it is not a shell you lobbed at it, you are not committing an assault? It would still be an act of war, electronic or physical.
Which by the way, is exactly the same situation here, Space is ALL international, there is no government control over orbital space. (Thankfully)
So you are STILL an idiot.
The US is unlikely to do anything about it because it is one of those SPY vrs SPY things were such assets are expected to be neutralized and there for it is not acted on as an act of war.
I assure you, a gaggle of new blogs will crop up overnight like so many toadstools after a rainstorm.
Those accounting wanks will wade through the BS and come out with a nice shiney diamond in the form of a wasteful project to show you. Then you, the voter, can put pressure on your congress creature to do something.
And it will happen across the board as each wank goes after their pet "pork" project.
Yes, I am more optimistic... I think there will be good work and good things out of a nasty process.
I can confirm that happened as hearing it from another SA. Not they were terrorists, but that someone got into a "secure" CIVILIAN datacenter and stole disks for the data.
They posed as "Repair" personnel from the vendor and swapped out half of a 0+1 raidset. They could easily retrieve the data. Note that they new which storage arrays to go after and where they were indicates some serious breach of security. Either an inside job or a hell of a casing.
I can say that the data was not something that should be in anybody's hands, it was of potential military value to a terrorist, of absolutely no commercial value, but it was not "secret" information either.
Exit polls are also only at the 10% level of confidence, meaning they can only be sure of not making a Type I error by ~90%.
It has also been shown that some people do not answer the polls correctly, either intentionally or accidently.
And THIRD, go read the context of that statement:
"...After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies--damned lies--and statistics,' still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of."
The Dibold machine is a horror. It, and quite frankly any digital method of counting votes, should not be used. Use a physical ballot. Was this vote stolen? Possibly, but you can say that about a lot of races, like the Nixon-Kennedy race where dead people voted in Illinios.
The ralling cry of "One person, one vote." is a total fiction. We are not a pure democracy, we are a Representitive Republic.
The real problem is that people are ready to chuck out everything because of a few crackpot theorists who think elections can be stolen.
The SQL optimization is not in the code, it is in the database. Oracle and DB2 can analyze the incoming SQL and can recommend optimized SQL or recommend changes to the tables for the statements depending on which is possible. If you don't have access to the code, then you will need to change the Database as a DBA.
That said, some of our in house datamining code will use several different ways of formatting SQL statements that do the same thing and then choose the one that is most effiencent. I am not an SQL expert, I just listen to the ones we have.
One thing I can say from a systems view of what some programmers do with SQL: Don't do the trimming of the data at your code, do it in the SQL statement. Don't ask for 100 lines when you need 10 and then use a loop to toss out the extra stuff.
Why would you recommend coding to a specific database and not code to SQL and not worry what you have on the back end?
Binding yourself to a particular technology to get more speed is just wrong. Write code that is generic to the back end and get your speed inside your code, not the database choice.
The database should optimized by the DBA by adding views/indexes/optimized SQL or more hardware to get the speed.
Slashdot Mirror
What I am saying is that if you want to determine if the courts are going to support what you do you go read the case law and see what it says. The case law supports the Presidents interpetation at this time. It is not written in stone, the SCOTUS could rule against it and that's that.
BTW, you are mistaken on the case of cops not being able to make the determination if a search is resonable or not.
If they pull you over, they can search your car if they have probable cause and they are the sole authority at that time, no court is involved. Same if they are in persuit and you enter your house, you no longer have that protection.
The question if the search is admissable or not is determined at a later date by the courts, but it is STILL a legal search.
Note that NONE of the information culled in these intercepts can be used for legal proceedings, it is STRICTLY for intellegence and to identify threats as they happen.
Some important differences here:
Criminals seek to break laws for their own gain. The guy who killed little girls this week is a criminal.
Terrorism is when they have the aim of not only their own gain but the replacement of the current governments with their own. In the case of Muslim terrorist, a world wide Caliphate.
Other terrorists, such as the Unibomber, wanted to remove ALL forms of government, but he is still a terrorist.
McVey was another domestic terrorist, he wanted to overthrow the Administration at the time, not for personal gain.
Yes, they are sometimes proscuted under criminal law, because their acts are crimes against society.
"Sure, but you are assuming that this warrantless spying program is not being used otherwise. I have seen no evidence to prove either and neither have you. That's the whole issue here."
Let's be clear here, NOBODY can prove a negative. One can prove a positive, that it HAS happened, but one can not prove it DID NOT happen.
Show me it happened. If you're arguement is "It is going on, but there is a coverup!" then you fall into the Roswell folks arena of logic.
What I can show you is that members of congress on the intellegence committee, including Feinstien and Wyden who are very opposed to the war and the President, saw the full breifing. While not proof that there is nothing going on, it lends credence that there is nothing illegal going on.
I have every condfidence that if they could have pinned something on Bush for what was going on, they would have.
1) Since there have been electronic communications the courts have held intercepting them does constitute "search and sezure"
Yes, I agreed that it can cover such things.
2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.
Ok, show me case law against this interpretation, I showed case law for it. OTHER than the one in this article by a lower court.
3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)
Right, and as the case law shows, there is ample evidence that the President can wiretap international calls for foriegn intellegence.
4) To use the war powers act we need to be at war which only the Congress can declare. This is the sticky part as the congresses approval to go after terrorists wasn't an offical declaration of war, it may by reasonable people certainly be viewed as much the same.
Yes it was, the supreme court said it was, has said other AMUF are declarations of war and envoke the War Powers Act. It is cited in my case law.
That you disagree is interesting, but it is not case law.
Finally, the War Powers act was written and passed in 1973, not by the founders or framers. It was passed to prevent another Korea or Vietnam like "war" where we get into the war without any approval for action. I.E. the "police action" crapola.
People are not as important as the document?! I am assuming you mean any one individual, not We The People.
You have the wrong AUMF, that is the one for Afganistan and there was a second one here:
e _of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Us
You do realize this is an arguement based on the First Amendment primary, brought by news reporters:
r yID=20060817-060255-3001r
The ACLU had brought the case on behalf of a group of reporters, academics, lawyers and activists who believed that their communications with clients, sources or others might have been monitored by the National Security Agency as part of the program, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches, and chilling their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Sto
They haven't proved they were prosecuted by facts found by being tapped, they are saying they might have been tapped and that it is keeping their sources from being frank with them.
It is a pretty weak standing, and likely the first thing that will go on appeal, did they have standing to bring a suit?
Lower court, probably. Higher court? Unlikely.
Hey, when you are in a hole, quit digging.
Ruling in 2004, first Bush appointee in 2005.
You are flat out wrong, and the supreme court says so:
The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].
President Bush was given AUMF in 2001 by Congress. That gives him War Powers Act powers as defined in the war powers act of 1973. End of story.
BTW, nice sig inciting to violence. =)
Interesting thought there.
So it is a fact they issued ruling, but that ruling has been suspended and is on appeal.
Many more opinions have been given that contradict this one, i.e. case law is AGAINST this ruling.
Pendantic reciting of case law follows:
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the defendant was convicted of espionage. The court wrote:
In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977), a firearms prosecution. The court said:
Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement....
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant's spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch's inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court agreed with the government's position:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the "object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators," and the search is conducted "primarily" for foreign intelligence reasons.
The state of the law was summed up by the Second Circuit in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984), a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted in 1981. The court wrote:
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break do
I have read it and there is nothing in the fourth amendment that says they cannot do this.
It says no UNREASONABLE searches and sezures. There are no sezures here and if you want to make that leap that a communication is a search and sezure then do remember that in these cases the OTHER PARTY is not a citizen and not covered by the 4th amendment.
The current arguement is that during previous wars the president has been able to tap into communications (paper and electronic) in and out of the United States as established by the Supreme Court. Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.
Thus, the warrentless wiretaps are not Unconstitutional as they fall under war powers as granted by Article 2 of the Constitution.
See? Not only did I read the consititution, I read ALL of it, not just the parts that fit my opinion.
Stipulation: Using the data gathered against the parties involved in a normal court of law would be hard to pull off. Using it to stop an attack or kill/capture a legitimate target is OK.
Well, I thought he was pointing out the unwarrented behavior of editoralizing in a news post. He has already decided that they must be "unconstitutional and controversial".
Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
It really is getting depressing, I mean we are supposed to be slogging it out here in the comments, not in the post. Heck, what's the point in coming here? You can get all this news in other formats, it is the discussion that is interesting.
Let the post speak for itself and if you want to argue about it, do it here NormalVision.
CowboyNeal should have edited and excisized the editorial comments from the posting.
Any company that spends that much on PC is just stupid. Our current kit is a ~3GZ P4 with 1GB of ram. 1.5GB. It costs about $750 per with a 19 LCD in bulk, i.e. per 1000.
They are on a 3 year lease, we get a new kit every 3 years. Will it run Vista? The desktop guys say yes, but it is not pretty.
But then, this is a business, it doesn't have to run pretty.
Put down the Koolaid.
Well, looks like George Soros is not funding MoveOn anymore and AirAmerica is going off the Air, so Slashdot seems like the perfect place to move to...
Wonderous things will happen.
For one, hopefully this: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060921b.php will not come to pass.
Spicoli as Einstein? The HORROR!
You are clearly unable to follow a simple argument. Saying pointing a laser into someones eyes is not a crime (without specifying a country) means if I can show ANY instance of it being a crime I have refuted his point. I used the US because I can understand what the law says and it is easy to google.
That makes you an idiot.
I was refuting your assertion that it was legal to shine a laser at somebody, thus my analogy holds regardless of where the law exists.
So...
Are you suggesting that attacking a US asset electronically such as a ship in international waters is not an assault because US laws do not apply in International waters? Just because it is not a shell you lobbed at it, you are not committing an assault? It would still be an act of war, electronic or physical.
Which by the way, is exactly the same situation here, Space is ALL international, there is no government control over orbital space. (Thankfully)
So you are STILL an idiot.
The US is unlikely to do anything about it because it is one of those SPY vrs SPY things were such assets are expected to be neutralized and there for it is not acted on as an act of war.
You sir, are an idiot. Pointing a laser at someones eye is a crime.
e 17-Asec1002-A.htmlm l
1 0405cmp.html
http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/17-A/titl
http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/2-10.2.ht
Pointing it at an aircraft is a bigger crime:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/laser/usbanach
Thus, pointing it at a satalite is an attack.
I assure you, a gaggle of new blogs will crop up overnight like so many toadstools after a rainstorm.
Those accounting wanks will wade through the BS and come out with a nice shiney diamond in the form of a wasteful project to show you. Then you, the voter, can put pressure on your congress creature to do something.
And it will happen across the board as each wank goes after their pet "pork" project.
Yes, I am more optimistic... I think there will be good work and good things out of a nasty process.
I can confirm that happened as hearing it from another SA. Not they were terrorists, but that someone got into a "secure" CIVILIAN datacenter and stole disks for the data.
They posed as "Repair" personnel from the vendor and swapped out half of a 0+1 raidset. They could easily retrieve the data. Note that they new which storage arrays to go after and where they were indicates some serious breach of security. Either an inside job or a hell of a casing.
I can say that the data was not something that should be in anybody's hands, it was of potential military value to a terrorist, of absolutely no commercial value, but it was not "secret" information either.
I like that idea!
3 lemons and you are the new president!
Exit polls are also only at the 10% level of confidence, meaning they can only be sure of not making a Type I error by ~90%.
It has also been shown that some people do not answer the polls correctly, either intentionally or accidently.
And THIRD, go read the context of that statement:
"...After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies--damned lies--and statistics,' still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of."
The Dibold machine is a horror. It, and quite frankly any digital method of counting votes, should not be used. Use a physical ballot. Was this vote stolen? Possibly, but you can say that about a lot of races, like the Nixon-Kennedy race where dead people voted in Illinios.
The ralling cry of "One person, one vote." is a total fiction. We are not a pure democracy, we are a Representitive Republic.
The real problem is that people are ready to chuck out everything because of a few crackpot theorists who think elections can be stolen.
'There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.' - Disreali
The SQL optimization is not in the code, it is in the database. Oracle and DB2 can analyze the incoming SQL and can recommend optimized SQL or recommend changes to the tables for the statements depending on which is possible. If you don't have access to the code, then you will need to change the Database as a DBA.
That said, some of our in house datamining code will use several different ways of formatting SQL statements that do the same thing and then choose the one that is most effiencent. I am not an SQL expert, I just listen to the ones we have.
One thing I can say from a systems view of what some programmers do with SQL: Don't do the trimming of the data at your code, do it in the SQL statement. Don't ask for 100 lines when you need 10 and then use a loop to toss out the extra stuff.
Why would you recommend coding to a specific database and not code to SQL and not worry what you have on the back end?
Binding yourself to a particular technology to get more speed is just wrong. Write code that is generic to the back end and get your speed inside your code, not the database choice.
The database should optimized by the DBA by adding views/indexes/optimized SQL or more hardware to get the speed.