Sure. That's why, where I live, we check on the tabulators.
After the polls are closed, pick some random precincts for manual counts to see if they match the Scantron counts (or closely enough). This is likely to catch any major tampering. If the vote is close, do a full manual recount.
You seem to discount having poll observers. People can serve as observers at the polling place, and typically there will be at least one Republican and one Democrat observer at all times. They can verify that the ballot box is empty at the start, and that nobody does that sort of shenanigans without being caught. (If the local authorities aren't going to act on reported fraud, it's a lost cause anyway.)
The observers verify that the boxes are sealed with tamper-evident seals of some sort, and that the boxes are stored security.
Having people with differing interests observe things adds a lot of security.
Now, would a random person who doesn't have a Missouri ID get enough help to get one? Would the assistance be enough to get the potential voter to a DMV station while it's open?
Checking the Wikipedia article on US voting IDs, there are varying estimates of who doesn't have proper ID, all at least 1%. Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout a lot more than they would by reducing fraud.
One could say that minorities are as good at foot races as whites, but if you hit the minority racers in the shins with 2x4s before the race I'd bet that they'd not make as good a showing. Similarly, when people try to make it harder for minorities to get IDs, fewer get IDs.
Without doing further research, and just going by your cite,
Deutch was not in fact prosecuted. Berger stuffed classified material into his clothes, a clear indication of intent. He was not imprisoned. Nishimura? Your cite says "The investigation did not reveal evidence that [he] intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”, which is not the same thing as saying he had no intent to mishandle classified documents. Intent to distribute is not the same as intent to mishandle classified documents, and Clinton had neither. Saucier deliberately took photos in a classified place, and therefore had intent to mishandle.
You've provided two examples that clearly had intent to mishandle, which Clinton didn't, one that doesn't address that question, and one that wasn't in fact prosecuted. In other words, I'm still looking for an example of someone who did what Clinton did and was prosecuted.
In this case, Lynch did not want to get involved in what would have been a political decision, and delegated to the head of an at least theoretically nonpartisan organization. Obviously, Comey was anti-Clinton, because of his late October statement about emails that in fact provided nothing new.
In other words, foreigners can take over the government as much as they like as long as they agree with your particular political views. What happens when you've let them over a period of time, and they do something you don't agree with?
I might not be an expert (depending on your definition), but I'm a competent C++ programmer. It doesn't take me a long time to program anything, partly because I know how to avoid dealing with the fiddly details. I find it fairly easy to convert ideas to code (depending on the ideas, anyway).
C++ is far more expressive than C. Technically, anything you can do in C++ you can do in C, but in some cases you'll need painstaking attention to detail and lots of more or less opaque code.
If you're looking at a key-value database, in what way does that differ from a map or hash table (unordered_map). If the key values can be ordered, a map should work. If you can come up with a hash function, unordered_map should work.
There is not going to be a common bytecode. Most C++ programs are compiled to native code, for performance purposes. C++ is used for systems and embedded programming, and bytecode isn't suitable for either of those.
Breaking source compatibility isn't going to happen, even with binary compatibility. Nobody's going to stand for having three incompatible versions with their own compilers. If you were in the industry, you'd realize that you don't write a program, compile it, and never change the source ever again.
You don't want lots of your code to be frozen in an earlier version of the language, so it would take a major rewrite to bring it up to date. We've been putting smart pointers and "override" and other simple improvements into our code, and getting worthwhile results. If our C++03 code was incompatible with a C++11 compiler, that would be impossible.
Nobody is going want to have to work with C++03, C++11, C++14, and C++17 in quick succession, trying to remember what features go with what compiler. Best to use a compiler that compiles all versions.
So, if the Standards Committee came up with something like this, it would become largely irrelevant, as people would continue using what worked for all of their code base.
No, it didn't. Any C program could be fairly trivially ported to C++ (C++ isn't quite a proper superset of C90, but it's close), and the C++ compiler would compile it pretty much as the C compiler would. The first C++ compiler used cfront, a C++ to C translator, and the C code would go through intact.
C++ has always been at least as fast as C, since it can always do what C does.
The C++ libraries were not necessarily as fast as the C ones (iostreams vs. stdio, for example), but that's a different matter.
I've worked on large C++ codebases, the products of many people over time, and it's generally nice and readable. If you find it unreadable, you may be looking at bad code.
The Heartbleed bug would not have existed if the authors had used the safety features present in C. It relied on having access to memory allocated but not initialized, and so keeping the previous contents. If the authors had used calloc() instead of malloc(), or thrown a memset() in, Heartbleed would not have happened. In security software, letting what happens to be in memory stay there with a new allocation is a Bad Idea. Zeroing out the memory on free() would have been a better one, but you can't easily do that with standard C functions.
Given that the authors couldn't use obvious C safety features in their desire for execution speed, I have to think they'd have found some way to introduce bugs into a more hand-holding language.
The DNC servers are where to start? There's plenty of other places to start, and some of them may be more clear. (The fact that servers were broken into doesn't necessarily get you much info on who did it, or that there's more useful information that Mueller doesn't already know.)
Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that Mueller is not approaching his investigation in the way you would. In fact, Mueller probably knows more than you or I about conducting such an investigation, and therefore there are likely reasons behind what he's doing. We don't know what he's found out, and he's going to be keeping some things quiet until he's finished.
The Department of Education has been getting more aggressive about standardizing education lately. I know that my son had better educational opportunities in the public school system than I had, but I haven't been following the quality of the local school system since 2012. Aside from that, each state has its own educational system, all similar, usually with a good deal of local control.
I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because I don't know how to approach it.
People with average incomes can be somewhat careless with their money, such as spending lots of it at Starbucks without realizing it adds up. Poor people tend to be very aware of what they're spending their money on, and don't in general spend more money when less would do the job. (They may buy a luxury or two, but generally are aware of what they're doing.)
We tend to judge others by our own experiences and our own situation. If a person with an average income is normally short on money, and has an expensive and unnecessary habit, that person is likely to figure that other people are short on money because they have expensive and unnecessary habits. This is a pernicious myth that has done a great deal of harm in the US.
I see that you recognize that the CNN cite doesn't support your case. The Fox one says that an early draft had "gross negligence" which turned into "extremely careless". It describes some apparent odd happenings, but doesn't tell why the FBI had to edit the report to like the AC said.
Do you have evidence that gross negligence has been prosecuted? I found no cases of prison time without clear intent. The general practice has been to not prosecute without criminal intent (which means "intent to commit an act that is criminal" not "intent to commit a crime"). I'd be interested in a case to look up.
Actually, that's enabling top performance and random crashes, not reducing battery life. Unfortunately, there have been zero Slashdot posts that clarify exactly what the issue is, apparently.
Why do investigators need to to go to great lengths to "prove" Apple's wrongdoing.
We should be able to look it up in the source code history.
To the best of my knowledge, the evil bit was only standardized for IPv4 packets, and there's no standard way to indicate evil in source code. Therefore, in order to conclude that source code constituted wrongdoing, you'd need to find out what it does, and, more importantly, if the behavior constituted wrongdoing.
The source code change was intended to stop random crashes, and apparently was successful at that.
At what point does it become user-replaceable? Some devices need a screwdriver to open the battery compartment; are their batteries user-replaceable? Apparently, for some of these phones, the screwdriver is all you need.
I'm going to suggest that a battery that cost $6 on eBay might not in fact be the same battery Apple uses, and likely has quality issues. If it works for you, great. If it catches fire, well, it's your decision to use that battery.
Increasing tariffs on a product that's imported into Mexico would cause Mexico to raise tariffs on something they export to some other country.
Or simply stop importing that thing from the US and buy it from some other country. If US toothbrushes go up in cost that much, maybe they'll buy them from Brazil or China. (Shipping from China to the Americas is amazingly cheap.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. That's why, where I live, we check on the tabulators.
After the polls are closed, pick some random precincts for manual counts to see if they match the Scantron counts (or closely enough). This is likely to catch any major tampering. If the vote is close, do a full manual recount.
You seem to discount having poll observers. People can serve as observers at the polling place, and typically there will be at least one Republican and one Democrat observer at all times. They can verify that the ballot box is empty at the start, and that nobody does that sort of shenanigans without being caught. (If the local authorities aren't going to act on reported fraud, it's a lost cause anyway.)
The observers verify that the boxes are sealed with tamper-evident seals of some sort, and that the boxes are stored security.
Having people with differing interests observe things adds a lot of security.
Now, would a random person who doesn't have a Missouri ID get enough help to get one? Would the assistance be enough to get the potential voter to a DMV station while it's open?
What's ludicrous about wanting a US citizen to be able to vote? If you think it's ludicrous, you're part of the problem.
Checking the Wikipedia article on US voting IDs, there are varying estimates of who doesn't have proper ID, all at least 1%. Voter ID laws reduce voter turnout a lot more than they would by reducing fraud.
One could say that minorities are as good at foot races as whites, but if you hit the minority racers in the shins with 2x4s before the race I'd bet that they'd not make as good a showing. Similarly, when people try to make it harder for minorities to get IDs, fewer get IDs.
Without doing further research, and just going by your cite,
Deutch was not in fact prosecuted. Berger stuffed classified material into his clothes, a clear indication of intent. He was not imprisoned. Nishimura? Your cite says "The investigation did not reveal evidence that [he] intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”, which is not the same thing as saying he had no intent to mishandle classified documents. Intent to distribute is not the same as intent to mishandle classified documents, and Clinton had neither. Saucier deliberately took photos in a classified place, and therefore had intent to mishandle.
You've provided two examples that clearly had intent to mishandle, which Clinton didn't, one that doesn't address that question, and one that wasn't in fact prosecuted. In other words, I'm still looking for an example of someone who did what Clinton did and was prosecuted.
In this case, Lynch did not want to get involved in what would have been a political decision, and delegated to the head of an at least theoretically nonpartisan organization. Obviously, Comey was anti-Clinton, because of his late October statement about emails that in fact provided nothing new.
I just have to quote this, since it's something I'm not sure I've read on the net before.
In other words, foreigners can take over the government as much as they like as long as they agree with your particular political views. What happens when you've let them over a period of time, and they do something you don't agree with?
I might not be an expert (depending on your definition), but I'm a competent C++ programmer. It doesn't take me a long time to program anything, partly because I know how to avoid dealing with the fiddly details. I find it fairly easy to convert ideas to code (depending on the ideas, anyway).
C++ is far more expressive than C. Technically, anything you can do in C++ you can do in C, but in some cases you'll need painstaking attention to detail and lots of more or less opaque code.
If you're looking at a key-value database, in what way does that differ from a map or hash table (unordered_map). If the key values can be ordered, a map should work. If you can come up with a hash function, unordered_map should work.
No, this would not make C++ developers happy.
There is not going to be a common bytecode. Most C++ programs are compiled to native code, for performance purposes. C++ is used for systems and embedded programming, and bytecode isn't suitable for either of those.
Breaking source compatibility isn't going to happen, even with binary compatibility. Nobody's going to stand for having three incompatible versions with their own compilers. If you were in the industry, you'd realize that you don't write a program, compile it, and never change the source ever again.
You don't want lots of your code to be frozen in an earlier version of the language, so it would take a major rewrite to bring it up to date. We've been putting smart pointers and "override" and other simple improvements into our code, and getting worthwhile results. If our C++03 code was incompatible with a C++11 compiler, that would be impossible.
Nobody is going want to have to work with C++03, C++11, C++14, and C++17 in quick succession, trying to remember what features go with what compiler. Best to use a compiler that compiles all versions.
So, if the Standards Committee came up with something like this, it would become largely irrelevant, as people would continue using what worked for all of their code base.
Modern C++ doesn't encourage manipulating pointers and/or memory. You can do it, but there's usually better ways.
By Darrell Huff, back (IIRC) in the 50s.
No, it didn't. Any C program could be fairly trivially ported to C++ (C++ isn't quite a proper superset of C90, but it's close), and the C++ compiler would compile it pretty much as the C compiler would. The first C++ compiler used cfront, a C++ to C translator, and the C code would go through intact.
C++ has always been at least as fast as C, since it can always do what C does.
The C++ libraries were not necessarily as fast as the C ones (iostreams vs. stdio, for example), but that's a different matter.
I've worked on large C++ codebases, the products of many people over time, and it's generally nice and readable. If you find it unreadable, you may be looking at bad code.
The Heartbleed bug would not have existed if the authors had used the safety features present in C. It relied on having access to memory allocated but not initialized, and so keeping the previous contents. If the authors had used calloc() instead of malloc(), or thrown a memset() in, Heartbleed would not have happened. In security software, letting what happens to be in memory stay there with a new allocation is a Bad Idea. Zeroing out the memory on free() would have been a better one, but you can't easily do that with standard C functions.
Given that the authors couldn't use obvious C safety features in their desire for execution speed, I have to think they'd have found some way to introduce bugs into a more hand-holding language.
The DNC servers are where to start? There's plenty of other places to start, and some of them may be more clear. (The fact that servers were broken into doesn't necessarily get you much info on who did it, or that there's more useful information that Mueller doesn't already know.)
Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that Mueller is not approaching his investigation in the way you would. In fact, Mueller probably knows more than you or I about conducting such an investigation, and therefore there are likely reasons behind what he's doing. We don't know what he's found out, and he's going to be keeping some things quiet until he's finished.
The Department of Education has been getting more aggressive about standardizing education lately. I know that my son had better educational opportunities in the public school system than I had, but I haven't been following the quality of the local school system since 2012. Aside from that, each state has its own educational system, all similar, usually with a good deal of local control.
I'm not going to address the rest of your post, because I don't know how to approach it.
I didn't think I was being that unclear.
People with average incomes can be somewhat careless with their money, such as spending lots of it at Starbucks without realizing it adds up. Poor people tend to be very aware of what they're spending their money on, and don't in general spend more money when less would do the job. (They may buy a luxury or two, but generally are aware of what they're doing.)
We tend to judge others by our own experiences and our own situation. If a person with an average income is normally short on money, and has an expensive and unnecessary habit, that person is likely to figure that other people are short on money because they have expensive and unnecessary habits. This is a pernicious myth that has done a great deal of harm in the US.
I see that you recognize that the CNN cite doesn't support your case. The Fox one says that an early draft had "gross negligence" which turned into "extremely careless". It describes some apparent odd happenings, but doesn't tell why the FBI had to edit the report to like the AC said.
Do you have evidence that gross negligence has been prosecuted? I found no cases of prison time without clear intent. The general practice has been to not prosecute without criminal intent (which means "intent to commit an act that is criminal" not "intent to commit a crime"). I'd be interested in a case to look up.
At that time, the email server was legal. It isn't any more. I've seen no evidence that Clinton deliberately put classified material on it.
Actually, that's enabling top performance and random crashes, not reducing battery life. Unfortunately, there have been zero Slashdot posts that clarify exactly what the issue is, apparently.
To the best of my knowledge, the evil bit was only standardized for IPv4 packets, and there's no standard way to indicate evil in source code. Therefore, in order to conclude that source code constituted wrongdoing, you'd need to find out what it does, and, more importantly, if the behavior constituted wrongdoing.
The source code change was intended to stop random crashes, and apparently was successful at that.
At what point does it become user-replaceable? Some devices need a screwdriver to open the battery compartment; are their batteries user-replaceable? Apparently, for some of these phones, the screwdriver is all you need.
I'm going to suggest that a battery that cost $6 on eBay might not in fact be the same battery Apple uses, and likely has quality issues. If it works for you, great. If it catches fire, well, it's your decision to use that battery.
Or simply stop importing that thing from the US and buy it from some other country. If US toothbrushes go up in cost that much, maybe they'll buy them from Brazil or China. (Shipping from China to the Americas is amazingly cheap.)