I can think of no case where I would be eligible to vote for only a subset of candidates for a particular position (which the code appears to support). If you don't live where a particular local position is up for election, then that whole election is unavailable to you, not just a few of the candidates.
Read the rest of the thread and you will find that your inability to think of such a case in no way impacts the reality of such cases existing.
Many states have closed primaries. You can neither see nor vote for the candidate from the other party.
Many states have laws that you can vote in any polling place. So if you happen to be visiting relatives out of town on election day you can walk into any polling place and vote a questioned ballot, and would not be presented with local races, but could still vote for state wide or national offices.
And many elections include issues of local improvement districts (LIDS) which do not always match precincts perfectly.
You see, you didn't have to think that hard to come up with a case did you?
But you miss the point entirely. The database snippits shown were NOT voting machine code, but rather election definition code, used to define races, and customize ballots for each precinct.
The voting machines themselves don't even need to run sql, or windows, and the vast majority of them have anemic processors incapable customizing ballots on the fly.
Those that do, and those that might arrive in the future may have the capability to have you swipe your voter card and have a ballot presented that, while still not modifiable in that machine, would be selected for your specific residence address, regardless of where you are voting.
Regardless, what was posted was election definition database snippits, not election execution code.
This is why this "code review" is pretty much a witch hunt by unskilled people who make accusations based on stuff they don't even understand.
From TFA: " University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), with a $25 million, two-year NIH grant that tapped federal stimulus funds ".
That would seem to me to make all this research public domain, and prevent Kaiser from patenting any genes, holding any information proprietary, or selling it to drug companies.
While you can't legally discriminate (see GINA in this subtread), there are many other ways this study could end up benefiting Kaiser alone, or Kaiser in cahoots with some drug company unless there is close supervision of this process.
I would also hope the patients, (and not just their doctors) have a say in this effort, and prohibitions exist from using existing patient samples drawn for other purposes.
But I would question the choice of One health care provider and one state. The sample seems already biased, once by socioeconomic status, and again by region.
However, the tinfoil hat army that pummeled me in this thread and nodded me "Politically Incorrect" will never see that and you can rest assured that it will be political dogma for years that Sequoia was caught red handed by a guy who's only skill was writing a wiki page.
You have no knowledge that this code shipped with the voting station. You are simply parroting assumptions.
WinEDS is used to Set up and define elections but thats NOT what runs on the voting machines.
Its pretty clear to me from all the code I've read at the site that this is the race definition software these fools are looking at and screaming FEC violation.
They had no clue what kind of database they were looking at and even went so far as to alleged fraud upon the court for intentionally corrupting the database, when it was all along perfectly fine MS SQL.
And you're right. Except first, this appears to be an open and shut violation of FEC rules - I'm not an SQL programmer BUT I know that rulebook. And based on the *volume* of code present, there's a lot of calculation going on.
But is it the code that runs actual Voting or is it merely the code that defines races?
but claiming that there is no difference between a compiler and an interpreter is simply wrong.
I never claimed this. I said there is no clear definition.
That is clearly not the case with T-SQL exec statements running dynamically constructed statements.
You don't even know what you are looking at. It could just as well be the input to a translator that creates the election executable. But it doesn't matter as long as the table is locked at election time. The result is the same.
The difference between the two in terms of computer science is very clear, and very simple.
No, sorry, its not that simple.
You may have written code to Add two data elements AB and CD.
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.
No, it is not clear. No it is not simple. No there is no clear line between compiled code vs interpreted code, and NO there is no common definition of interpreted code.
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.
Barns an Nobel lets you read Amazon site? How Open of them.
But assuming and ignoring the typo, the fact that you can read any off-site content is more or less a freebee. The 3G is there to let you buy books, sync your reader platforms etc.
But it does suggest a future ability to buy subscriptions, and have your morning paper at the breakfast table with out struggling to flip a page.
The key thing here, is B&N as well as Kindle are willing to pick up the bandwidth for any content you buy, and they probably have the capability to allow future web surfing as well. Maybe as customer perks, maybe as a paid plan, or maybe they will just start pushing ads in my face. Point is, its possible to add this feature even if it does not have it now.
These things will rescue the mainstream press. Mark my words.
I know I wouldn't buy one of these things if I had to enter into a carrier contract.
I took issue with the second sentence in your quote. That sentence is simply FLAT WRONG, and invalidates the writers point, and pretty much everything else they have to say.
Code stored in a table can be hash checked. The table can be locked. The table can be hash checked.
Interpreted has no precise meaning in computer science, or in a court of law.
That it creates table views on the fly does not make it un-audit-able.
Table views on the fly will ALWAYS come out the same as long as the inputs are the same. All that is required is that the data that DRIVES the selection and the content of the tables be locked during the election, and till after audit.
Note: For the record, I personally believe strongly in the paper ballot. But I also know paper ballot boxes get stuffed all the time. Karzi?
But reading comments out of code (and what you have pasted is clearly comments or aids to setting up an election, not actual election presentation code) is hardly a smoking gun. (You should see some of the comments in my code!!!)
You've posted nothing more than a description of data elements. A data dictionary with explanatory text.
You've mistaken documentation for executable code.
Nothing you've posted supports your assertions.
There is no possible way to write a general election package that will be configurable for a wide variety of elections and STILL have it all hard coded. It has to be data driven. As long as you can lock both the general code and the data during the election.
"code that appears to control or at least influence the logical flow of the election"
Which means the uneducated inspecting strings saw things like:
BAL_ID null -- 1 - show candidate on ballot (default) -- 0 - remove candidate from the ballot -- 2 - don't show candidate on the ballot, but reserve space for her on the layout
All of which is perfectly benign when voters are not eligible to vote for certain candidates for any number of reasons.
The more you read at the ultimate site more you realize the people digging thru this garbage know nothing about what they are reading, and not much about programming either.
Just because you know how to run grep or strings does not mean you can use the data it reveals.
Yet the summary sees fit only to mention the.5% issue....
Why? Because if TFA mentioned that the vast majority of Linux users with Nvidia cards never need to go to Nvidia's site for anything at any time it wouldn't be a SlashDot article.
I swear, it would be more honest if TFA authors just inserted the random "Balmer Boils Babies" or "Apple Abandons Angola" outbursts into the articles we could all chuckle and move on, without the need to explain that TFAuthor had to find a way to insert his bias into the summary by cherry picking one-liners.
While you LEND a book, you can't read it. The other party can read it (without paying for it). Then you get it back and you can read it but the other party can't.
What could be Fairer than that? Its exactly like a paper book, except the other party can't fail to return your book.
Jeeze, I wish I could get this plan for the tools I lend to my neighbor!
Slashdot Mirror
The way to avoid that sort of thing is to show races I may not vote in as grayed out
And answer 10 thousand questions from little old ladies as to why they can't vote on some of the races?
You must be out of your mind.
I can think of no case where I would be eligible to vote for only a subset of candidates for a particular position (which the code appears to support). If you don't live where a particular local position is up for election, then that whole election is unavailable to you, not just a few of the candidates.
Read the rest of the thread and you will find that your inability to think of such a case in no way impacts the reality of such cases existing.
Many states have closed primaries. You can neither see nor vote for the candidate from the other party.
Many states have laws that you can vote in any polling place. So if you happen to be visiting relatives out of town on election day you can walk into any polling place and vote a questioned ballot, and would not be presented with local races, but could still vote for state wide or national offices.
And many elections include issues of local improvement districts (LIDS) which do not always match precincts perfectly.
You see, you didn't have to think that hard to come up with a case did you?
But you miss the point entirely. The database snippits shown were NOT voting machine code, but rather election definition code, used to define races, and customize ballots for each precinct.
The voting machines themselves don't even need to run sql, or windows, and the vast majority of them have anemic processors incapable customizing ballots on the fly.
Those that do, and those that might arrive in the future may have the capability to have you swipe your voter card and have a ballot presented that, while still not modifiable in that machine, would be selected for your specific residence address, regardless of where you are voting.
Regardless, what was posted was election definition database snippits, not election execution code.
This is why this "code review" is pretty much a witch hunt by unskilled people who make accusations based on stuff they don't even understand.
From TFA: " University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), with a $25 million, two-year NIH grant that tapped federal stimulus funds ".
That would seem to me to make all this research public domain, and prevent Kaiser from patenting any genes, holding any information proprietary, or selling it to drug companies.
While you can't legally discriminate (see GINA in this subtread), there are many other ways this study could end up benefiting Kaiser alone, or Kaiser in cahoots with some drug company unless there is close supervision of this process.
I would also hope the patients, (and not just their doctors) have a say in this effort, and prohibitions exist from using existing patient samples drawn for other purposes.
But I would question the choice of One health care provider and one state. The sample seems already biased, once by socioeconomic status, and again by region.
Exactly.
However, the tinfoil hat army that pummeled me in this thread and nodded me "Politically Incorrect" will never see that and you can rest assured that it will be political dogma for years that Sequoia was caught red handed by a guy who's only skill was writing a wiki page.
Thanks for the heads up.
We already have element 115: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium
But it was uninteresting.
Personally, I'm drawn to The 5th Element.
http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/thefifthelement/
Yes, especially the 5th...
You have no knowledge that this code shipped with the voting station. You are simply parroting assumptions.
WinEDS is used to Set up and define elections but thats NOT what runs on the voting machines.
Its pretty clear to me from all the code I've read at the site that this is the race definition software these fools are looking at and screaming FEC violation.
They had no clue what kind of database they were looking at and even went so far as to alleged fraud upon the court for intentionally corrupting the database, when it was all along perfectly fine MS SQL.
And you're right. Except first, this appears to be an open and shut violation of FEC rules - I'm not an SQL programmer BUT I know that rulebook. And based on the *volume* of code present, there's a lot of calculation going on.
But is it the code that runs actual Voting or is it merely the code that defines races?
The people posting this had no idea what it was and alleged sabotage when they simply did not know or bother to check what platform this database was designed for: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1411885&cid=29817691
Yet, you are willing to believe them and immediately assume a conspiracy and a massive violation of FEC rules?
Why is that?
Show me the section in federal law that cites wiki!
but claiming that there is no difference between a compiler and an interpreter is simply wrong.
I never claimed this. I said there is no clear definition.
That is clearly not the case with T-SQL exec statements running dynamically constructed statements.
You don't even know what you are looking at.
It could just as well be the input to a translator that creates the election executable. But it doesn't matter as long as the table is locked at election time. The result is the same.
The difference between the two in terms of computer science is very clear, and very simple.
No, sorry, its not that simple.
You may have written code to Add two data elements AB and CD.
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.
No, it is not clear. No it is not simple. No there is no clear line between compiled code vs interpreted code, and NO there is no common definition of interpreted code.
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.
The Kindle Killer Arrives
How do you kill that which has no life?
Gimmie your watch and hold my beer.
So.. what was it you were saying?
He was saying he doesn't understand Android, and can't differentiate between an Open Source OS and an proprietary application.
All computer code not written in binary is interpreted code.
Sorry. Its clear you are neither a programmer NOR a lawyer.
Barns an Nobel lets you read Amazon site? How Open of them.
But assuming and ignoring the typo, the fact that you can read any off-site content is more or less a freebee. The 3G is there to let you buy books, sync your reader platforms etc.
But it does suggest a future ability to buy subscriptions, and have your morning paper at the breakfast table with out struggling to flip a page.
The key thing here, is B&N as well as Kindle are willing to pick up the bandwidth for any content you buy, and they probably have the capability to allow future web surfing as well. Maybe as customer perks, maybe as a paid plan, or maybe they will just start pushing ads in my face. Point is, its possible to add this feature even if it does not have it now.
These things will rescue the mainstream press. Mark my words.
I know I wouldn't buy one of these things if I had to enter into a carrier contract.
Yes I did read that.
I took issue with the second sentence in your quote. That sentence is simply FLAT WRONG, and invalidates the writers point, and pretty much everything else they have to say.
Code stored in a table can be hash checked. The table can be locked. The table can be hash checked.
Interpreted has no precise meaning in computer science, or in a court of law.
In your opinion its a violation.
But your opinion seems based on scary capital letters.
This is a job for programmers, not lawyers. Just because code is stored in a database does not mean it is changeable on the fly.
I think Number 2 here is the big ticket item.
SQL code, if locked during the election, is no different than a hard coded program. Don't mistake the container for the content.
That it creates table views on the fly does not make it un-audit-able.
Table views on the fly will ALWAYS come out the same as long as the inputs are the same. All that is required is that the data that DRIVES the selection and the content of the tables be locked during the election, and till after audit.
Note: For the record, I personally believe strongly in the paper ballot. But I also know paper ballot boxes get stuffed all the time. Karzi?
But reading comments out of code (and what you have pasted is clearly comments or aids to setting up an election, not actual election presentation code) is hardly a smoking gun. (You should see some of the comments in my code!!!)
You've posted nothing more than a description of data elements. A data dictionary with explanatory text.
You've mistaken documentation for executable code.
Nothing you've posted supports your assertions.
There is no possible way to write a general election package that will be configurable for a wide variety of elections and STILL have it all hard coded. It has to be data driven. As long as you can lock both the general code and the data during the election.
No need to show someone for whom the voter is not eligible to for.
(I assume English is a second language for you, because the statement was perfectly clear the first time).
Some states have closed primaries. Democrats only get to vote for democrats, republicans for republicans.
Some people are not voting in their proper polling place and can't vote for the local candidates (because they don't live there).
I could go on, but I suspect you will have difficulty reading much more thru your tin foil hat.
"code that appears to control or at least influence the logical flow of the election"
Which means the uneducated inspecting strings saw things like:
BAL_ID null
-- 1 - show candidate on ballot (default)
-- 0 - remove candidate from the ballot
-- 2 - don't show candidate on the ballot, but reserve space for her on the layout
All of which is perfectly benign when voters are not eligible to vote for certain candidates for any number of reasons.
The more you read at the ultimate site more you realize the people digging thru this garbage know nothing about what they are reading, and not much about programming either.
Just because you know how to run grep or strings does not mean you can use the data it reveals.
There is nothing scarce about ebooks, or most books in print.
Its not a scarcity issue.
Its an "Authors find it hard to feed their families when forced to work for free" issue.
Would you write a book if you knew you could sell exactly ONE copy which everyone in the world could share simultaneous?
Yet the summary sees fit only to mention the .5% issue....
Why? Because if TFA mentioned that the vast majority of Linux users with Nvidia cards never need to go to Nvidia's site for anything at any time it wouldn't be a SlashDot article.
I swear, it would be more honest if TFA authors just inserted the random "Balmer Boils Babies" or "Apple Abandons Angola" outbursts into the articles we could all chuckle and move on, without the need to explain that TFAuthor had to find a way to insert his bias into the summary by cherry picking one-liners.
These will be instantly obsolete when someone (Apple?) perfects the tablet, single purpose devices won't be competitive.
Single purpose?
Where did you see that? Did you miss the part about it being Android, which means they can add functionality easily?
Nope.
You LEND to another Barns and Nobel account. They can read with what ever device they have, (iPhone, on line, etc).
The Barns and Nobel reader for iPod/iPhone/Blackberry (and who knows what else) is freely available.
Oh, wait, you wanted the device for free too?
While you LEND a book, you can't read it. The other party can read it (without paying for it). Then you get it back and you can read it but the other party can't.
What could be Fairer than that? Its exactly like a paper book, except the other party can't fail to return your book.
Jeeze, I wish I could get this plan for the tools I lend to my neighbor!