Re: Large Ballot Redux

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 11:57:16 CDT

At 9:27 AM -0700 6/3/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
>David,
>
>> Didn't we decide 140-160 bits was a little too much to comfortably put
>> in Code128? Or at least getting to the high side of it. ....
>>
>On the high side. I think I said (somewhat arbitrarily) that 150 bits was
>getting close to the practical limit.
>
>In any case, I wasn't trying to promote 1-D barcodes; I was just saying that
>this particular ballot of legendary length could be handled with a 1-D
>barcode if necessary.
>
>I think the consensus was that 2-D would not cost appreciably more so we may
>as well go with that.
>
>Alan D.

You didn't leave room for the prefix. I count 164 bits for the
contests alone plus the prefix. How many bits are the date,
precinct, ballot type, ballot ID, etc.? The ballot number is 14 bits
alone for a 4-digit decimal number! So we're probably up in the 200
+/- bit range, not counting encryption.

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 Wed Jun 30 23:17:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT