Posted on 12/24/2022 4:41:08 AM PST by MtnClimber
I am pretty technical. I was surprised that shrink to fit became a talking point at the hearing on Thursday in Maricopa County.
I primarily know of one program that offers a shrink to fit option: Excel. Shrink to fit is, in my understanding, an application-level setting. Some copiers have a shrink to fit option, but it takes a literal picture and resizes it. That process does take some time and computing resources, and that copier is usually on the expensive side of the equation.
What I missed Thursday is where they allege that the shrink to fit option was set. If they are alleging that it was set in the voting application software, the software should have audit trails for changes, and we should be able to see if that was indeed the case.
If they are alleging that the change was made in the printer, then did anyone check the printer manual to see if that was indeed an option?
I have worked with Oki, Brother, HP, Epson, etc., and I can't remember the printers generally having a shrink to fit option. Printers are designed to receive data and print it. There is only so much processing power in a printer, and typically, printers just don't have the processing power required to resize an image. That is ultimately what shrink to fit does. It performs an image-resizing function.
If it was not the printer configuration, then did someone check the application to see if it has a shrink to fit option? For example, Microsoft Word does not have that option in the print settings. Microsoft PowerPoint does not have a shrink to fit option.
I know that the lawyers were throwing a curve with this admission, but just because you are familiar with shrink to fit in Excel...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I think that the elections people did not expect the ballot size to be noticed. And now they may not have a believable excuse.
Not knowing the software, from a 30,000’ level it seems a specialized application (like the tabulators) would not have had programmers spend the extra time implementing a shrink-to-fit option. Their assumption might be the correct sized paper was used in the first place.
Apparently, it was changed at the voting site, but the tabulator was set to read it at the 20” setting. Therefore, the markings would be in all the wrong places all over the paper.
In Maricopa’s case, the ballots were too short but not not too skinny. I’m not sure shrink or enlarge to fit would solve the issue.
If you cant figure out the proper way to print the ballot so the liberals get the same one the conservatives do, and you work for the election commision, then maybe you need thrown in prison with the rest of the societal dregs.
I think the writer is mistaken and that shrink-to-fit is a normal printer feature.
However, any program for printing scannable ballots must be precise about the scale it prints at. If someone uses the wrong printer settings for ballots in Republican areas, that is not a plausible mistake.
>>Therefore, the markings would be in all the wrong places all over the paper.<<
But RESETTING the marks to their proper places could be done?
I guess that it depends if the software is using a Windows or Adobe print to pdf feature.
All of those have print to fit features and it may be on by default.
The voting apparatus here where I live - the printers are built into each of the voting machines we use to fill ballots. Cannot speak to Arizona. But we are handed a blank ballot (nothing but a small barcode). The voting machine actually prints all the ballot data when you finalize and review your votes.
Shrink-to-fit is a client-side software feature, not generally actually performed by the printer, but by the computing device.
Because they didn't allege it.
The ballots were deliberately printed 19 inch image to 20 inch paper in order to prevent tabulation. This could only be done with password access.
PDF also provides shrink to fit as a printing option.
If they had this kind of problem and did not discover it until Election Day, the entire staff should be fired.
The fact that they had issues at 70 different voting places screams Fraud at 170 decibels.
If it wasn’t fraud it was incompetence on a global scale.
Either way people should be out of a job.
Here is the thing. If someone has Administrative level (root) access to a system, they can do anything they want. This includes deleting logs, editing logs with a text editor, or even in some cases, turning logging functionality off, doing their dirty work, and then turning it back on again.
And I can tell you with great certainty, that there was likely no shortage of hostiles who had access to the full root/administrative access who had the knowledge and ideological willingness to use their knowledge to ill effect.
Almost all copiers will shrink or expand the image, not just “ very high priced ones”.
“The attorney for Maricopa county argued that the fault is with the Republicans because so many waited until Election Day to cast their votes.”
Yeah. G. Gordon Liddy’s retarded and supremely arrogant son. The tone he used when speaking to the judge probably did not help Hobbs’ case.
No way all these systems tested ok on Monday and failed simultaneously on Tuesday morning without intervention. This point should be stressed above all… that’s what the test is for…. To guarantee the machines are working. And they were.
“just because you are familiar with shrink to fit in Excel...”
It’s an option in PDF docs, too — “fit to page”. And Word — “scale to paper size”. Probably all/most applications.
The thing is, it can’t accidentally occur like Hobbs’ team implies. A human being has do make the decision and then make the changes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.