They specifically don’t patrol the area around where they live... for obvious reasons.
It’s more unlikely that way that somebody just happens to drive by the house of the cop who wrote him a ticket last week. If they’re writing tickets around where they live, crimes of passion would be more likely...
That's not true. It uses very precise terminology: character data [w3.org] is defined in XML to be "All text that is not markup". The DOM Level 1 spec [w3.org] explicitly refers to "character data" as being a term taken from XML. There is no newline in the markup and there is no newline in the DOM, so as the spec stands, there is no newline in the toString().
window.getSelection().toString() should give the same thing as Ctrl-C.
Now, if that means that they wanna mandate some weird way of toString() copying the character data that ignores the HTML markup and the CSS styles that apply to it, then Ctrl-C should behave in the same weird, stupid way. The whole purpose of the getSelection() method is to provide a programmatic way for a programmer to find out what would be copied if the user pressed Ctrl-C, and when they return different things it is fundamentally broken.
When the family hired a lawyer who tried to request the traffic camera video and dash video from the cop cars all of the videos mysteriously disappeared. When the lawyer mentioned that he also had the testimony of the 3 EMT's who came to the scene to say that it was the cop who illegally crossed the double yellow all charges were dropped. It is unacceptable to me that all four cops were willing to charge an innocent person with a crime just to try to deflect blame from one of their own.
Fuck that... should’ve used that against them. Get those assholes dragged into court and charged. They withheld and/or destroyed the evidence... isn’t that a felony?
It says “a copy of all the character data selected or partially selected by a Range”. By that description, and by any rational interpretation of the intent and usage of toString, window.getSelection().toString() should return the same thing that Ctrl-C returns as its plain text version (i.e. if you paste it into Notepad).
If the CSS creates an implicit line break character in the text node, I think that it should be copied as well.
In Opera, Ctrl-C gives the expected (with a line break) while window.getSelection().toString() does not include a line break.
That is bullshit. Whether or not he was an active participant in the encounter, he was a participant in the sense that he was a witness and his consent (by taking the video) was perfectly legal.
That’s because it didn’t actually try to access your location; it just checked to see if the navigator.geolocation interface existed. The Mozilla geolocation demo page actually requests your location and maps it, which requires you to give the browser permission to reveal that.
They test lots and lots of semi-related attributes to verify that they are at the correct value. Missing one of them causes the test to fail. No description is given of what points caused the test to fail; it just gives the PASS/FAIL grade at the end.
For instance, the first test: “Add a range to the selection”. When they create a new range, the anchor node of the range is the <body> element. When they call range.selectNode(document.getElementById("p1")) then add that range to the selection, they then check to make sure that the start container of the range (which was originally the <body> element) is now identical to the anchor node of the selection (which is the <p id="p1"> element). If it isn’t, the test fails.
However, there is no reason why the anchor node of the range has to be the <p> element; the W3C just says that the start container and end container must be the same, and the <p> element is located inside the <body> element and its contents could also be selected using offsets. In Firefox, the start container of the range does become the <p> element when you select it with selectNode(). In Opera 10.53, the start container is still the <body> element, and the start and end offsets are merely changed to select the contents of the <p> element which is itself contained inside the <body> element. This causes the test to fail in Opera.
Not only that but I don’t see any reason why the anchor node of the selection returned by window.getSelection couldn’t also be the <body> element, so as long as the range it created and the selection it created ended up with the same root element, their test would fail to even detect the difference whether that was <p> or <body>.
Yes, that’s the function where they deliberately wrote incorrect test conditions that reflect the incorrect way that IE9 is going to do it but fail on everything that does it correctly.
Who the hell wrote these stupid tests? Whoever it is was a fucking moron.
I went down the list and picked the first one that Firefox supposedly failed on... “Call select() on a text field.” Firefox fails this test? What the fuck? I’ve used select() on text fields many a time and Firefox supports it just fine. Something’s fishy. So.......... I hit up the test page and read the source code.
If there’s a javascript error, the test obviously fails. A bunch of the attributes of window.getSelection() are checked, and if those don’t match what the test expected, the test fails. So I added a descriptive message to each fail condition, ran it again, and came up with the following list of exceptions:
Test result: Anchor node not null (FAIL) Anchor offset not zero (FAIL) Focus node not null (FAIL) Focus offset not zero (FAIL) Is collapsed (PASS) Range count not zero (FAIL) Selection matched (PASS) FAIL
Umm... so let’s see...
In order to pass this test, after selecting some text, the anchor node must be null, the offset zero, the focus node null, its offset zero, and the range count must be zero.
interface Selection {
readonly attribute Node anchorNode;
readonly attribute long anchorOffset;
readonly attribute Node focusNode;
readonly attribute long focusOffset;
readonly attribute boolean isCollapsed;
void collapse(in Node parentNode, in long offset);
void collapseToStart();
void collapseToEnd();
void selectAllChildren(in Node parentNode);
void deleteFromDocument();
readonly attribute long rangeCount;
Range getRangeAt(in long index);
void addRange(in Range range);
void removeRange(in Range range);
void removeAllRanges();
stringifier DOMString (); };
selection.anchorNode
Returns the element that contains the start of the selection.
Returns null if there's no selection.
selection.anchorOffset
Returns the offset of the start of the selection relative to the element that contains the start of the selection.
Returns 0 if there's no selection.
selection.focusNode
Returns the element that contains the end of the selection.
Returns null if there's no selection.
selection.focusOffset
Returns the offset of the end of the selection relative to the element that contains the end of the selection.
Returns 0 if there's no selection.
selection.isCollapsed()
Returns true if there's no selection or if the selection is empty. Otherwise, returns false.
selection.rangeCount
Returns the number of ranges in the selection.
They wrote the exact opposite of these conditions for what you should expect after selecting text.
Strangely enough, Opera 10.53 also “passed”.
This is beyond incompetent, it is sleazy. They wrote their test to call everything that IE fails at a “pass” and anything that does it correctly will “fail”.
The correct test results should be:
Firefox 3.6.3: Anchor node not null (PASS) Anchor offset not zero (PASS) Focus node not null (PASS) Focus offset not zero (PASS) Is collapsed (FAIL) Range count not zero (PASS) Selection matched (PASS) FAIL
Opera 10.53: Anchor node is null (FAIL) Anchor offset is zero (FAIL) Focus node
If I were planning on using my video in my defense, would I also have to allow the prosecution to use it as evidence, or would that be a 5th ammendment issue (self incrimination)?
If you offered the video to the court as evidence, then yes, the prosecution would be able to use it just as much to support their case as you would be.
Whether or not you would be legally obligated to submit the video as evidence, if you wanted to withhold it, would be a dicier question. You absolutely should not delete the video until all’s said and done... on the outside chance that they discover you filmed and destroyed the footage, that’s destruction of evidence... automatic, no question. If they don’t know you filmed, you’re within your 5th amendment rights by not revealing that you did, but whatever you do don’t destroy it. If they do learn that you filmed, they can petition the court and if they are able to convince the court that the video would be valuable to the trial as evidence then you can be compelled to yield it as evidence, I think.
I agree, it’d be nice if I could go to court and demand the cops give up their video as evidence, but the system doesn’t care about me in your run-of-the-mill traffic stop. It just wants me to shut up, pay the monetary fine, and get out.
The problem with what you’re saying isn’t that it doesn’t accurately describe how the system works.
The problem with what you’re saying is that it is frighteningly true.
If the police can't be trusted, then they can't do their job.
If the police can’t be trusted, then they shouldn’t do their job.
Cameras expose these breaches of trust, but they also fundamentally undermine the system by doing so.
Because it needs to be undermined. Because all of what you said is true.
The system is happy to hide the occasional act of injustice (and punish those who expose them) because the public's trust in the institution is vital to its continued functioning.
And that is exactly why its continued functioning is exactly what we should be trying to prevent.
The system shouldn’t be blindly trusted just because it has to be trusted for the system to work. That’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and that’s why I posted my other comment.
The system should be trusted because it is trustworthy... and if it isn’t trustworthy, it shouldn’t be trusted, it shouldn’t continue to function, and the corrupt people within it should be exposed and dealt with so that the system can be trustworthy again.
Yeah right. They don’t need the video to write you the ticket. You will be convicted unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are not guilty.
Eh, revert to cryptic statements and remember your right to remain silent... don’t admit that you are recording, but don’t deny it either...
The camera in their car is recording everything.
You didn’t say that you were recording them.
Simply that they were being recorded.
You just wanted to remind them that they are being recorded.
Their camera is recording, right?
Simply evade the question by pretending to be talking about their camera. You know... the recording they’re still thinking they can just make go away if anything happens that would show them in a bad light. If they know they are being recorded, they can’t claim your recording is an infringement of their privacy...
Of course, I live in a single-party consent state so I wouldn’t tell them I was recording in the first place.
If the implied meaning was something that you deliberately implied, knew to be false, and spread anyway, then it would fall under the definition of libel. Good luck proving that, though. It should be difficult to prove that, because the truth should just about always be a legitimate defense.
If your portion of the truth was misleading, then the acceptable recourse is for the full truth to be shown.
If police footage shows that a YouTube clip was misleading, then good. Tell people. I want them to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Or...
don’t answer?
Isn’t anybody considering the obvious?
If it’s not crucially important, let it go to voicemail and return the call at a decent hour...
I’m at work right now, but I dragged that link to my flash drive to check it later.
Great. Just great.
Do you realise what you’ve done? Now Slashdot will get slashdotted by thousands of blondes. Possibly millions.
They specifically don’t patrol the area around where they live... for obvious reasons.
It’s more unlikely that way that somebody just happens to drive by the house of the cop who wrote him a ticket last week. If they’re writing tickets around where they live, crimes of passion would be more likely...
That's not true. It uses very precise terminology: character data [w3.org] is defined in XML to be "All text that is not markup". The DOM Level 1 spec [w3.org] explicitly refers to "character data" as being a term taken from XML. There is no newline in the markup and there is no newline in the DOM, so as the spec stands, there is no newline in the toString().
window.getSelection().toString() should give the same thing as Ctrl-C.
Now, if that means that they wanna mandate some weird way of toString() copying the character data that ignores the HTML markup and the CSS styles that apply to it, then Ctrl-C should behave in the same weird, stupid way. The whole purpose of the getSelection() method is to provide a programmatic way for a programmer to find out what would be copied if the user pressed Ctrl-C, and when they return different things it is fundamentally broken.
When the family hired a lawyer who tried to request the traffic camera video and dash video from the cop cars all of the videos mysteriously disappeared. When the lawyer mentioned that he also had the testimony of the 3 EMT's who came to the scene to say that it was the cop who illegally crossed the double yellow all charges were dropped. It is unacceptable to me that all four cops were willing to charge an innocent person with a crime just to try to deflect blame from one of their own.
Fuck that... should’ve used that against them. Get those assholes dragged into court and charged. They withheld and/or destroyed the evidence... isn’t that a felony?
It says “a copy of all the character data selected or partially selected by a Range”. By that description, and by any rational interpretation of the intent and usage of toString, window.getSelection().toString() should return the same thing that Ctrl-C returns as its plain text version (i.e. if you paste it into Notepad).
If the CSS creates an implicit line break character in the text node, I think that it should be copied as well.
In Opera, Ctrl-C gives the expected (with a line break) while window.getSelection().toString() does not include a line break.
That is bullshit. Whether or not he was an active participant in the encounter, he was a participant in the sense that he was a witness and his consent (by taking the video) was perfectly legal.
They don’t seem concerned about that where I live.
Cops take their cars home with them, supposedly to give the neighbourhood the benefit of seeming to have the additional cop presence.
In a criminal trial with a jury, perhaps.
Traffic court is an entirely different ballgame.
That’s because it didn’t actually try to access your location; it just checked to see if the navigator.geolocation interface existed. The Mozilla geolocation demo page actually requests your location and maps it, which requires you to give the browser permission to reveal that.
But I'd bet that Microsoft wrote these tests back when IE9 didn't pass them, then made IE9 pass them, THEN released the tests.
Have you even looked at the source of some of the tests?
Yes.
They test lots and lots of semi-related attributes to verify that they are at the correct value. Missing one of them causes the test to fail. No description is given of what points caused the test to fail; it just gives the PASS/FAIL grade at the end.
For instance, the first test: “Add a range to the selection”. When they create a new range, the anchor node of the range is the <body> element. When they call range.selectNode(document.getElementById("p1")) then add that range to the selection, they then check to make sure that the start container of the range (which was originally the <body> element) is now identical to the anchor node of the selection (which is the <p id="p1"> element). If it isn’t, the test fails.
However, there is no reason why the anchor node of the range has to be the <p> element; the W3C just says that the start container and end container must be the same, and the <p> element is located inside the <body> element and its contents could also be selected using offsets. In Firefox, the start container of the range does become the <p> element when you select it with selectNode(). In Opera 10.53, the start container is still the <body> element, and the start and end offsets are merely changed to select the contents of the <p> element which is itself contained inside the <body> element. This causes the test to fail in Opera.
Not only that but I don’t see any reason why the anchor node of the selection returned by window.getSelection couldn’t also be the <body> element, so as long as the range it created and the selection it created ended up with the same root element, their test would fail to even detect the difference whether that was <p> or <body>.
Yes, that’s the function where they deliberately wrote incorrect test conditions that reflect the incorrect way that IE9 is going to do it but fail on everything that does it correctly.
The Insert Node Into Selection test is equally retarded.
They create a new <div> element and insert it at the end of the selection in an existing <div>. In other words, they generate this:
...then they check to see if the value returned by selection.toString() is equal to “some textnew text”.
Morons. It shows up as this:
...and that’s what toString() gives you, too.
Who the hell wrote these stupid tests? Whoever it is was a fucking moron.
I went down the list and picked the first one that Firefox supposedly failed on... “Call select() on a text field.” Firefox fails this test? What the fuck? I’ve used select() on text fields many a time and Firefox supports it just fine. Something’s fishy. So.......... I hit up the test page and read the source code.
If there’s a javascript error, the test obviously fails. A bunch of the attributes of window.getSelection() are checked, and if those don’t match what the test expected, the test fails. So I added a descriptive message to each fail condition, ran it again, and came up with the following list of exceptions:
Umm... so let’s see...
In order to pass this test, after selecting some text, the anchor node must be null, the offset zero, the focus node null, its offset zero, and the range count must be zero.
WHAT THE FUCK?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/editing.html#selection-0:
They wrote the exact opposite of these conditions for what you should expect after selecting text.
Strangely enough, Opera 10.53 also “passed”.
This is beyond incompetent, it is sleazy. They wrote their test to call everything that IE fails at a “pass” and anything that does it correctly will “fail”.
The correct test results should be:
Wow... you have never served on a city jury, have you?
My question to you is... how on earth have you? Were they not careful enough to weed you out for your anti-authoritarian tendencies?
If I were planning on using my video in my defense, would I also have to allow the prosecution to use it as evidence, or would that be a 5th ammendment issue (self incrimination)?
If you offered the video to the court as evidence, then yes, the prosecution would be able to use it just as much to support their case as you would be.
Whether or not you would be legally obligated to submit the video as evidence, if you wanted to withhold it, would be a dicier question. You absolutely should not delete the video until all’s said and done... on the outside chance that they discover you filmed and destroyed the footage, that’s destruction of evidence... automatic, no question. If they don’t know you filmed, you’re within your 5th amendment rights by not revealing that you did, but whatever you do don’t destroy it. If they do learn that you filmed, they can petition the court and if they are able to convince the court that the video would be valuable to the trial as evidence then you can be compelled to yield it as evidence, I think.
I agree, it’d be nice if I could go to court and demand the cops give up their video as evidence, but the system doesn’t care about me in your run-of-the-mill traffic stop. It just wants me to shut up, pay the monetary fine, and get out.
After helpfully wiping the blood off with their batons?
The problem with what you’re saying isn’t that it doesn’t accurately describe how the system works.
The problem with what you’re saying is that it is frighteningly true.
If the police can't be trusted, then they can't do their job.
If the police can’t be trusted, then they shouldn’t do their job.
Cameras expose these breaches of trust, but they also fundamentally undermine the system by doing so.
Because it needs to be undermined. Because all of what you said is true.
The system is happy to hide the occasional act of injustice (and punish those who expose them) because the public's trust in the institution is vital to its continued functioning.
And that is exactly why its continued functioning is exactly what we should be trying to prevent.
The system shouldn’t be blindly trusted just because it has to be trusted for the system to work. That’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, and that’s why I posted my other comment.
The system should be trusted because it is trustworthy... and if it isn’t trustworthy, it shouldn’t be trusted, it shouldn’t continue to function, and the corrupt people within it should be exposed and dealt with so that the system can be trustworthy again.
Those cameras in their cars are never used to show cop misconduct. The video disappears.
It’s their video and they won’t use it to self-incriminate. What did you really expect?
Good luck forcing them to yield the video as evidence. It’s theoretically possible, but nearly impossible.
I laughed out loud.
Yeah right. They don’t need the video to write you the ticket. You will be convicted unless you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are not guilty.
Eh, revert to cryptic statements and remember your right to remain silent... don’t admit that you are recording, but don’t deny it either...
The camera in their car is recording everything.
You didn’t say that you were recording them.
Simply that they were being recorded.
You just wanted to remind them that they are being recorded.
Their camera is recording, right?
Simply evade the question by pretending to be talking about their camera. You know... the recording they’re still thinking they can just make go away if anything happens that would show them in a bad light. If they know they are being recorded, they can’t claim your recording is an infringement of their privacy...
Of course, I live in a single-party consent state so I wouldn’t tell them I was recording in the first place.
Where do you live?
America has problems but I can’t think of any other country I’d prefer to live in over the US.
If the implied meaning was something that you deliberately implied, knew to be false, and spread anyway, then it would fall under the definition of libel. Good luck proving that, though. It should be difficult to prove that, because the truth should just about always be a legitimate defense.
If your portion of the truth was misleading, then the acceptable recourse is for the full truth to be shown.
If police footage shows that a YouTube clip was misleading, then good. Tell people. I want them to know.