Imagine if Slashdot stored all user information in OpenLDAP, for example. Or BDB.
The big difference has to do with flexibility of reporting, not searches, but also I think about buzzword-compliance ("We need an RDBMS because their are COOL even if we are using it like an OODBMS").
Yes but MYSQL was the only one that was just starting to be capable of running on large clusters using much more complex storage/data integrity/etc.
You are right that MySQL is the only one that is just starting to be capable of complex data integrity. The others have been there for som etime. For complex storage, etc. yes all three are feasible in complex storage environments, though neither of them are feasible in the sort of DLC environments that Oracle RAC uses, etc.
Here we have the one shinning open source alternative to commercial databases and it is now faced with an identity crisis because they sold their name to a company about to be bought by IBM and outsourced to China and India.
Huh?
I think the two main open source alternatives to commercial databases are Firebird and PostgreSQL.
Actually the subject is how your data is supposed to be used.
MySQL users see the database as a program persistance layer. I am not sure WHY they are using something that pretends to be a relational database, but they are. It is the single-app approach (one app, one database).
The PostgreSQL crowd sees data and application as being separate issues. The data in theory should be able to be managed in any of a hundred different applications, all hitting the same database, without causing the nightmares in QA that this sort of thing creates in MySQL.
So is the program what is important? Or is the data there to be used by many programs?
MySQL works OK for one-app databases and many people think that is all that is needed. It breaks down outside that area, however.
First, I think that there are cases where sending a lascivious image of oneself (as a teenager) to someone else might rise to the level of child pornography. I am not entirely sure if the child should ever be prosecuted (if it was sent for publication, the recipient should be prosecuted if you could prove that).
However, there are some important first amendment issues here to consider as well. My understanding of the current case law allows a child pornography exception to the first amendment to the extent that an action is harmful to specific children. Such work must also be of limited artistic value also (I don't think Mapplethorpe's works could ever be used as the subject of child pornography prosecutions, though obscenity prosecutions might still be possible due to the "community standard" issue). At the same time, it is generally accepted that children do have first amendment rights, and so prosecuting them for activity that would be fundamentally protected for adults but might be otherwise a felony when involving children, and which don't meet the narrow criteria for the exception strikes me as problematic. The solution would be an "as-applied" challenge to the law. In other words one argues in court that the law, as it is applied in this case, is unconstitutional. This is different from a "facial" challenge in that the facial challenge argues that the law is unconstitutional in all applications and therefore should be struck down. An as-applied challenge, if sustained by the court, would simply preclude prosecution in cases where it was valid. Two good cases to read for people interested in these types of challenges are: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (upholding the former's as-applied challenge to election law) and Republican Party of Washington v. Washington State Grange (denying the former's facial challenge to Washington's new primary system).
Note that this is entirely different from the questions of obscenity law, which does not seem to be a harm-based exception. While I think that obscenity laws need to be struck down as unconstitutional due to first and fourth amendment considerations, these are entirely separate from child pornography laws. For example, anime of children involved in sex acts is not child pornography, and the Supreme Court has struck down attempts to bring such material under the domain of child pornography laws, but it may still be prosecuted as obscenity, which brings up various other concerns. The child pornography exception to the first amendment is actually quite narrow, while the obscenity exception is quite broad.
The guy sitting in jail in Virginia for possession of anime would disagree.
That was under obscenity law, which is a different thing altogether. The obscenity exception is the only one that is not harm-based and IMO needs to go.
My family buys a side of beef direct from a farmer every year. My parents do the same thing and even joke aboutnaming the cow.
"These hamburgers are from Bessy...."
Personally if I didn't live in town I would probably occasionally do a nice Greek-style sacrificial feast with friends and family (where the animal is killed, cooked and eaten as part of the ceremony). I think we would have so many fewer folks who are horribly messed up like the GP if we were much closer to our food, and the cycles of life and death that surround it.
I can't think of a good match. Maybe IBM just because IBM's service arm seems to be doing really well, but then that would be bad for the whole industry for IBM to own an enterprise Linux distro.
It would be kinda funny if Microsoft bought them and actually tried to make money off Red Hat Enterprise Linux, though....
I would like to see a case like this prosecuted just because such threats of prosecution for posession of child porn (against the kids who took photos of themselves) are not as unusual as many would think. I think that such a trial out to be helpful in preventing many other kids from being charged with such behavior.
Most likely the court would not go as far as the GP wanted. I am thinking that the court would probably simply say that taking a sexual photo of one's self for private viewing (perhaps along with one's boyfriend/girlfriend) would be Constitutionally protected, outside the scope of the child pornography exception to the first amendment, etc, and an entirely separable matter from commercial publication.
This would basically mean one could not prosecute a kid (or the kid's parent if it was found on a family computer) over such behavior. It would likely be fairly limited in circumstances surrounding adult possession of child pornography, but would potentially avoid a lot of kids getting threatened with prosecution.
The child porn exception has continued to be kept narrow by the Supreme Court. Artistic works, for example, cannot be prosecuted as child pornography (I don't think any of Mapplethorpe's works would qualify as child pornography for example).
Nor can baby pictures of the kids in the tub. Nor can computer-generated images which appear to be kids (and in the process of creating, no kids were actually harmed). Nor can images of adults pretending to be children.
The exception is still extremely narrow, and I am reasonably sure that the courts would throw out a prosecution such as this on an as-applied challenge as this sort of case meets none of the criteria in the child porn cases upholding the exception.
On top of that, they were for her boyfriend. They're sending them to ONE person. Isn't the whole law to keep children from being exploited? What if they do it by their own will?
That is why I would like to see this case go to trial and see an as-applied challenge to the child pornographies laws on the basis fo the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments sustained (preferably on appeal all the way through the Supreme Court).
I see two fundamental issues here: 1) Sexual photographs of consenting adults are Constitutionally protected. Child pornography has generally been a fairly narrow exception and has been kept narrow in recent years (the COPA challenges and all of that). I can see this sort of thing as falling outside the child pornography exception simply because it is a narrow exception.
2) Due process..... Here we have a case where a person could be charged with a felony and perhaps made a sex offender over an act that would have been Constitutionally protected as an adult. If we concede that there are ANY Constitutional protections related to this, and if we note that almost always this sort of thing is not prosecuted, we have void for vagueness problems (the behavior is sufficiently commonplace to make enforcement arbitrary) and rational basis problems which don't seem to me are easy to overcome.
It would be nice to see the court hold that such things are OUTSIDE the child pornography exception and thus may not be prosecuted.
Cases like this pose interesting and important Constitutional issues. Do teenagers have a first amendment right to take nude pictures of themselves? Or do these fall under the child pornography exception to the first amendment even when not for public display? This sort of thing gets threatened reasonably frequently, and I think that a court really should be forced to rule on it in the reasonably near future. Personally, I think that if you make a child a sex offender and a felon for behavior that would be constitutionally protected for an adult (taking nude photographs of oneself, and handing said photos to boy/girlfriend), there are serious 4th Amendment issues to consider as well.
Hopefully, the courts would accept an as-applied Constitutional challenge to the child pornography statutes. This wouldn't overrule the statutes but simply say that they could not be used to prosecute this sort of behavior.
I don't think you need a desktop version. However, the key issue is a desktop business plan.
Now, in some cases, I could see RHEL offering all sorts of tailored versions beyond the current ones. Maybe Red Hat Enterprise Server for Low-end tasks, etc. so you can still run the dhcp server on that 80486 you have in the closet..... The desktop is just one example.
A lot of things can change in a desktop version including, for example, the kernel scheduler. What is optimal for a production db server may not be optimal for a workstation.
I think that the real problem is how to make money off the CONSUMER desktop market, which is a non-trivial problem with Linux. The business desktop market is reasonably simple (sell support contracts).
Also I think it is possible to make money selling support to consumers at $50/incident or at least it was last time I ran numbers. (This is with techs in the US, btw). I also think that consumers would pay $50/incident if they get good quality customer service.
The real problems though are pricing and branding issues for the computer sales. I still think it would be doable, but it would be somewhat difficult.
If anyone reading this is interested in doing this, feel free to email me and we can discuss this further.
Yes, a supplier of a substance that is not a controlled substance and which she would have no incentive to hide in her undergarments. Maybe they had a right to search her bags or locker, or ask her to empty her pockets, but not a strip search in this case.
Now, let me pose a case where a strip search MIGHT be reasonable. Suppose a 13-year-old is accused, by multiple people of selling something mildly illegal (suppose, for the sake of argument that it is a tobacco product) but largely disruptive to the school and several students claim that she keeps these in her bra concelaed in a way that a strip search might be necessary. At that point I could see reasonable people disagreeing over whether the search was unreasonable. However, in these cases, none of these issues apply here. There may be in interest in preventing one student from giving another ibuprofen, but it is not compelling IMO to the point of a strip search. There may be a right to search the student's bags or locker on such a tip but not a strip search with no reason to suspect that the actual strip search would show evidence of wrongdoing.
Schools are not required to get warrants to perform searches, but they are required to keep the searches reasonable. Although every case I have looked at from SCOTUS upheld the school's searches, the reasoning if fairly applied would not allow this sort of search.
What the school did was view a naked child against her will. They had no legal right, and any other private citizen doing this would have been in jail on rape and child pornography charges before they could blink.
Not necessarily. And for what it's worth, had the strip search been reasonable, the school did attempt to at least avoid the issues of why (having it done by two female employees).
However, the basic issue is that the search was unreasonable given the circumstances and hence unconstitutional. I don't even think that reasonable people can disagree over whether the search was reasonable. This is probably the case of everyone attending one too many "how to fight drugs in your school" seminar but that doesn't excuse the behavior and I think the courts need to send a clear message to that effect.
Also IIRC, since ibuprofen is not a controlled substance, even prescription-strength ibuprofen doesn't require a prescription to possess. One is just simply not supposed to dispense it without a prescription. This is different from something like morphine.
If you get a course of antibiotics, you will note it says "Federal law prohibits dispensing without a prescription." If you get a medicine containing morphine, it will contain all sorts of warnings about how only the person to whom it is prescribed may take it, etc. These are very, very different issues. However:
1) Preventing ibuprofen use on school does not seem to be sufficiently compelling to justify a strip search under any similar circumstance to my thinking.
2) Student searches are expected to be minimally invasive anyway (I forget the relevant supreme court precedent), which means you can only search where you have reasonable suspicion you will find what the specific banned items you are looking for. I doubt the school employees actually thought they would find ibuprofen in her undergarments, and if they did, I think such a suspicion would have been unreasonable in this case.
I think it will be interesting to see what this court does. While O Centro v. Gonzalez was a simple statutory case, it seems to me that it shows that this court does subject claims of compelling interests regarding the war on drugs with a fair bit of skepticism.
Even if they did, I don't think they had reasonable suspicion that there were prescription-strength ibuprofen pills under her undergarments. I think that is the key point. Without that suspicion, they might have been allowed to search her locker or asked her to empty her pockets, but certainly not strip search over anything.
Also, I don't think that reasonable people can disagree over this case. We may have different reasons for saying it wasn't ok, but if one is to defend a strip search over ibuprofen where the risk to other kids is minimal even if she did have it AND it is not a controlled substance beyond requiring a prescription, AND there is no financial motive for smuggling (hence no reason to overly conceal having the medication), then you are not thinking through the issues of when a search is reasonable. If she was accused of smuggling meth in her bra, a properly done strip search might be reasonable, or at least reasonable people might be able to disagree. If she was accused of giving a prescription-strength NSAID to a classmate, it is unreasonable. The equivalent would be for police to get a search warrant for your HOUSE because they think incriminating evidence might be in your CAR.
Also FTA: In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding's case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was "carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal."
This about says it all. Searching under the undergarments when you have no reason to believe that will bring up incriminating evidence is patently unreasonable.
First, I will agree that kids giving other kids medication that is reasonably harmless is often more dangerous than it is for adults. And of course Excedrin also has other active ingredients too, so it is not directly comparable.
However, none of this justifies strip-searching a 13-year-old over ibuprofen. The Supreme Court has said on other occasions that students in a school have some reasonable expectation to privacy, and that searches still must be reasonable, as measured by intrusiveness of the search and the expectations of privacy against the compelling interests of the school. I can't think of any reasoning where ibuprofen would be sufficiently concerning to warrant strip-searching a 13-year-old. This case doesn't test the limits of the 4th amendment, it is way beyond those limits, and the search is patently unreasonable. Are there cases where a strip search might be called for? While I can't think of any, I won't commit to a "no." However, under no circumstances is this one of them, and obviously schools have a duty to minimize the intrusiveness of such a search if it is ever necessary.
I would like to see a sound decision handed down against the school in this case.
The big issue here is what apps have access to your data. If you are just using the db to store data and retrieve it for a single app, it doesn't make a difference what db you are using and in fact non-relational db's have a number of advantages over relational ones.
The big change happens when you shift from thinking of data as something which is stored in order to give it persistance within the program and view it instead as something which needs to be management and leveraged in different ways across programs. In this case, the only way to go is with a relational db. As soon as your data has value independent of your application, you need to go with a relational design, and a good one (POstgreSQL over MySQL etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but I wasn't thinking of a file system.
Imagine if Slashdot stored all user information in OpenLDAP, for example. Or BDB.
The big difference has to do with flexibility of reporting, not searches, but also I think about buzzword-compliance ("We need an RDBMS because their are COOL even if we are using it like an OODBMS").
Yes but MYSQL was the only one that was just starting to be capable of running on large clusters using much more complex storage/data integrity/etc.
You are right that MySQL is the only one that is just starting to be capable of complex data integrity. The others have been there for som etime. For complex storage, etc. yes all three are feasible in complex storage environments, though neither of them are feasible in the sort of DLC environments that Oracle RAC uses, etc.
Here we have the one shinning open source alternative to commercial databases and it is now faced with an identity crisis because they sold their name to a company about to be bought by IBM and outsourced to China and India.
Huh?
I think the two main open source alternatives to commercial databases are Firebird and PostgreSQL.
Actually the subject is how your data is supposed to be used.
MySQL users see the database as a program persistance layer. I am not sure WHY they are using something that pretends to be a relational database, but they are. It is the single-app approach (one app, one database).
The PostgreSQL crowd sees data and application as being separate issues. The data in theory should be able to be managed in any of a hundred different applications, all hitting the same database, without causing the nightmares in QA that this sort of thing creates in MySQL.
So is the program what is important? Or is the data there to be used by many programs?
MySQL works OK for one-app databases and many people think that is all that is needed. It breaks down outside that area, however.
First, I think that there are cases where sending a lascivious image of oneself (as a teenager) to someone else might rise to the level of child pornography. I am not entirely sure if the child should ever be prosecuted (if it was sent for publication, the recipient should be prosecuted if you could prove that).
However, there are some important first amendment issues here to consider as well. My understanding of the current case law allows a child pornography exception to the first amendment to the extent that an action is harmful to specific children. Such work must also be of limited artistic value also (I don't think Mapplethorpe's works could ever be used as the subject of child pornography prosecutions, though obscenity prosecutions might still be possible due to the "community standard" issue). At the same time, it is generally accepted that children do have first amendment rights, and so prosecuting them for activity that would be fundamentally protected for adults but might be otherwise a felony when involving children, and which don't meet the narrow criteria for the exception strikes me as problematic. The solution would be an "as-applied" challenge to the law. In other words one argues in court that the law, as it is applied in this case, is unconstitutional. This is different from a "facial" challenge in that the facial challenge argues that the law is unconstitutional in all applications and therefore should be struck down. An as-applied challenge, if sustained by the court, would simply preclude prosecution in cases where it was valid. Two good cases to read for people interested in these types of challenges are: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (upholding the former's as-applied challenge to election law) and Republican Party of Washington v. Washington State Grange (denying the former's facial challenge to Washington's new primary system).
Note that this is entirely different from the questions of obscenity law, which does not seem to be a harm-based exception. While I think that obscenity laws need to be struck down as unconstitutional due to first and fourth amendment considerations, these are entirely separate from child pornography laws. For example, anime of children involved in sex acts is not child pornography, and the Supreme Court has struck down attempts to bring such material under the domain of child pornography laws, but it may still be prosecuted as obscenity, which brings up various other concerns. The child pornography exception to the first amendment is actually quite narrow, while the obscenity exception is quite broad.
They own a part of Novell, but not a controlling share. There is a big difference.
I own a couple of Novell shares too. That doesn't mean I own SuSE Linux.....
The guy sitting in jail in Virginia for possession of anime would disagree.
That was under obscenity law, which is a different thing altogether. The obscenity exception is the only one that is not harm-based and IMO needs to go.
I don't think it is the courts that are applying the laws without a flicker of common sense, but rather the prosecutors in this case.
No kidding.
My family buys a side of beef direct from a farmer every year. My parents do the same thing and even joke aboutnaming the cow.
"These hamburgers are from Bessy...."
Personally if I didn't live in town I would probably occasionally do a nice Greek-style sacrificial feast with friends and family (where the animal is killed, cooked and eaten as part of the ceremony). I think we would have so many fewer folks who are horribly messed up like the GP if we were much closer to our food, and the cycles of life and death that surround it.
I can't think of a good match. Maybe IBM just because IBM's service arm seems to be doing really well, but then that would be bad for the whole industry for IBM to own an enterprise Linux distro.
It would be kinda funny if Microsoft bought them and actually tried to make money off Red Hat Enterprise Linux, though....
I would like to see a case like this prosecuted just because such threats of prosecution for posession of child porn (against the kids who took photos of themselves) are not as unusual as many would think. I think that such a trial out to be helpful in preventing many other kids from being charged with such behavior.
Most likely the court would not go as far as the GP wanted. I am thinking that the court would probably simply say that taking a sexual photo of one's self for private viewing (perhaps along with one's boyfriend/girlfriend) would be Constitutionally protected, outside the scope of the child pornography exception to the first amendment, etc, and an entirely separable matter from commercial publication.
This would basically mean one could not prosecute a kid (or the kid's parent if it was found on a family computer) over such behavior. It would likely be fairly limited in circumstances surrounding adult possession of child pornography, but would potentially avoid a lot of kids getting threatened with prosecution.
The child porn exception has continued to be kept narrow by the Supreme Court. Artistic works, for example, cannot be prosecuted as child pornography (I don't think any of Mapplethorpe's works would qualify as child pornography for example).
Nor can baby pictures of the kids in the tub.
Nor can computer-generated images which appear to be kids (and in the process of creating, no kids were actually harmed).
Nor can images of adults pretending to be children.
The exception is still extremely narrow, and I am reasonably sure that the courts would throw out a prosecution such as this on an as-applied challenge as this sort of case meets none of the criteria in the child porn cases upholding the exception.
On top of that, they were for her boyfriend. They're sending them to ONE person. Isn't the whole law to keep children from being exploited? What if they do it by their own will?
That is why I would like to see this case go to trial and see an as-applied challenge to the child pornographies laws on the basis fo the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments sustained (preferably on appeal all the way through the Supreme Court).
I see two fundamental issues here:
1) Sexual photographs of consenting adults are Constitutionally protected. Child pornography has generally been a fairly narrow exception and has been kept narrow in recent years (the COPA challenges and all of that). I can see this sort of thing as falling outside the child pornography exception simply because it is a narrow exception.
2) Due process..... Here we have a case where a person could be charged with a felony and perhaps made a sex offender over an act that would have been Constitutionally protected as an adult. If we concede that there are ANY Constitutional protections related to this, and if we note that almost always this sort of thing is not prosecuted, we have void for vagueness problems (the behavior is sufficiently commonplace to make enforcement arbitrary) and rational basis problems which don't seem to me are easy to overcome.
It would be nice to see the court hold that such things are OUTSIDE the child pornography exception and thus may not be prosecuted.
Cases like this pose interesting and important Constitutional issues. Do teenagers have a first amendment right to take nude pictures of themselves? Or do these fall under the child pornography exception to the first amendment even when not for public display? This sort of thing gets threatened reasonably frequently, and I think that a court really should be forced to rule on it in the reasonably near future. Personally, I think that if you make a child a sex offender and a felon for behavior that would be constitutionally protected for an adult (taking nude photographs of oneself, and handing said photos to boy/girlfriend), there are serious 4th Amendment issues to consider as well.
Hopefully, the courts would accept an as-applied Constitutional challenge to the child pornography statutes. This wouldn't overrule the statutes but simply say that they could not be used to prosecute this sort of behavior.
They left out Atari TOS!
But they included X......
I don't think you need a desktop version. However, the key issue is a desktop business plan.
Now, in some cases, I could see RHEL offering all sorts of tailored versions beyond the current ones. Maybe Red Hat Enterprise Server for Low-end tasks, etc. so you can still run the dhcp server on that 80486 you have in the closet..... The desktop is just one example.
A lot of things can change in a desktop version including, for example, the kernel scheduler. What is optimal for a production db server may not be optimal for a workstation.
I think that the real problem is how to make money off the CONSUMER desktop market, which is a non-trivial problem with Linux. The business desktop market is reasonably simple (sell support contracts).
Also I think it is possible to make money selling support to consumers at $50/incident or at least it was last time I ran numbers. (This is with techs in the US, btw). I also think that consumers would pay $50/incident if they get good quality customer service.
The real problems though are pricing and branding issues for the computer sales. I still think it would be doable, but it would be somewhat difficult.
If anyone reading this is interested in doing this, feel free to email me and we can discuss this further.
Yes, a supplier of a substance that is not a controlled substance and which she would have no incentive to hide in her undergarments. Maybe they had a right to search her bags or locker, or ask her to empty her pockets, but not a strip search in this case.
Now, let me pose a case where a strip search MIGHT be reasonable. Suppose a 13-year-old is accused, by multiple people of selling something mildly illegal (suppose, for the sake of argument that it is a tobacco product) but largely disruptive to the school and several students claim that she keeps these in her bra concelaed in a way that a strip search might be necessary. At that point I could see reasonable people disagreeing over whether the search was unreasonable. However, in these cases, none of these issues apply here. There may be in interest in preventing one student from giving another ibuprofen, but it is not compelling IMO to the point of a strip search. There may be a right to search the student's bags or locker on such a tip but not a strip search with no reason to suspect that the actual strip search would show evidence of wrongdoing.
Schools are not required to get warrants to perform searches, but they are required to keep the searches reasonable. Although every case I have looked at from SCOTUS upheld the school's searches, the reasoning if fairly applied would not allow this sort of search.
What the school did was view a naked child against her will. They had no legal right, and any other private citizen doing this would have been in jail on rape and child pornography charges before they could blink.
Not necessarily. And for what it's worth, had the strip search been reasonable, the school did attempt to at least avoid the issues of why (having it done by two female employees).
However, the basic issue is that the search was unreasonable given the circumstances and hence unconstitutional. I don't even think that reasonable people can disagree over whether the search was reasonable. This is probably the case of everyone attending one too many "how to fight drugs in your school" seminar but that doesn't excuse the behavior and I think the courts need to send a clear message to that effect.
Also IIRC, since ibuprofen is not a controlled substance, even prescription-strength ibuprofen doesn't require a prescription to possess. One is just simply not supposed to dispense it without a prescription. This is different from something like morphine.
If you get a course of antibiotics, you will note it says "Federal law prohibits dispensing without a prescription." If you get a medicine containing morphine, it will contain all sorts of warnings about how only the person to whom it is prescribed may take it, etc. These are very, very different issues. However:
1) Preventing ibuprofen use on school does not seem to be sufficiently compelling to justify a strip search under any similar circumstance to my thinking.
2) Student searches are expected to be minimally invasive anyway (I forget the relevant supreme court precedent), which means you can only search where you have reasonable suspicion you will find what the specific banned items you are looking for. I doubt the school employees actually thought they would find ibuprofen in her undergarments, and if they did, I think such a suspicion would have been unreasonable in this case.
I think it will be interesting to see what this court does. While O Centro v. Gonzalez was a simple statutory case, it seems to me that it shows that this court does subject claims of compelling interests regarding the war on drugs with a fair bit of skepticism.
Even if they did, I don't think they had reasonable suspicion that there were prescription-strength ibuprofen pills under her undergarments. I think that is the key point. Without that suspicion, they might have been allowed to search her locker or asked her to empty her pockets, but certainly not strip search over anything.
Also, I don't think that reasonable people can disagree over this case. We may have different reasons for saying it wasn't ok, but if one is to defend a strip search over ibuprofen where the risk to other kids is minimal even if she did have it AND it is not a controlled substance beyond requiring a prescription, AND there is no financial motive for smuggling (hence no reason to overly conceal having the medication), then you are not thinking through the issues of when a search is reasonable. If she was accused of smuggling meth in her bra, a properly done strip search might be reasonable, or at least reasonable people might be able to disagree. If she was accused of giving a prescription-strength NSAID to a classmate, it is unreasonable. The equivalent would be for police to get a search warrant for your HOUSE because they think incriminating evidence might be in your CAR.
Also FTA:
In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding's case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was "carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal."
This about says it all. Searching under the undergarments when you have no reason to believe that will bring up incriminating evidence is patently unreasonable.
A couple of points....
First, I will agree that kids giving other kids medication that is reasonably harmless is often more dangerous than it is for adults. And of course Excedrin also has other active ingredients too, so it is not directly comparable.
However, none of this justifies strip-searching a 13-year-old over ibuprofen. The Supreme Court has said on other occasions that students in a school have some reasonable expectation to privacy, and that searches still must be reasonable, as measured by intrusiveness of the search and the expectations of privacy against the compelling interests of the school. I can't think of any reasoning where ibuprofen would be sufficiently concerning to warrant strip-searching a 13-year-old. This case doesn't test the limits of the 4th amendment, it is way beyond those limits, and the search is patently unreasonable. Are there cases where a strip search might be called for? While I can't think of any, I won't commit to a "no." However, under no circumstances is this one of them, and obviously schools have a duty to minimize the intrusiveness of such a search if it is ever necessary.
I would like to see a sound decision handed down against the school in this case.
I agree but would add a point.
The big issue here is what apps have access to your data. If you are just using the db to store data and retrieve it for a single app, it doesn't make a difference what db you are using and in fact non-relational db's have a number of advantages over relational ones.
The big change happens when you shift from thinking of data as something which is stored in order to give it persistance within the program and view it instead as something which needs to be management and leveraged in different ways across programs. In this case, the only way to go is with a relational db. As soon as your data has value independent of your application, you need to go with a relational design, and a good one (POstgreSQL over MySQL etc).
If you read the article, it is vulnerable to a bios you can flash, and access to that process (except on VM's where you are patching the emulator).
It seems to me that the hardware demo seems to rely on physical access to the machine. The VMWare demo would require access to the host OS.