Yes which is why the courts have difficult jobs. But they do it all the time. I've pointed out the cases in other posts. Asylum requests, draft dodging, et cetera.
The state already has the apparatus to do this. If I apply for asylum because I'm a Christian in a Muslim country, I have to provide evidence. If I want to get out of the draft (when we have it) because war is against my religion, I have to prove it. This happens all the time. The more accommodation that you request, the more proof that is asked. The courts do not evaluate legitimacy of a religion. They evaluate the sincerity with which individuals hold their beliefs. You're right that the courts shouldn't have to be in this position. But the fact is that there are hucksters everywhere.
No but I would prosecute a Christian who said that they needed an extra 15 minute break at work to pray and then we find out that they are actually using that time to do social networking. Now if they had just said that doing social networking was really important to them and they'd like an extra break, I would probably approve it. It's the dishonest means that is the problem here. Heck people take breaks for all kinds of reasons. Who cares?
I have an uncle who works at a retailer where employees aren't allowed to possess their mobile phones while clocked in. Lockers are provided. You can put your phone there and check it during breaks and mealtime. Of course there are violations all the time. Most people get caught, look sheepish, and come up with a plausible excuse. Their managers look the other way. Once in a while somebody gets caught red handed and turns a harmless situation into one where they vehemently deny despite the evidence and then they get fired.
If this guy went to DMV and said "I want to wear a spaghetti strainer on my head and it doesn't harm anybody," I could support that argument. There have been instances, for example, of people having their photos taken with fake beards. DMV doesn't really want to police this stuff. Are you going to ask a teenager if their pimples are real? The problem is that once you cross the line to deceit, there's a bigger issue at play.
What's the harm if I lie about my income on this loan application? I'm going to make all the payments on time.
That's not my preferred method at all. I would argue that if somebody really wants to wear a kitchen utensil in their photo, since it doesn't cause any harm, we should let them do so. And if they make this argument, I will support them. If they make the disingenuous argument that they are doing it due to a sincerely held religious belief and they have no such belief, I can't support it.
Nobody is requiring maintaining the same level of belief. Only that it was sincerely held at the time that application for religious accommodation be made.
In the alternative, we are opening the floodgates to simply ask for any accommodation at all and there's no way to handle that. It's against my religion to drive on the right hand side of the road anybody?
There are two reasons. Because if you commit fraud, you should be prosecuted for fraud. That's pretty easy to understand. The second is that, if we don't prosecute the frauds, DMV will be overloaded with ridiculous requests. The next person will insist that they have to wear a Mario Brothers costume. And then it will be a competition who can be the most innane.
The government can infringe on religion as long as it serves a legitimate government purpose (to be able to properly verify drivers licenses) and is tailored narrowly to achieve those ends with minimum infringement. So I guess the Pastafarians can provide their own non-official photo that meets the DMV requirements (without the spaghetti strainer) or, if none is available, they'll have to get a standard DMV photo. That makes the situation a lot easier since this is clearly narrowly tailored.
However, if it turns out that they aren't sincere in their beliefs there is still a possibility of fraud charges. It may be hard to prove.
Again, I've read too much case law, but I'm by no means a lawyer.
Yes, but when they go ask for special accommodations, they do have to prove it. The best example is back when we had a draft, some people wanted to be conscientious objectors basically arguing that joining the army was against their religion. They were required to provide evidence. This is similar.
There may or may not be a good solution for a really determined prankster. However, the courts have historically handled these situations without a problem. They evaluate not the belief itself but the sincerity with which it is held. There may be sincere Pastafarians out there and if they can be accommodated easily, we might as well do it. However, if it is a sham, there should be a penalty. Courts are used to tricky cases. I'm not a lawyer.
If the religion is sincerely held, accommodation should be made. However a DMV cannot possible evaluate the sincerity. It seems that the correct approach is to allow the photo. Later if the person gets stopped for a traffic violation and isn't wearing their spaghetti strainer, that should be grounds to investigate and charge them with fraud if it were a sham.
Software is an infinite space problem. It means that there's no way you can test every possible input. No matter how good your QA is, users will do something that you didn't expect. Rather than try to test an infinite number of things, the focus should be on what users actually do. There's only one way to get this information. Microsoft might be willing to pay you to fix the bugs at contractor rate, but this is an automated tool to guide the process. I have no idea what motivates this type of thinking.
I would agree with you. And a large percentage of user would agree to provide telemetry if it were really opt-in and they were sure that the data were properly anonymized. (i.e. it could be audited by an ordinary person)
However, *force* telemetry is quite another issue. The very fact that it is forced implies that there isn't a benefit to the user (otherwise why not explain the benefit and make it optional) and so the negative knee-jerk reaction to want to disable it is the correct one.
When tools (like Eclipse) ask for telemetry, I usually agree because I want the tools to improve. When telemetry is forced, I do my best to opt-out as there is good reason to believe that the purpose is nefarious.
Under self-driving control because it doesn't know if the police car wants to pass or if it is being pulled-over. However, the driver took over and stopped the car just to be sure.
Guess I just have to copy and paste my comment in response to everybody who got modded up without reading the article... oh nevermind.
They didn't ticket the car because the cop was wrong to stop it. NEV vehicles are required to travel at 25mph or less (If they can go faster, they're not a NEV at least in FL where I live and also in NJ where I used to live) and they are allowed on roads with limits up to 35mph. Yes this means you will have a 25mph NEV on a 35mph road. It's how the law is written. The police offer couldn't tell that the vehicle was a NEV so he stopped it in error and apologized. This is a non-story except maybe they should paint NEV in large letters to make it clearer.
They didn't ticket the car because the cop was wrong to stop it. NEV vehicles are required to travel at 25mph or less (If they can go faster, they're not a NEV at least in FL where I live and also in NJ where I used to live) and they are allowed on roads with limits up to 35mph. Yes this means you will have a 25mph NEV on a 35mph road. It's how the law is written. The police offer couldn't tell that the vehicle was a NEV so he stopped it in error and apologized. This is a non-story except maybe they should paint NEV in large letters to make it clearer.
Probably they are tapping the brakes because you are following too closely and they want to politely alert you. Slow down and maintain a safer following distance and you won't see that anymore.
By painted themselves into a corner you mean the executes got incredibly rich based on the short-term performance of the company and the network engineers who 'explained' it to them are collecting unemployment. Who is in the corner? I'm not supporting Comcast on this in any way, but the rules of the game right now are that the dirtiest players win.
Those that have engineering degrees and licenses and are working on safety critical systems!
But not every guy with a compiler is an engineer.
Disclaimer: I'm a guy with a compiler.
You obviously didn't read my post! All of the browsers have 64-bit versions but they have bugs that don't exist in the 32-bit version and don't offer any benefit over the 32-bit version. So people end up using the 32-bit installs. In fact it was only in September of this year that Mozilla considered Firefox 64 to be *stable*. If you started with a 32-bit Firefox, the update tools don't switch you to 64-bit. This isn't about whether 64-bit builds *exist* it's whether people *use* them. And the research showed that 80% of people running 64-bit OS use 32-bit browsers. The default for Windows 7 was 32-bit IE.
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/07/...
Somebody must agree with you since they modded me down. I see your point, but modern C++ *is* templates. And not only are the messages themselves hard to understand, even if the error message itself is completely clear, the cause is often disagreement about what the language standard says rather than a traditional syntax error.
As a simple example, the Microsoft and Intel compilers allows partial specialization of a template function within a template during template *definition*. This is really convenient, but not clear if it is actually allowed by the language. GCC allows something similar but does less type inferring.
A fair criticism of the original comments is that the error messages are complicated because the language is complicated. As the language keeps becoming more complicated, the messages get even harder to understand even if they are otherwise improved. And it's not reasonable to discount templates because they are all over the standard headers and you can get a template error even if not explicitly using them.
That's one area where the messages are clearly worse. The messages when using standard libraries are way more complicated because the implementations have become more sophisticated to support templates.
I don't think that anybody would (intentionally) do this today. There are very few "green field" projects out there, though. Everybody has millions of lines of existing code that was written before those features existed. (C++11 and C++14 were the first updates in a decade). I go to places where many of the files are still 8.3 format all uppercase letters back from a time when the file systems were limited that way.
Systems are large and you may call an API that uses a fairly modern interface but it wraps and abstracts some legacy capability that isn't so friendly to being compiled for different type sizes.
As the languages gain new features, we're able to build more complex systems. Unfortunately, this means that the programmers are always one step ahead of the language. There's stuff we are writing today that is going to subject us to pain in the future. Just not enough time has elapsed yet for us to know what those behaviors are.
C++ compiler error messages have only gotten worse. The compiler vendors try to make them meaningful but the language standard and rules are so complex it often takes multi kilobyte messages to explain the problem. Try making a minor mistake in a template instantiation. Back in the day we didn't have templates so the error messages at least fit on one screen.
It still makes for bug hunting today. See the article today about 32-bit vs 64-bit Windows. Assign a pointer to an int to an int and it works just fine in a 32-bit build. Compile for 64-bit and fire up your debugger. Most compilers will generate a warning for this but there are often so many warnings (from things that used to be considered a sign of smartness) in any project of appreciable size that cleaning them all up is a project in and of itself and you don't know which ones will destabilize your 64-bit version.
The browsers have both versions but the code was historically 32-bit. You don't benefit by using a 64-bit browser. If it takes 4GB of RAM to render a page, you have bigger issues. Microsoft discouraged the use of 64-bit IE.
This is not about a but in the emulator. This is about bugs in the browsers. The EMET tool tries to protect buggy programs from being exploited. The vulnerabilities are there but the ability to successfully exploit is mitigated (reduced but not eliminated). Those tools can't effectively secure 32-bit apps running on 64-bit systems.
If the app itself isn't vulnerable, Wow64 doesn't make it vulnerable. But if the app is already vulnerable, you won't succeed in protecting it with EMET if it's a 32-bit app running on 64-bit Windows under Wow64.
That may *seem* like a non-issue. The point of the article is making is that this turns out to be problematic since browsers are run this way surprisingly often. Their research says its 80% of the time which is admittedly a bit shocking. But many posters have pointed out why we shouldn't dismiss the conclusion out of hand.
Microsoft, until EDGE came out, pushed 32-bit IE. When I bought a Win7 box there were 32-bit and 64-bit versions and a not from MS on why you should use 32-bit IE.
One area where the research seems to fall short is that most machines where people are browsing (desktops) aren't running EMET at all so it doesn't really matter.
Given that most of the commenters don't know what EMET is and aren't using it, that's not a surprise.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes which is why the courts have difficult jobs. But they do it all the time. I've pointed out the cases in other posts. Asylum requests, draft dodging, et cetera.
The state already has the apparatus to do this. If I apply for asylum because I'm a Christian in a Muslim country, I have to provide evidence. If I want to get out of the draft (when we have it) because war is against my religion, I have to prove it. This happens all the time. The more accommodation that you request, the more proof that is asked. The courts do not evaluate legitimacy of a religion. They evaluate the sincerity with which individuals hold their beliefs. You're right that the courts shouldn't have to be in this position. But the fact is that there are hucksters everywhere.
No but I would prosecute a Christian who said that they needed an extra 15 minute break at work to pray and then we find out that they are actually using that time to do social networking. Now if they had just said that doing social networking was really important to them and they'd like an extra break, I would probably approve it. It's the dishonest means that is the problem here. Heck people take breaks for all kinds of reasons. Who cares? I have an uncle who works at a retailer where employees aren't allowed to possess their mobile phones while clocked in. Lockers are provided. You can put your phone there and check it during breaks and mealtime. Of course there are violations all the time. Most people get caught, look sheepish, and come up with a plausible excuse. Their managers look the other way. Once in a while somebody gets caught red handed and turns a harmless situation into one where they vehemently deny despite the evidence and then they get fired. If this guy went to DMV and said "I want to wear a spaghetti strainer on my head and it doesn't harm anybody," I could support that argument. There have been instances, for example, of people having their photos taken with fake beards. DMV doesn't really want to police this stuff. Are you going to ask a teenager if their pimples are real? The problem is that once you cross the line to deceit, there's a bigger issue at play. What's the harm if I lie about my income on this loan application? I'm going to make all the payments on time.
That's not my preferred method at all. I would argue that if somebody really wants to wear a kitchen utensil in their photo, since it doesn't cause any harm, we should let them do so. And if they make this argument, I will support them. If they make the disingenuous argument that they are doing it due to a sincerely held religious belief and they have no such belief, I can't support it. Nobody is requiring maintaining the same level of belief. Only that it was sincerely held at the time that application for religious accommodation be made. In the alternative, we are opening the floodgates to simply ask for any accommodation at all and there's no way to handle that. It's against my religion to drive on the right hand side of the road anybody?
There are two reasons. Because if you commit fraud, you should be prosecuted for fraud. That's pretty easy to understand. The second is that, if we don't prosecute the frauds, DMV will be overloaded with ridiculous requests. The next person will insist that they have to wear a Mario Brothers costume. And then it will be a competition who can be the most innane.
The government can infringe on religion as long as it serves a legitimate government purpose (to be able to properly verify drivers licenses) and is tailored narrowly to achieve those ends with minimum infringement. So I guess the Pastafarians can provide their own non-official photo that meets the DMV requirements (without the spaghetti strainer) or, if none is available, they'll have to get a standard DMV photo. That makes the situation a lot easier since this is clearly narrowly tailored. However, if it turns out that they aren't sincere in their beliefs there is still a possibility of fraud charges. It may be hard to prove. Again, I've read too much case law, but I'm by no means a lawyer.
Yes, but when they go ask for special accommodations, they do have to prove it. The best example is back when we had a draft, some people wanted to be conscientious objectors basically arguing that joining the army was against their religion. They were required to provide evidence. This is similar.
There may or may not be a good solution for a really determined prankster. However, the courts have historically handled these situations without a problem. They evaluate not the belief itself but the sincerity with which it is held. There may be sincere Pastafarians out there and if they can be accommodated easily, we might as well do it. However, if it is a sham, there should be a penalty. Courts are used to tricky cases. I'm not a lawyer.
If the religion is sincerely held, accommodation should be made. However a DMV cannot possible evaluate the sincerity. It seems that the correct approach is to allow the photo. Later if the person gets stopped for a traffic violation and isn't wearing their spaghetti strainer, that should be grounds to investigate and charge them with fraud if it were a sham.
Software is an infinite space problem. It means that there's no way you can test every possible input. No matter how good your QA is, users will do something that you didn't expect. Rather than try to test an infinite number of things, the focus should be on what users actually do. There's only one way to get this information. Microsoft might be willing to pay you to fix the bugs at contractor rate, but this is an automated tool to guide the process. I have no idea what motivates this type of thinking.
I would agree with you. And a large percentage of user would agree to provide telemetry if it were really opt-in and they were sure that the data were properly anonymized. (i.e. it could be audited by an ordinary person) However, *force* telemetry is quite another issue. The very fact that it is forced implies that there isn't a benefit to the user (otherwise why not explain the benefit and make it optional) and so the negative knee-jerk reaction to want to disable it is the correct one. When tools (like Eclipse) ask for telemetry, I usually agree because I want the tools to improve. When telemetry is forced, I do my best to opt-out as there is good reason to believe that the purpose is nefarious.
The community has. I didn't know about it until this thread. So here's a link lifted from another comment! https://www.gnu.org/software/g...
Under self-driving control because it doesn't know if the police car wants to pass or if it is being pulled-over. However, the driver took over and stopped the car just to be sure.
Guess I just have to copy and paste my comment in response to everybody who got modded up without reading the article... oh nevermind. They didn't ticket the car because the cop was wrong to stop it. NEV vehicles are required to travel at 25mph or less (If they can go faster, they're not a NEV at least in FL where I live and also in NJ where I used to live) and they are allowed on roads with limits up to 35mph. Yes this means you will have a 25mph NEV on a 35mph road. It's how the law is written. The police offer couldn't tell that the vehicle was a NEV so he stopped it in error and apologized. This is a non-story except maybe they should paint NEV in large letters to make it clearer.
They didn't ticket the car because the cop was wrong to stop it. NEV vehicles are required to travel at 25mph or less (If they can go faster, they're not a NEV at least in FL where I live and also in NJ where I used to live) and they are allowed on roads with limits up to 35mph. Yes this means you will have a 25mph NEV on a 35mph road. It's how the law is written. The police offer couldn't tell that the vehicle was a NEV so he stopped it in error and apologized. This is a non-story except maybe they should paint NEV in large letters to make it clearer.
Probably they are tapping the brakes because you are following too closely and they want to politely alert you. Slow down and maintain a safer following distance and you won't see that anymore.
By painted themselves into a corner you mean the executes got incredibly rich based on the short-term performance of the company and the network engineers who 'explained' it to them are collecting unemployment. Who is in the corner? I'm not supporting Comcast on this in any way, but the rules of the game right now are that the dirtiest players win.
People who collect the trash call themselves sanitary engineers.
Those that have engineering degrees and licenses and are working on safety critical systems! But not every guy with a compiler is an engineer. Disclaimer: I'm a guy with a compiler.
You obviously didn't read my post! All of the browsers have 64-bit versions but they have bugs that don't exist in the 32-bit version and don't offer any benefit over the 32-bit version. So people end up using the 32-bit installs. In fact it was only in September of this year that Mozilla considered Firefox 64 to be *stable*. If you started with a 32-bit Firefox, the update tools don't switch you to 64-bit. This isn't about whether 64-bit builds *exist* it's whether people *use* them. And the research showed that 80% of people running 64-bit OS use 32-bit browsers. The default for Windows 7 was 32-bit IE. http://www.ghacks.net/2015/07/...
Somebody must agree with you since they modded me down. I see your point, but modern C++ *is* templates. And not only are the messages themselves hard to understand, even if the error message itself is completely clear, the cause is often disagreement about what the language standard says rather than a traditional syntax error. As a simple example, the Microsoft and Intel compilers allows partial specialization of a template function within a template during template *definition*. This is really convenient, but not clear if it is actually allowed by the language. GCC allows something similar but does less type inferring. A fair criticism of the original comments is that the error messages are complicated because the language is complicated. As the language keeps becoming more complicated, the messages get even harder to understand even if they are otherwise improved. And it's not reasonable to discount templates because they are all over the standard headers and you can get a template error even if not explicitly using them. That's one area where the messages are clearly worse. The messages when using standard libraries are way more complicated because the implementations have become more sophisticated to support templates.
I don't think that anybody would (intentionally) do this today. There are very few "green field" projects out there, though. Everybody has millions of lines of existing code that was written before those features existed. (C++11 and C++14 were the first updates in a decade). I go to places where many of the files are still 8.3 format all uppercase letters back from a time when the file systems were limited that way. Systems are large and you may call an API that uses a fairly modern interface but it wraps and abstracts some legacy capability that isn't so friendly to being compiled for different type sizes. As the languages gain new features, we're able to build more complex systems. Unfortunately, this means that the programmers are always one step ahead of the language. There's stuff we are writing today that is going to subject us to pain in the future. Just not enough time has elapsed yet for us to know what those behaviors are.
C++ compiler error messages have only gotten worse. The compiler vendors try to make them meaningful but the language standard and rules are so complex it often takes multi kilobyte messages to explain the problem. Try making a minor mistake in a template instantiation. Back in the day we didn't have templates so the error messages at least fit on one screen.
It still makes for bug hunting today. See the article today about 32-bit vs 64-bit Windows. Assign a pointer to an int to an int and it works just fine in a 32-bit build. Compile for 64-bit and fire up your debugger. Most compilers will generate a warning for this but there are often so many warnings (from things that used to be considered a sign of smartness) in any project of appreciable size that cleaning them all up is a project in and of itself and you don't know which ones will destabilize your 64-bit version.
The browsers have both versions but the code was historically 32-bit. You don't benefit by using a 64-bit browser. If it takes 4GB of RAM to render a page, you have bigger issues. Microsoft discouraged the use of 64-bit IE. This is not about a but in the emulator. This is about bugs in the browsers. The EMET tool tries to protect buggy programs from being exploited. The vulnerabilities are there but the ability to successfully exploit is mitigated (reduced but not eliminated). Those tools can't effectively secure 32-bit apps running on 64-bit systems. If the app itself isn't vulnerable, Wow64 doesn't make it vulnerable. But if the app is already vulnerable, you won't succeed in protecting it with EMET if it's a 32-bit app running on 64-bit Windows under Wow64. That may *seem* like a non-issue. The point of the article is making is that this turns out to be problematic since browsers are run this way surprisingly often. Their research says its 80% of the time which is admittedly a bit shocking. But many posters have pointed out why we shouldn't dismiss the conclusion out of hand. Microsoft, until EDGE came out, pushed 32-bit IE. When I bought a Win7 box there were 32-bit and 64-bit versions and a not from MS on why you should use 32-bit IE. One area where the research seems to fall short is that most machines where people are browsing (desktops) aren't running EMET at all so it doesn't really matter. Given that most of the commenters don't know what EMET is and aren't using it, that's not a surprise.