In fact, I have done tech support. Yes, stupid people exist. Thankfully, they're outnumbered by less-stupid people (though not necessarily intelligent people), who frequently don't need to go to tech support, hence why support personnel tend to think everyone is stupid when they are not in fact that dumb.
It would be like saying that America is a country full of poor people because you only ever visit the projects.
Are you for real? You seriously think 9/10 people who use computers can't follow three simple steps? I'm not saying that most computer users are intelligent, but most people can open files and edit text if you give them directions. Everyone likes to rag on me with "can your grandma do it?" but 90% of computer users aren't grandmas.
If you're using Aurora, then you have to be ready for doing some work to maintain your addons. By the time it gets out of Aurora a given addon should be marked compatible if it still is. If you don't want to do any work to maintain YOUR addons...then don't get Aurora.
Because opening a zip file, opening a text file, and changing a digit are the antithesis of user-friendly. Coming from someone who is using Linux, that's a little bit chuckle-worthy.
BTW, you don't edit the XPI that already exists in/usr. You can go download the XPI from the web into your plain old download folder, edit the file there, and then go through Firefox's Addon Manager and Install Add-on from file.
I refuse to believe that 90% of people can't open a zip file, open a text file, and change one number that's easy to find.
For those who can't do basic computer operations, you could even make an automated tool to do it. "drag and drop xpi onto this exe and it will create a new xpi that works with the latest version of Firefox"
I upgraded to Aurora last week (Firefox 8 now). It's pretty amazing.
For a product that allegedly has 6000 bugs, I don't encounter very many, and I use Firefox on three different machines every day and I know plenty of others who use it every day. So either they're very esoteric, or very rare. Hmm...fix bugs that bother 0.001% of users, or add features that benefit 1% of users? As a developer, it's a tradeoff.
But my main point is that addons are not broken. I'm using the exact same addons I used in Firefox 3 - I should know because I didn't download new ones. All you have to do is open the xpi in e.g. 7zip or winrar, open the install.rdf in a text editor, search for maxVersion, and change it to match your version. Change it to something big, like 10, and you'll be in the clear for a long time.
Fiber optics - how do you turn voltage or current into light? That's a good question with a variety of approaches. There is no clearly defined starting and ending point.
Ethernet - It is not merely "communicating over wires". There are things like detecting collisions. Once again, no clearly defined starting and ending point.
But reducing the size of a connector? Clear starting point - connector too large - and clear ending point - connector smaller than some arbitrary dimensions. The connector is pretty clearly not an example of "we already know the answer now, so it's obvious in hindsight". No, reducing the size of things is pretty obvious in foresight, as well, unless you'd like to argue that miniaturization is not what nearly all modern technology is trending toward. We not only know the answer after-the-fact, but we also know the answer before-the-fact. Everyone knows that technology gets smaller as time goes on.
By the way, would you at least acknowledge my actual argument? A patent is meant to provide protection for an invention that would not happen in the absence of such protection. For example, pharma drugs require a great deal of up-front investment in research and trial costs that can be then copied by a competitor. Knowing how easy a competitor could make a knock-off drug, many pharma companies would just as soon not bother investing all that money into R&D. Patents therefore encourage pharma companies to invest in research that would otherwise not happen in the absence of such protection.
In the absence of such protection, do you honestly believe that Apple wouldn't have eventually miniaturized their audio connector?
Nintendo dropped the ball big time when they used a string comparison function for evaluating the digital signature hash. String functions terminate early (with success!) for strings where the first byte is null. All an attacker had to do to fakesign a Wii application is brute force change some random unused byte until it caused the first byte of the hash to be 00.
Had they been given the money by an employer and told to solve this problem, one of those geeks probably would have. But I digress.
Patents are granted so that individuals or corporations would have protection to implement a technology that would otherwise not be invented without such protection. If Apple would have had the incentive to make this connector without patents, then it does not deserve patent protection.
It's also awkward to compare the creation of light - a very open-ended question requiring a revolutionary idea - to a reduction in size of an existing connector, which isn't such an open-ended question but more of an evolutionary idea. Take some time to seriously consider the two questions at hand.
1) How would you make a device that produces light?
2) How would you reduce the size of a connector?
The latter has a very clearly defined starting and ending point. The former does not. To compare the innovation of the first light bulb to the classic technological march toward smaller devices is to define innovation far too broadly. It is a sure-fire way to retard innovation with complex licensing schemes that allow a company to practically steal money from their competitors, even if they invest in their own R&D. Kinda like how Microsoft makes more money from Android than their own mobile OS, despite the fact that they really didn't do shit for Android.
You raise an excellent point about being in compliance with the law. And the robodialer is would probably be unrelated to the email CFAA charges. However, I have to wonder...if they were willing to robodial, whose to say they didn't sign up the email addresses on some high-volume spam lists? Not that you could really prove it, but it definitely lowers the ethical bar IMO.
I never said anything about whole genes. So they cut up DNA and measure it. If they cut up my brother's DNA, they will probably be able to tell that he's related to me, even without whole gene sequencing. Therefore, they have access to my DNA profile despite my never being arrested, solely because they arrested my brother.
And it still dances around the fact that Mr. Thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another above believes that because the police can stick their finger in your ass when go to jail, they can swab your DNA. However, the point of cavity searches is to catch contraband and protect the jail/prison from weapons. I'm pretty sure DNA is neither contraband nor a weapon, and therefore the police have no reasonable grounds for collecting it.
It also ignores the fact that state's can grant extra rights to their citizens above and beyond what federal law requires.
You allege that you can body cavity search someone for merely being arrested.
7) The mere fact of an arrest does not allow a strip search or body cavity search just because the person was arrested;
Looks to be pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim.
Also, I fail to see how a DNA search satisfies (1) to find and remove any objects or property which may be used as a weapon against the officer or others and (2) to seize any contraband or evidence of a crime which could be destroyed, lost, stolen, etc. if not immediately seized. I'm pretty sure DNA is not a weapon, nor is it contraband or evidence of a crime.
And you still entirely avoided the fact that while fingerprinting can identify one person, DNA can identify relatives of an entire family.
But I guess there's no arguing with authoritarians who want to sacrifice their civil liberties.
I don't know about that. Judging from this web site which purports to be "law enforcement training" written by Emory A. Plitt, Jr, Associate Judge of the Circuit Court in Bel Air, Maryland, you're wrong. Now, unless you're a lawyer or a judge with credentials equal to or greater than the Honorable Emory A. Plitt, Jr. then I think you lose this one.
Can an officer search a person at the time of arrest?
The Fourth Amendment allows a number of exemptions from the general rule that a warrant is needed to search. One of these exemptions is a search incident to an arrest. If the arrest is lawful, the search of the person arrested is lawful. There are two reasons for a search incident to an arrest: (1) to find and remove any objects or property which may be used as a weapon against the officer or others and (2) to seize any contraband or evidence of a crime which could be destroyed, lost, stolen, etc. if not immediately seized. These searches are considered to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The search may occur immediately at the scene of the arrest and/or upon arrival at the station.
I'm pretty sure that saving a DNA swab does not fit into reasons 1 or 2, above.
Are there any general rules which apply to all strip and body cavity searches of arrested persons?
Like many situations that officers must deal with, there is no one Supreme Court case or other appellate court case or cases which set forth all the rules for you in one place. As a result of the many lawsuits over these kinds of searches, there are some general rules which apply to all such searches:...
6) Strip searches should never be done randomly or at the whim of an officer;
7) The mere fact of an arrest does not allow a strip search or body cavity search just because the person was arrested;
Regarding fingerprinting, while the primary purpose of fingerprinting is identification, DNA is a whole different beast. For instance, DNA from a relative can be used to implicate someone else for a crime, and the use of DNA collected one person against someone who was never arrested is pretty clearly an egregious violation of privacy. Remember, it's not just the arrested person's privacy that you're violating, it's their entire family.
I did some googling, and it looks like Bell v Wolfish is the relevant case law. It appears that pre-trial detainees may be cavity searched, but I believe the pre-trial bit implies that they have been charged with violating some law, not merely arrested.
That sounds a lot like a scramjet. It needs something to launch it fast, but once it gets going it flies itself. wikipedia on scramjet only shows it going up to Mach 10 but I imagine it goes farther.
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
I think you're the first person I've seen so far who gets it. And you put it so eloquently, too. I hope you don't mind me shamelessly stealing your obese 8 year old example.
I hear ya. Each generation of PIC is so much better than the last. Lately I've been using PIC24 series and it's so much better than dealing with all the idiosyncrasies in the 16/18F series. Some of the chips have fake interrupt-on-change pins. Others have the classic read-modify-write problem with no LAT register.
We still use straight C, sometimes even intermixed with assembly. We know all about resource constraints, given that our microcontrollers sometimes only support a few kB for instructions and data RAM. As far as debugging goes, I'll see your debug-with-printf and I'll raise you a debug-with-oscilloscope-and-GPIO-toggling.
Slashdot Mirror
What precisely did I get wrong about add-ons? Because I know for a fact that my method works.
OP said add-ons were broken. Add-ons are not in fact broken. The process I use may not be simple (I certainly don't think it's "rosy"), but it works.
Yeah, add-on compatibility manager is better, but it would be nice if it were built-in to Firefox.
In fact, I have done tech support. Yes, stupid people exist. Thankfully, they're outnumbered by less-stupid people (though not necessarily intelligent people), who frequently don't need to go to tech support, hence why support personnel tend to think everyone is stupid when they are not in fact that dumb.
It would be like saying that America is a country full of poor people because you only ever visit the projects.
Are you for real? You seriously think 9/10 people who use computers can't follow three simple steps? I'm not saying that most computer users are intelligent, but most people can open files and edit text if you give them directions. Everyone likes to rag on me with "can your grandma do it?" but 90% of computer users aren't grandmas.
If you're using Aurora, then you have to be ready for doing some work to maintain your addons. By the time it gets out of Aurora a given addon should be marked compatible if it still is. If you don't want to do any work to maintain YOUR addons...then don't get Aurora.
Because opening a zip file, opening a text file, and changing a digit are the antithesis of user-friendly. Coming from someone who is using Linux, that's a little bit chuckle-worthy.
BTW, you don't edit the XPI that already exists in /usr. You can go download the XPI from the web into your plain old download folder, edit the file there, and then go through Firefox's Addon Manager and Install Add-on from file.
I refuse to believe that 90% of people can't open a zip file, open a text file, and change one number that's easy to find.
For those who can't do basic computer operations, you could even make an automated tool to do it. "drag and drop xpi onto this exe and it will create a new xpi that works with the latest version of Firefox"
I tried googling but all I get are hits about a college. No one ever defines what UNCO is. I even found INCO, but no definition for that either.
I upgraded to Aurora last week (Firefox 8 now). It's pretty amazing.
For a product that allegedly has 6000 bugs, I don't encounter very many, and I use Firefox on three different machines every day and I know plenty of others who use it every day. So either they're very esoteric, or very rare. Hmm...fix bugs that bother 0.001% of users, or add features that benefit 1% of users? As a developer, it's a tradeoff.
But my main point is that addons are not broken. I'm using the exact same addons I used in Firefox 3 - I should know because I didn't download new ones. All you have to do is open the xpi in e.g. 7zip or winrar, open the install.rdf in a text editor, search for maxVersion, and change it to match your version. Change it to something big, like 10, and you'll be in the clear for a long time.
If that were true...why would he strike when Congress is in recess and the President's on vacation?
No, you're turning my arguments into straw men.
Fiber optics - how do you turn voltage or current into light? That's a good question with a variety of approaches. There is no clearly defined starting and ending point.
Ethernet - It is not merely "communicating over wires". There are things like detecting collisions. Once again, no clearly defined starting and ending point.
But reducing the size of a connector? Clear starting point - connector too large - and clear ending point - connector smaller than some arbitrary dimensions. The connector is pretty clearly not an example of "we already know the answer now, so it's obvious in hindsight". No, reducing the size of things is pretty obvious in foresight, as well, unless you'd like to argue that miniaturization is not what nearly all modern technology is trending toward. We not only know the answer after-the-fact, but we also know the answer before-the-fact. Everyone knows that technology gets smaller as time goes on.
By the way, would you at least acknowledge my actual argument? A patent is meant to provide protection for an invention that would not happen in the absence of such protection. For example, pharma drugs require a great deal of up-front investment in research and trial costs that can be then copied by a competitor. Knowing how easy a competitor could make a knock-off drug, many pharma companies would just as soon not bother investing all that money into R&D. Patents therefore encourage pharma companies to invest in research that would otherwise not happen in the absence of such protection.
In the absence of such protection, do you honestly believe that Apple wouldn't have eventually miniaturized their audio connector?
Nintendo dropped the ball big time when they used a string comparison function for evaluating the digital signature hash. String functions terminate early (with success!) for strings where the first byte is null. All an attacker had to do to fakesign a Wii application is brute force change some random unused byte until it caused the first byte of the hash to be 00.
But none of them have yet, hence the innovation.
Had they been given the money by an employer and told to solve this problem, one of those geeks probably would have. But I digress.
Patents are granted so that individuals or corporations would have protection to implement a technology that would otherwise not be invented without such protection. If Apple would have had the incentive to make this connector without patents, then it does not deserve patent protection.
It's also awkward to compare the creation of light - a very open-ended question requiring a revolutionary idea - to a reduction in size of an existing connector, which isn't such an open-ended question but more of an evolutionary idea. Take some time to seriously consider the two questions at hand.
1) How would you make a device that produces light?
2) How would you reduce the size of a connector?
The latter has a very clearly defined starting and ending point. The former does not. To compare the innovation of the first light bulb to the classic technological march toward smaller devices is to define innovation far too broadly. It is a sure-fire way to retard innovation with complex licensing schemes that allow a company to practically steal money from their competitors, even if they invest in their own R&D. Kinda like how Microsoft makes more money from Android than their own mobile OS, despite the fact that they really didn't do shit for Android.
You raise an excellent point about being in compliance with the law. And the robodialer is would probably be unrelated to the email CFAA charges. However, I have to wonder...if they were willing to robodial, whose to say they didn't sign up the email addresses on some high-volume spam lists? Not that you could really prove it, but it definitely lowers the ethical bar IMO.
The FCC prohibits encryption of radio waves? So...does that mean my WPA2 access point is in violation of the FCC?
If they were using a bot to mass-spam them with the intention of crashing their systems, I'd agree with you.
They did in fact use an outside robo-dialer to flood the phone system with voice mails. http://computerfraud.us/articles/can-a-labor-union-be-sued-under-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-spamming-an-employer%E2%80%99s-voice-and-email-systems
I never said anything about whole genes. So they cut up DNA and measure it. If they cut up my brother's DNA, they will probably be able to tell that he's related to me, even without whole gene sequencing. Therefore, they have access to my DNA profile despite my never being arrested, solely because they arrested my brother.
And it still dances around the fact that Mr. Thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another above believes that because the police can stick their finger in your ass when go to jail, they can swab your DNA. However, the point of cavity searches is to catch contraband and protect the jail/prison from weapons. I'm pretty sure DNA is neither contraband nor a weapon, and therefore the police have no reasonable grounds for collecting it.
It also ignores the fact that state's can grant extra rights to their citizens above and beyond what federal law requires.
You allege that you can body cavity search someone for merely being arrested.
7) The mere fact of an arrest does not allow a strip search or body cavity search just because the person was arrested;
Looks to be pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim.
Also, I fail to see how a DNA search satisfies (1) to find and remove any objects or property which may be used as a weapon against the officer or others and (2) to seize any contraband or evidence of a crime which could be destroyed, lost, stolen, etc. if not immediately seized. I'm pretty sure DNA is not a weapon, nor is it contraband or evidence of a crime.
And you still entirely avoided the fact that while fingerprinting can identify one person, DNA can identify relatives of an entire family.
But I guess there's no arguing with authoritarians who want to sacrifice their civil liberties.
I don't know about that. Judging from this web site which purports to be "law enforcement training" written by Emory A. Plitt, Jr, Associate Judge of the Circuit Court in Bel Air, Maryland, you're wrong. Now, unless you're a lawyer or a judge with credentials equal to or greater than the Honorable Emory A. Plitt, Jr. then I think you lose this one.
Can an officer search a person at the time of arrest?
The Fourth Amendment allows a number of exemptions from the general rule that a warrant is needed to search. One of these exemptions is a search incident to an arrest. If the arrest is lawful, the search of the person arrested is lawful. There are two reasons for a search incident to an arrest: (1) to find and remove any objects or property which may be used as a weapon against the officer or others and (2) to seize any contraband or evidence of a crime which could be destroyed, lost, stolen, etc. if not immediately seized. These searches are considered to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The search may occur immediately at the scene of the arrest and/or upon arrival at the station.
I'm pretty sure that saving a DNA swab does not fit into reasons 1 or 2, above.
Are there any general rules which apply to all strip and body cavity searches of arrested persons?
Like many situations that officers must deal with, there is no one Supreme Court case or other appellate court case or cases which set forth all the rules for you in one place. As a result of the many lawsuits over these kinds of searches, there are some general rules which apply to all such searches: ...
6) Strip searches should never be done randomly or at the whim of an officer;
7) The mere fact of an arrest does not allow a strip search or body cavity search just because the person was arrested;
Regarding fingerprinting, while the primary purpose of fingerprinting is identification, DNA is a whole different beast. For instance, DNA from a relative can be used to implicate someone else for a crime, and the use of DNA collected one person against someone who was never arrested is pretty clearly an egregious violation of privacy. Remember, it's not just the arrested person's privacy that you're violating, it's their entire family.
I did some googling, and it looks like Bell v Wolfish is the relevant case law. It appears that pre-trial detainees may be cavity searched, but I believe the pre-trial bit implies that they have been charged with violating some law, not merely arrested.
I don't think they can check your body cavities if you were merely arrested. I was under the impression that you had to be convicted, but IANAL.
It's one thing to check all items on your person. That sort of stuff is kinda "plain view"-ish.
However, collecting and permanently storing your DNA in a database is an invasive search that should require a warrant if you were merely arrested.
If the police arrest you, they still need a warrant to search your home.
That sounds a lot like a scramjet. It needs something to launch it fast, but once it gets going it flies itself. wikipedia on scramjet only shows it going up to Mach 10 but I imagine it goes farther.
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Brother Maynard: Amen.
All: Amen.
King Arthur: Right. One... two... five.
Galahad: Three, sir.
King Arthur: Three.
I think you're the first person I've seen so far who gets it. And you put it so eloquently, too. I hope you don't mind me shamelessly stealing your obese 8 year old example.
I hear ya. Each generation of PIC is so much better than the last. Lately I've been using PIC24 series and it's so much better than dealing with all the idiosyncrasies in the 16/18F series. Some of the chips have fake interrupt-on-change pins. Others have the classic read-modify-write problem with no LAT register.
We still use straight C, sometimes even intermixed with assembly. We know all about resource constraints, given that our microcontrollers sometimes only support a few kB for instructions and data RAM. As far as debugging goes, I'll see your debug-with-printf and I'll raise you a debug-with-oscilloscope-and-GPIO-toggling.