This is more of a macro or scripting system than a development platform for iPad, and it is limited even for that. You might as well claim that this is a system for developing software for Windows:
OK, you have fun with your little walled garden; the rest of us will be over here, developing our software without having to pay fees, without having to wait for some unrelated company to approve of our code, and without having to connect to any network or system.
That is a non-answer; you are saying that we need to attack our own computers just to write software for them. If "jailbreak" was something you could do using some official, built-in function of the software, maybe this would be worth considering.
there are already ways to develop subsets of iPad applications
This is also a non-answer; being able to develop for a platform means being able to develop for it, not being able to develop some approved set of macros or scripts. My mom used to program her cable receiver to turn on and change to a particular channel at a particular time, so that her VCR could record a show; would you say that she was able to "develop software using her cable box?" How is this any different?
There's no reason apple couldn't write an iOS IDE for the iPad
Except that it would violate their own terms of service, and that it would be a complete 180 for them in terms of their recent behavior. There is also no reason that Apple couldn't remove the restrictions on iOS and allow anyone to write software for it -- but no sane person can think that is going to happen.
You seem to think Apple has some kind of nonsensical vendetta agains developers
No, they just want developers to pay them for the privilege of writing software for Apple products. See, for example, the $99/year fee for permission to write iOS applications.
they only charge $100 per year to be a part of their developer program
If you do not pay, nobody can run your iOS software. You make it seem like developers are paying Apple because they like the service; in reality, they are paying Apple because the only other way to distribute iOS software is in a legal grey area.
which allows you to submit apps for approval
Or to have your application rejected because it might offend some people:
You seem to be taking that and extrapolating it to a world where Apple actively works to prevent software development on their platform
No, I said that Apple would require people to buy a high-end laptop or workstation, and that they would charge a yearly fee to develop software using that system. Which is only one or two steps away from the situation we have today: the development tools are only available for Mac OS X, you have to pay Apple to sign your software or nobody can run it, and Apple is creating more laptops that are not user serviceable. It makes sense for them, because this model for iOS has basically turned them into the most valuable company in the entire world. Why would they even stop doing something so profitable?
the apps are such a large part of their product's appeal.
Apps created by professional developers who use expensive workstations and have little problem paying Apple are part of the appeal. It is rare for an individual developer to make a popular iOS app; we are not talking about the Ubuntu repositories, we are talking about a store designed by and for corporate developers.
At no point did I say people would be forbidden from writing software for Apple devices, all I said is that users will not have such freedom; you will need to pay for the privilege.
The irony is that Apple is part of the reason that we have personal computers, and not just terminals we use to connect to the local computation utility.
In other words, your iPad is now a middle man between you and the system you use for developing software. Why not cut out the middle man, and save time, money, and sanity by just using that system to begin with? You can get a small, lightweight netbook running whatever OS you were connecting to over SSH if you do not like the size or weight of a typical laptop.
Get back to me when you can write "hello world" for iOS using your iPad, without first having to get Apple's permission and without having to connect to the Internet.
Is there any reason to think that the situation is going to change? I have seen Apple become increasingly restrictive about their products over the past few years; if anything, I have to wonder how long it will be before the iOS MacBook line comes out, so that only Apple's highest-end systems will allow people to write software (and even then, for a fee). What reason does Apple have to loosen the restrictions on the iOS software ecosystem, when they are making so much money?
If you don't have a real keyboard you don't have a real development tool - regardless of the IDE.
Someone else pointed out a more fundamental problem: you cannot write iPad software using your iPad. Even if it had a keyboard, that problem would kill the iPad as a software development platform.
I think we can use the word "bootstrapping" to describe that: a PC can be "bootstrapped" in terms of development, an iPad cannot be. If Apple wants to open up the iPad so that we can write software for it without requiring some other computer, maybe the answer will change.
Apart from issues of corporate ethics and marketing tactics, Mac OS X provides a GUI on top of Unix and what is underneath is definitely Unix
Yeah, and underneath TiVO, you have Busybox/Linux, but clearly TiVO presents an abstraction to the user that is not even remotely "Unix like." The same applies to Mac OS X, unless you take the time to get past the abstraction that comes out of the box. Yes, some of the abstraction that you see is derived from Unix (e.g. files are streams of bytes, programs are stored as files) but how you interact with the system is very different. The terminal is not integral to using Mac OS X; when you see answers to problems involving Mac OS X, you see instructions to click on things in configuration dialogs, not to enter a command in a terminal.
From what you said, I am going to guess that you are a highly technical user who really likes to work in a Unix environment; for you, Mac OS X is Unix that departs from X11. The person I replied to claimed that Mac OS X users will eventually discover a "better Unix," which I think both you and I disagree with you, just for different reasons. My point was that most Mac OS X users are seeing so little of the Unix abstraction that they would have trouble appreciating or judging any other Unix. Someone who uses Aqua 100% of the time -- and that is what most Mac OS X users are doing -- will just get confused if you sit them down in front of a TTY.
Meh, the real answer is somewhere between the extremes. Sometimes it makes sense for a single entity to have exclusive use of some band, and sometimes it makes no sense at all. You do not really want multiplexing for satellite base stations or RADAR; we really do want it for Internet service.
Tell me where you are, so I can move there and see this fantastic place where it is not hip to use your iPad for everything. Around me, the hipsters are all loyal Apple customers, who love to use their iPads for everything and who eagerly await the next generation of Apple products.
What difference does that make? Free operating systems are not Unix-like because Unix is some great OS design (it is good, but there are better things out there), they are Unix-like because that was the most expedient choice in 1984. If the FSF had been founded today, GNU would be Windows-like and we would be saying things like, "Well at least its Windows!"
Not only that, but using Mac OS X is nothing like GNU/Linux or even the BSD on which Mac OS X is based. When last I checked, X11 was not even installed by default these days, and the terminal is not immediately available from the base install (yes, I am sure it is not terribly hard to find; it is also not hard to find in Windows, but when I install something like RHEL, the out-of-the-box DE has a terminal icon right there, ready for me to explore or to use). It is absurd to think that any but a small minority of Mac OS X users will discover a "better Unix," because only a small minority of Mac OS X users will ever see anything even remotely Unix-like when they use their computer.
Universities are no exception to what I said. It is not as though they are encouraging students to use Mac OS X, then teaching them how to write shell scripts as part of some "basic computer usage" class. When a student is having a problem, they just bring their computer to the help desk and have someone else fix it for them. If a student cannot find the program they are looking for, they just go to the computer center to find out what shrink-wrapped off-the-shelf software they should buy, assuming their teacher did not tell them already. We are not raising a generation of Unix hackers when we encourage our college students to use Macs.
Yes, your CS department is different; there, the students are learning to program, so they will find their way to a terminal one way or another, and there are hackers in every CS department who will show people how to install a free OS. Even within CS departments, you see an awful lot of Apple customers these days...
The prevalence of Apple products at universities is no accident; Apple is pushing hard, and universities are basically bending over and promoting Apple products. Windows is sticking around because a few programs are training students to use Windows software (especially MS Office), but a typical college classroom looks like this:
Suggesting that universities promote a free/libre OS is met with all sorts of derision and skepticism, usually of the form, "Yeah but nobody has any familiarity with that, and it is hard to use, and this is a university so students do not have the time to learn something unfamiliar!"
Yeah but that would benefit society at the expense of corporations, so you will never see it happen. Maybe our grandchildren will live to see such a world, but I would not get my hopes up...
Having all Slashdot tell everyone they know to avoid Apple products might have more of an impact than you expect. People often come to me (and I suspect most other Slashdot readers) asking for advice about computers. If I say, "Stay away from Apple," at least a large fraction of those people will do so.
The real question is, how many Slashdot readers actually will stay away from Apple? A pretty large number of IT, CS, and other technically-minded folks seem to like Apple's products (and they are generally apathetic when it comes to Apple's tactics, licenses, or how Apple is pushing for the destruction of PCs), and quite a few Slashdot readers are big supporters of Apple. If the world's technical communities were united on this issue, there would be no problem -- Apple would be facing mass resistance (see e.g. SOPA/PIPA). Unfortunately, we are not united; a lot of people in these communities like Apple's products and are going to deride people who boycott Apple.
You're at the mercy of the legal terms you agree to. Nothing more, nothing less.
That is not how most people use their computers. I am the only person in my social circle (i.e. those people I communicate with IRL and not just online) who actually reads terms of service and software licenses and who actually hits "reject" if I see something I do not like. Most people have no clue what they agree too, and will violate unreasonable agreements -- everyone knows this, including the companies that write these agreements (why do you think so much work goes into license enforcement systems?).
Which jurisdiction would the laws you are referring to be in, anyway? The Internet is global, and for the time being, it has no well-defined borders. ITU may want to change that, but right now, you only need to contend with your country's laws, maybe, and that is assuming you can even figure out what the laws are saying (is entering a URL manually the same as unauthorized access to a protected computer system?).
I used to agree with your sentiment, really: I used to blame users for behaving the way the behave. Then I looked at computer security, and saw a pattern of blunders: systems that are designed in a way that ignores human psychology and common behavior. You see that pattern in the law as well, and it is a disaster. You cannot claim that people should be bound by long terms of use agreements that they do not read and which may not even have a legal basis in their locality, just like you cannot blame people for ignoring TLS warnings.
Never assume that people are capable or willing to do anything; first take a look at how people react to a situation, then design your software accordingly. Anything else is going to be vulnerable.
If you ask my mother if she wants to allow an app full access to the network, she will shrug and say "yes" -- she wants the app, not the dialog that is standing in her way. That is how most people will react to this. The system should be designed with that in mind (say, not allowing an app to access both the network and local storage unless the user configures the device to allow it -- and disallowing any app from automatically changing that configuration).
If you want an example of software that at least attempts to follow this principle, look at OTR. It has a simple, unintrusive "unverified" label if the user has not explicitly verified a key, and it has non-fingerprint-based methods of performing such verification. While a determined, active attacker can defeat this, it is still better for users than PGP, and far better than no crypto at all -- which many people try and then give up on when they see warning upon warning.
Remember, good attackers will exploit human psychology as often or even more often than technical problems. You cannot fix human psychology; you have to work with it.
There is no guarantee that a court would interpret the law that way, especially when lobbyists from companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. waltz in and claim that the cost of creating ADA compliant websites will place on unreasonable burden on them.
Google has been hesitant to enforce a strict set of standards akin to Apple
Freedom comes in proportion to risk. Yes, if your nanny controls your computer, you run less of a risk of having your privacy or security violated. You also lose your freedom -- the freedom, for example, to run a program that makes fun of the president (after all, it might offend the other party's supporters!). Which would you rather have?
(Personally, I'll take freedom any day. Make a device that has a ROM fallback, so that I can kill whatever malware winds up on it if things get really bad, and then leave me and my ability to use my computer alone. Computers are a vital communication tool, and communication tools need to be controlled by their users in any free society. Apple's model is more appropriate for Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, or Bahrain.)
There, you got your advertising eyeball. Until then, my visit is no reward.
I would not even go that far. That image is being served by people who are tracking your browsing habits regardless of Javascript being enabled. At this point, NoScript, ABP, and HTTPSEverywhere are basically must-have extensions (or their equivalents in other browsers).
Unfortunately, an increasing number of website won't even use plain HTML links anymore -- forget form submission, now basic hrefs are becoming a thing of the past. Soon we will not be able to browse at all without disabling whatever meager security precautions we are taking with our browsers. I have no idea what the disabled will have to do.
Re:I Guess This Is What Happens When I Don't Watch
on
The Case Against DNA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
DNA should be used as one piece of a very large puzzle used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was present at some point in time
Within some error margin, and that error margin is quite a bit higher than you might expect. If you do not exclude identical twins, even if there were no laboratory errors at all, the probability of finding two people with the same DNA profile would be 1 in 1000; when laboratory errors are included in the analysis, that probability can become high enough to pass the threshold of "reasonable doubt."
Even if we assume no lab errors, no identical twins, and no measurement errors, DNA evidence is still not sufficient. I could plant someone's DNA at a crime scene without too much difficulty (consider how many personal items in your bathroom will have testable DNA on them -- a razor, a toothbrush, a comb). There have been cases of criminals finding ways to substitute another person's DNA for their own, including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.
One data point is not enough to draw any sort of conclusion; it might point you in the right direction, but nothing more.
It is not like DNA matching is as exact as solving a math problem. There is experimental error, and the error rates are sufficiently high that DNA evidence should never be considered enough to convict someone; DNA evidence with additional supporting evidence should be the minimum standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Codify allows you to develop for the iPad.
Except for the restrictions noted here:
https://bitbucket.org/TwoLivesLeft/codea/wiki/FAQ
This is more of a macro or scripting system than a development platform for iPad, and it is limited even for that. You might as well claim that this is a system for developing software for Windows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Basic_for_Applications
OK, you have fun with your little walled garden; the rest of us will be over here, developing our software without having to pay fees, without having to wait for some unrelated company to approve of our code, and without having to connect to any network or system.
Once you jailbreak an iOS device
That is a non-answer; you are saying that we need to attack our own computers just to write software for them. If "jailbreak" was something you could do using some official, built-in function of the software, maybe this would be worth considering.
there are already ways to develop subsets of iPad applications
This is also a non-answer; being able to develop for a platform means being able to develop for it, not being able to develop some approved set of macros or scripts. My mom used to program her cable receiver to turn on and change to a particular channel at a particular time, so that her VCR could record a show; would you say that she was able to "develop software using her cable box?" How is this any different?
There's no reason apple couldn't write an iOS IDE for the iPad
Except that it would violate their own terms of service, and that it would be a complete 180 for them in terms of their recent behavior. There is also no reason that Apple couldn't remove the restrictions on iOS and allow anyone to write software for it -- but no sane person can think that is going to happen.
You seem to think Apple has some kind of nonsensical vendetta agains developers
No, they just want developers to pay them for the privilege of writing software for Apple products. See, for example, the $99/year fee for permission to write iOS applications.
they only charge $100 per year to be a part of their developer program
If you do not pay, nobody can run your iOS software. You make it seem like developers are paying Apple because they like the service; in reality, they are paying Apple because the only other way to distribute iOS software is in a legal grey area.
which allows you to submit apps for approval
Or to have your application rejected because it might offend some people:
http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-back/
You seem to be taking that and extrapolating it to a world where Apple actively works to prevent software development on their platform
No, I said that Apple would require people to buy a high-end laptop or workstation, and that they would charge a yearly fee to develop software using that system. Which is only one or two steps away from the situation we have today: the development tools are only available for Mac OS X, you have to pay Apple to sign your software or nobody can run it, and Apple is creating more laptops that are not user serviceable. It makes sense for them, because this model for iOS has basically turned them into the most valuable company in the entire world. Why would they even stop doing something so profitable?
the apps are such a large part of their product's appeal.
Apps created by professional developers who use expensive workstations and have little problem paying Apple are part of the appeal. It is rare for an individual developer to make a popular iOS app; we are not talking about the Ubuntu repositories, we are talking about a store designed by and for corporate developers.
At no point did I say people would be forbidden from writing software for Apple devices, all I said is that users will not have such freedom; you will need to pay for the privilege.
The irony is that Apple is part of the reason that we have personal computers, and not just terminals we use to connect to the local computation utility.
In other words, your iPad is now a middle man between you and the system you use for developing software. Why not cut out the middle man, and save time, money, and sanity by just using that system to begin with? You can get a small, lightweight netbook running whatever OS you were connecting to over SSH if you do not like the size or weight of a typical laptop.
Get back to me when you can write "hello world" for iOS using your iPad, without first having to get Apple's permission and without having to connect to the Internet.
Is there any reason to think that the situation is going to change? I have seen Apple become increasingly restrictive about their products over the past few years; if anything, I have to wonder how long it will be before the iOS MacBook line comes out, so that only Apple's highest-end systems will allow people to write software (and even then, for a fee). What reason does Apple have to loosen the restrictions on the iOS software ecosystem, when they are making so much money?
If you don't have a real keyboard you don't have a real development tool - regardless of the IDE.
Someone else pointed out a more fundamental problem: you cannot write iPad software using your iPad. Even if it had a keyboard, that problem would kill the iPad as a software development platform.
I think we can use the word "bootstrapping" to describe that: a PC can be "bootstrapped" in terms of development, an iPad cannot be. If Apple wants to open up the iPad so that we can write software for it without requiring some other computer, maybe the answer will change.
Apart from issues of corporate ethics and marketing tactics, Mac OS X provides a GUI on top of Unix and what is underneath is definitely Unix
Yeah, and underneath TiVO, you have Busybox/Linux, but clearly TiVO presents an abstraction to the user that is not even remotely "Unix like." The same applies to Mac OS X, unless you take the time to get past the abstraction that comes out of the box. Yes, some of the abstraction that you see is derived from Unix (e.g. files are streams of bytes, programs are stored as files) but how you interact with the system is very different. The terminal is not integral to using Mac OS X; when you see answers to problems involving Mac OS X, you see instructions to click on things in configuration dialogs, not to enter a command in a terminal.
From what you said, I am going to guess that you are a highly technical user who really likes to work in a Unix environment; for you, Mac OS X is Unix that departs from X11. The person I replied to claimed that Mac OS X users will eventually discover a "better Unix," which I think both you and I disagree with you, just for different reasons. My point was that most Mac OS X users are seeing so little of the Unix abstraction that they would have trouble appreciating or judging any other Unix. Someone who uses Aqua 100% of the time -- and that is what most Mac OS X users are doing -- will just get confused if you sit them down in front of a TTY.
Meh, the real answer is somewhere between the extremes. Sometimes it makes sense for a single entity to have exclusive use of some band, and sometimes it makes no sense at all. You do not really want multiplexing for satellite base stations or RADAR; we really do want it for Internet service.
Tell me where you are, so I can move there and see this fantastic place where it is not hip to use your iPad for everything. Around me, the hipsters are all loyal Apple customers, who love to use their iPads for everything and who eagerly await the next generation of Apple products.
What difference does that make? Free operating systems are not Unix-like because Unix is some great OS design (it is good, but there are better things out there), they are Unix-like because that was the most expedient choice in 1984. If the FSF had been founded today, GNU would be Windows-like and we would be saying things like, "Well at least its Windows!"
Not only that, but using Mac OS X is nothing like GNU/Linux or even the BSD on which Mac OS X is based. When last I checked, X11 was not even installed by default these days, and the terminal is not immediately available from the base install (yes, I am sure it is not terribly hard to find; it is also not hard to find in Windows, but when I install something like RHEL, the out-of-the-box DE has a terminal icon right there, ready for me to explore or to use). It is absurd to think that any but a small minority of Mac OS X users will discover a "better Unix," because only a small minority of Mac OS X users will ever see anything even remotely Unix-like when they use their computer.
Universities are no exception to what I said. It is not as though they are encouraging students to use Mac OS X, then teaching them how to write shell scripts as part of some "basic computer usage" class. When a student is having a problem, they just bring their computer to the help desk and have someone else fix it for them. If a student cannot find the program they are looking for, they just go to the computer center to find out what shrink-wrapped off-the-shelf software they should buy, assuming their teacher did not tell them already. We are not raising a generation of Unix hackers when we encourage our college students to use Macs.
Yes, your CS department is different; there, the students are learning to program, so they will find their way to a terminal one way or another, and there are hackers in every CS department who will show people how to install a free OS. Even within CS departments, you see an awful lot of Apple customers these days...
The prevalence of Apple products at universities is no accident; Apple is pushing hard, and universities are basically bending over and promoting Apple products. Windows is sticking around because a few programs are training students to use Windows software (especially MS Office), but a typical college classroom looks like this:
http://potpiedeluxe.com/files/2011/02/apple-think-different.jpg
Suggesting that universities promote a free/libre OS is met with all sorts of derision and skepticism, usually of the form, "Yeah but nobody has any familiarity with that, and it is hard to use, and this is a university so students do not have the time to learn something unfamiliar!"
Yeah but that would benefit society at the expense of corporations, so you will never see it happen. Maybe our grandchildren will live to see such a world, but I would not get my hopes up...
Having all Slashdot tell everyone they know to avoid Apple products might have more of an impact than you expect. People often come to me (and I suspect most other Slashdot readers) asking for advice about computers. If I say, "Stay away from Apple," at least a large fraction of those people will do so.
The real question is, how many Slashdot readers actually will stay away from Apple? A pretty large number of IT, CS, and other technically-minded folks seem to like Apple's products (and they are generally apathetic when it comes to Apple's tactics, licenses, or how Apple is pushing for the destruction of PCs), and quite a few Slashdot readers are big supporters of Apple. If the world's technical communities were united on this issue, there would be no problem -- Apple would be facing mass resistance (see e.g. SOPA/PIPA). Unfortunately, we are not united; a lot of people in these communities like Apple's products and are going to deride people who boycott Apple.
No one is in control of your computer
Experience has shown otherwise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
You're at the mercy of the legal terms you agree to. Nothing more, nothing less.
I used to agree with your sentiment, really: I used to blame users for behaving the way the behave. Then I looked at computer security, and saw a pattern of blunders: systems that are designed in a way that ignores human psychology and common behavior. You see that pattern in the law as well, and it is a disaster. You cannot claim that people should be bound by long terms of use agreements that they do not read and which may not even have a legal basis in their locality, just like you cannot blame people for ignoring TLS warnings.
People should just
Never assume that people are capable or willing to do anything; first take a look at how people react to a situation, then design your software accordingly. Anything else is going to be vulnerable.
If you ask my mother if she wants to allow an app full access to the network, she will shrug and say "yes" -- she wants the app, not the dialog that is standing in her way. That is how most people will react to this. The system should be designed with that in mind (say, not allowing an app to access both the network and local storage unless the user configures the device to allow it -- and disallowing any app from automatically changing that configuration).
If you want an example of software that at least attempts to follow this principle, look at OTR. It has a simple, unintrusive "unverified" label if the user has not explicitly verified a key, and it has non-fingerprint-based methods of performing such verification. While a determined, active attacker can defeat this, it is still better for users than PGP, and far better than no crypto at all -- which many people try and then give up on when they see warning upon warning.
Remember, good attackers will exploit human psychology as often or even more often than technical problems. You cannot fix human psychology; you have to work with it.
There is no guarantee that a court would interpret the law that way, especially when lobbyists from companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. waltz in and claim that the cost of creating ADA compliant websites will place on unreasonable burden on them.
Google has been hesitant to enforce a strict set of standards akin to Apple
Freedom comes in proportion to risk. Yes, if your nanny controls your computer, you run less of a risk of having your privacy or security violated. You also lose your freedom -- the freedom, for example, to run a program that makes fun of the president (after all, it might offend the other party's supporters!). Which would you rather have?
(Personally, I'll take freedom any day. Make a device that has a ROM fallback, so that I can kill whatever malware winds up on it if things get really bad, and then leave me and my ability to use my computer alone. Computers are a vital communication tool, and communication tools need to be controlled by their users in any free society. Apple's model is more appropriate for Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, or Bahrain.)
There, you got your advertising eyeball. Until then, my visit is no reward.
I would not even go that far. That image is being served by people who are tracking your browsing habits regardless of Javascript being enabled. At this point, NoScript, ABP, and HTTPSEverywhere are basically must-have extensions (or their equivalents in other browsers).
Unfortunately, an increasing number of website won't even use plain HTML links anymore -- forget form submission, now basic hrefs are becoming a thing of the past. Soon we will not be able to browse at all without disabling whatever meager security precautions we are taking with our browsers. I have no idea what the disabled will have to do.
DNA should be used as one piece of a very large puzzle used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was present at some point in time
Within some error margin, and that error margin is quite a bit higher than you might expect. If you do not exclude identical twins, even if there were no laboratory errors at all, the probability of finding two people with the same DNA profile would be 1 in 1000; when laboratory errors are included in the analysis, that probability can become high enough to pass the threshold of "reasonable doubt."
Even if we assume no lab errors, no identical twins, and no measurement errors, DNA evidence is still not sufficient. I could plant someone's DNA at a crime scene without too much difficulty (consider how many personal items in your bathroom will have testable DNA on them -- a razor, a toothbrush, a comb). There have been cases of criminals finding ways to substitute another person's DNA for their own, including one case of a doctor who actually managed to hide another person's blood in one of his veins, thus faking his innocence.
One data point is not enough to draw any sort of conclusion; it might point you in the right direction, but nothing more.
It is not like DNA matching is as exact as solving a math problem. There is experimental error, and the error rates are sufficiently high that DNA evidence should never be considered enough to convict someone; DNA evidence with additional supporting evidence should be the minimum standard.
If you think that is a credible threat, you must be an idiot. I could have distinguished that post from a real threat when I was in kindergarten.