Innocent by Law, Guilty by State Farm

Several months ago, I was involved in a traffic accident. The police officer who arrived on the scene took statements from three witnesses and the other driver before approaching me with a ticket in his hand charging me with "careless driving".

A few things annoyed me about the charge. For one thing, the term "careless driving" is really broad. It doesn't really tell you what you did wrong, just that you didn't do something right. For another, I believed I was following the laws and acting not only according to what I believe was correct (especially with reference to what the Colorado Driver's Handbook says to do at a malfunctioning traffic light), but with how other cars present at the intersection at the time were behaving. Also, the fact that the cop issued the ticket without getting my view, but only that of the other driver and some witnesses, made me feel like the decision was obnoxiously one-sided. Finally, the fact that the officer's report stated the other driver was being cautious didn't fit the facts that, I felt, were obvious.

I was determined to fight what I felt was an unfair assessment. And after finding out how much it would cost to obtain a lawyer (from the one firm that found it worthwhile to actually return my call), I decided I could only afford to fight it if I fought it on my own.

To make a very long story short, the judge agreed with me, that I did take into account the situation (the malfunctioning traffic light, the large number of cars stopped at this light in all directions). One of the witnesses was key in this decision, as she happened to be behind me at the time of the accident, and she testified that I did in fact stop for plenty of time to analyze the situation before entering the intersection. It also sounded like the was about to say the other driver was at fault for entering against a flashing yellow when there was a car already in the intersection (which I was able to prove I had first, by a large margin), before she interrupted herself and gave her ruling, that the prosecution failed to prove my guilt. So, against the odds of representing myself in court, I prevailed.

With that ruling, I thought it would be prudent to contact State Farm and let them know that not only was I found not at fault, but a competent lawyer could likely take this case and go after the other driver's insurance for the loss — hey, if an incompetent fool like myself could win the case, imagine what someone with appropriate skill could do. Boy, was I ever in for a surprise. When I was connected to the agent in charge of processing my claim, and I explained the situation, she told me she didn't think they had a case. And then this State Farm agent proceeded to tell me why: because the other driver had the right of way, she had no obligation to watch for traffic in the intersection because I should not have been there; basically all the arguments the prosecution made at my trial, that were ultimately rejected by the judge. When she mentioned details that were just wrong (like the other driver having a regular yellow light and I ran a red light) and I tried to correct her, she accused me of changing my story. (I don't know if, in the heat of the moment when I first reported the accident, I got some details wrong; but the condition of the traffic light was a fact clearly spelled out in the police report for crying out loud.) She even went so far as to claim that there was no difference between a flashing yellow light and a green light! I was in shock.

I suppose ultimately it's their decision to pursue the case or not, but to just dismiss the results of a trial and accuse me of guilt after I had been found not guilty, does not sit well with me. I believe it is time for me to find a new insurance agent, one that does not stubbornly hold to an assumption of my guilt even after being found not guilty in a court of law, like State Farm has done.

Hitting the wall

Looks like it might actually happen. With my nephew staying with us while he goes to college, his additional gaming and Netflix bandwidth has pushed our internet usage up over 210MB this month, with still a third of a month to go.

To get comparable internet speeds from Comcast Business (which is not, reportedly, subject to bandwidth caps), I would have to pay triple my current monthly internet bill. I was unable to get comparable numbers from CenturyLink Business (the only other viable internet service provider in my area) without providing my home address and phone number.

My nephew is off spending the Thanksgiving holiday with his immediate family, and I've told my wife we need to use our shiny plastic (and completely unrestricted) discs for home entertainment, so we have a chance of making it through the month under the cap; but now, it's clear that the bandwidth cap is making a clear impact on our internet usage.

It's interesting to note that Microsoft has announced that they are going to be bringing even more streaming video content to the Xbox in the coming months, including (but not limited to) YouTube, UFC shows, and various cable providers' on-demand content (which would be delivered over capped internet, rather than the limitless pipe that carries regular cable content).

Internet use and services are going up (and Comcast even occasionally increases its speeds to deliver more of that content faster), but the cap doesn't move. How many people are going to find themselves over the cap soon? When will Comcast realize "generous" is becoming "too restrictive"? And, most importantly, when will I see a viable option that gives me reliable connection and speed, and the ability to actually use it to its potential?

So soon, Firefox?

I stepped away for a cup of coffee, and when I came back, there's a new version of Firefox.

I thought my co-worker was kidding, but sure enough, when I started Firefox, it started downloading the installer for version 7.0. Out of curiosity, I went to the options panel to look at the update history. It showed Firefox 5, then Firefox 6, both listed as "security updates" — version 6 installed only last month.

Curiously, after installing version 7, the "update history" list was cleared out. A little embarassing, perhaps?

Seriously, Firefox; this is just silly.

Besides, Chrome has you beat by miles (version 14 as of this post).

Firefox 6 - Major version, major pain

I was testing out my web code in Firefox today, and I got a message saying that Firefox 6 had been released. Wanting to make sure I was keeping up to date with our users, I installed the update. After restarting the browser when prompted, I noticed that it looked exactly the same. So I went online to check what's new.

Apparently, not much. Oh, there's a small list, but nothing really visible, and it's not really any faster than before. It seems that Mozilla's accelerated release schedule is nothing more than releasing what would normally be a "point release" as a major version instead.

But to what end? Chrome is on version 13; IE's current release is version 9 (with 10 available for preview); Opera is on version 11. Could this be nothing more than a way to "catch up", so "Firefox 5" doesn't sound like it's way behind the other browsers? It was speculated that Microsoft named their second console the "Xbox 360" because "Xbox 2" would sound like it was behind "Playstation 3"; this could be another example of toying with customer mindshare.

Or could it be a way to flush some of the old versions out of general support? Many companies I worked at had a policy such as, "Support the current major browser versions minus two", which today would mean "IE 7 and above, Firefox 4 and above, Chrome 11 and above, etc." — releasing a few major versions quickly would push older browsers that don't support up-and-coming standards like HTML5 out of the support window rather quickly.

Whatever the reason, there is one rather large detrimental effect. Extension authors have to certify that their code is compatible with major releases. Because Firefox just got a new major version number, all of my extensions were marked as "incompatible" and disabled, and that way they will remain until their authors update their xpi packages to mark them as compatible with this new major version. Essential debugging tools like FireQuery, HttpFox, even the Java console are among those that are off-limits until they are updated. Even the extension for the corporate virus scanner is disabled, as is Skype's "click to call" extension (which wasn't marked compatible with Firefox 5 either; not that I use it myself, but I have to be able to confirm that, for customers who do use it, its phone number reformatting doesn't make the page unusable).

Firefox, you used to be cool. I didn't mind inviting you over and letting you crash on my couch. But now you've stolen the food from my cupboards, gotten fat and lazy, started leaving your dirty clothes lying all over the house; and you're wild parties broke my antique table lamp without so much as a "sorry" from you. I grow tired of having to clean up after your mess. IE used to be where you are now, but at least he's been working on cleaning up his act.

Does courtesy fade with age?

I'm sitting on the train, headphones on, playing a game on my Windows Phone, as normal, when I hear a demanding voice from over my shoulder say, "Do you see that sign!?"

My brain attempts to disengage from my virtual world and process this. Usually, when a voice like that is heard, it's from the train police, asking to see passengers' tickets. But wait, that's not what he asked for. Do I see the sign? There are a few posted signs asking for certain behavior. I'm not playing loud music, I'm not eating or drinking, my feet aren't on the seat… Ok, something's wrong, and I guess I need to turn to this mysterious voice and figure out what it is.

I turn and see an elderly man, looking a bit angry, glaring at me, with his finger pointed at the sign that indicates priority seating for elderly or disabled passengers and asking to comply with all requests to vacate the seat for a disabled passenger.

So, I figured I'd give him the opportunity to request my seat. "Do you want to sit down?"

"DO YOU SEE THAT SIGN?" he yells again.

The people in the rear-facing seat across from me offer their seat and practically stumble over themselves to get up and move to one of the several other vacant seats on the train. "No, I can't sit backwards," the old guy complains after them.

"All right," I said, giving up on any chance of civility with this curmudgeon. I stand up, turn around, and sit in the hastily-vacated rear-facing seat.

The old fart then sits down, pulls out a 12oz Coke bottle, and starts drinking it, right under the sign that says "No Eating or Drinking".

I guess he didn't see the sign.

RJ11 to RJ14 - easier than I thought

I've just switched from Comcast's VoIP to a third party VoIP provider (the company formerly known as VoIP.com, now a part of Phone Power). When I got my box (slightly smaller than a 3"x5" card and just thick enough to have phone and ethernet jacks on its back), I noticed it had Phone Line 1 and Line 2 as two separate RJ11 jacks. Why they didn't just use a single RJ14 jack is beyond me. It's not like line splitters are that expensive — they retail for a couple bucks and probably cost half that wholesale. But where splitters are apparently plentiful, a combiner, something that takes two separate single-line jacks and makes a single two-line jack out of it, is impossible to find in a store and even extremely rare online. So, how was I supposed to take these two RJ11 outputs and plug them into the single RJ14 jack that serves as input for my house wiring?

I found instructions for rewiring a CAT-5 ethernet cable to do the job, but I didn't want to have to buy a crimping tool to form the plugs, nor did I feel comfortable splicing it into existing phone cords (the last time I tried something like that, it ended badly). But then I had a sudden revelation.

You see, there's really nothing special about telephone cord accessories. A splitter just takes the pins in a given plug and wires them to the appropriate pins in the right jacks. In the splitter pictured above, the first pair on the RJ14 plug is wired to both the first (and only) pair on the L1 jack and the first pair on the L1+L2 jack. The second pair on the RJ14 plug is wired to the first (and only) pair on the L2 jack and the second pair on the L1+L2 jack. All those associated pins are interconnected; there is no special circuitry that separates the connections (i.e., nothing keeping the L1 jack and the first pair on L1+L2 from talking to each other) — that's why these things are so cheap. Further, wires are bi-directional. If you apply an input voltage to one end, it will carry it to the other end; conversely, if you apply an input voltage to the other end, it will carry it back to the first end. Wires don't care which end is labeled "input" and "output".

And neither does a splitter. With all the pins interconnected by wires, you can just as easily send a signal input into L1 and L2, and get the combined output in both the L1+L2 and the RJ14 plug on the back side.

So that's what I did. I connected the VoIP adapter's Phone 1 and Phone 2 jacks to the L1 and L2 jacks of a splitter, and connected the L1+L2 jack to my house wiring input jack. (I could've used the RJ14 plug on the splitter itself instead of another phone wire, but there wasn't enough room around the input jack on the patch panel for a splitter to fit.)

So why is this so important that I bothered writing a blog post about it? Because, as I was searching out a solution to this problem (which apparently plagues users of Vonage equipment as well), I couldn't find this very simple solution. Maybe someone else will stumble upon this blog post as they search for their own solution and discover just how easy it is.

Firefox, jQuery, and event binding, revisited

While I had decided for myself that I didn't want to support Firefox anymore, the company that signs my paychecks respectfully disagreed. Because my project is an internal admin tool, we were able to tell our user base not to use Firefox for the time being and assign the bug a relatively low priority — but, it was something that should be revisited and fixed. Having completed my tasks well ahead of schedule, the time was at hand.

The bug had to do with Firefox failing to fire off a jQuery click event handler. I had long since installed the Firebug extension, but all it could tell me for certain was that the event handler code was not being called. I was fortunate, in my searching, to find another extension, FireQuery, which extends Firebug by adding jQuery information to the debug panels. Installing that and viewing the HTML, I could see that the jQuery click event handler simply wasn't there on the switches that weren't working.

Using the development version of jQuery, I stepped through the code that attaches the event handler, and I could find no difference in code execution between the switches that worked and the ones that didn't (unsurprising, since I attached to all of them at once).

The solution, surprisingly, came about when I started mucking around with elements and styles, substituting divs for lis in a desperate attempt to find the cause. To make a long story short, it was the fact that, later in the code, I called a jQuery plugin called "text-overflow" that emulated the text-overflow: ellipsis stylesheet directive that every browser but Firefox supports.

The problem with the code is that, in order to emulate the feature, the plugin creates a cloned copy of the node to "ellipsify" and progressively removes characters until the width of the cloned node fits in the desired width of the original. Then, it sets the contents to be the new text, and destroys the copy. Unfortunately, there are a couple side effects:

1. If no truncation happens, the contained elements lose their event bindings, since they end up not being the original elements, but copies.
2. If truncation does happen, when the contents are replaced with the new text, any other elements contained therein (i.e. hidden form fields holding data for a form post) are wiped out.

The first problem might have been overcome by using jQuery's own clone method which clones nodes and any events associated to them. (This was added after the plugin was written, so I don't fault the author for oversight). To be safe, though, I changed the class on the switches' containers and excluded them from my .ellipsis() call. That successfully kept the slider click event handlers from disappearing.

The second problem was the source of another bug, where a jQuery function attempting to look up values from hidden form fields was failing to find the data on elements that were truncated by the text-overflow plugin. I moved the hidden form fields outside of the elements targeted by the function call, and that, too, was magically fixed.

Internet Explorer has a bad (and well-deserved) reputation for needing special development time to do the same thing that other browsers do (although, in my experience, a lot of this would be unnecessary if it weren't for a requirement, usually from an upper-level executive or, worse, marketing, mandating pixel-perfect replication across all browsers), but I've found lately that the pendulum has swung far the other way to deal with the quirks in Firefox.