Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Do you see the problem with this? (Score 1) 429

by Imagix (#46823729) Attached to: Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips
I made no comment on the validity of the case itself (and had also mentioned the 5 minute thing). What I'm pointing out is that this article is inaccurate in it's headline ("Stop and _Search_ Based On Anonymous 911 Tips"), and many of the comments are making the same leap. The facts of the case didn't link the anonymous tip to the search. The facts of the case linked the anonymous tip to the _stop_. It was evidence gathered during the stop that lead to the search. The dissenting opinions were around whether the police had sufficient cause to stop the person in the first place since without the stop, the police wouldn't have had the additional evidence to provide cause for a search. So, much of the outrage here is misdirected. It should all be directed at whether or not the police had sufficient cause to stop the car. What we should be seeing is arguments along the lines of: "The police received an anonymous tip. Based on that they located the car and observed its behaviour over 5 minutes." Followed by either "Having seeing no signs of impaired driving we stopped observing the car and went on our way", or "We then pulled the vehicle over in order to have a discussion with the driver that a concerned citizen had observed the car behaving erratically, was there something wrong?" (Which then leads to the discovery of the other evidence)

Comment: Re:Do you see the problem with this? (Score 0) 429

by Imagix (#46822857) Attached to: Supreme Court OKs Stop and Search Based On Anonymous 911 Tips
You're missing a bunch of parts, and the headline of this article is similarly misguided (the original title is not). The 911 call did nothing regarding the _search_. What the 911 call did was focus the attention of the police on a vehicle that was allegedly driving dangerously. They then pulled over the vehicle that was allegedly driving dangerously under the suspicion that the driver was impaired (remember, driving impaired is illegal). During that interaction they discovered further indications that drugs were involved and based on _that_ evidence a search of the vehicle was conducted. Where the dispute comes from is whether the police had sufficient suspicion about the original "driving while impaired" problem (and thus sufficient cause to pull the vehicle over). They'd apparently followed the vehicle for "5 minutes" and didn't see any indication of poor driving. _That's_ where the dissenting court opinion comes from, not about the search. (I've made that 911 call myself. And in one case, I'd actually saw the vehicle that I was reporting clip someone else and tore the mirror off of their car. They'd pulled over, but I bet he was rather surprised as how fast a police cruiser arrived on the scene....)

Comment: Re:The question remains why this extension? (Score 2) 446

by Imagix (#46722525) Attached to: Heartbleed Coder: Bug In OpenSSL Was an Honest Mistake
Not really. That means every application that wants to talk securely would have to add the noise, vs the library that they use adds the noise behind the scenes and the multitude of applications can concern themselves with what they need to do. And if the noise generation needed to be changed for some reason, then you only have to update the library and not the multitudes of applications (some of which may never be updated....).

Comment: Re:Just call the credit card company and tell them (Score 1) 321

by Imagix (#46473083) Attached to: Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

Suppose a 10 year old walks up to a cashier at a Walmart, dumps 50 candy bars on the belt, and hands the cashier a credit card with no adult in sight. The cashier rings it up and charges the card. The kid opens all the candy and gives it away to friends, eats it, whatever. Later the adult discovers that the kid took his card out of his wallet when he wasn't looking and complains to his credit card company.

Not quite. Your analogy is missing the part where the adult walked up with the 10 year old and told the cashier that the child was allowed to use the credit card, and then left. That's not to say that Android should probably have multiuser capabilities across all devices, a device administrator designation, and an account setting about "auth once" vs. "auth for 30 mins" on wallet access.

Comment: Re:Please.... (Score 1) 321

by Imagix (#46472995) Attached to: Google Sued Over Children's In-App Android Purchases

They aren't, they're willing to go to court to protect their mishaps

Welcome to the results of a litigious society. If Google makes a change then people will hold that up in court and say "Look, your honor, if they weren't doing anything wrong, why did they change it? Therefore they must have been screwing everybody over, SUE! SUE! SUE!"

Comment: Re:In their defence. (Score 1) 417

by Imagix (#46439951) Attached to: School Tricks Pupils Into Installing a Root CA

Increasingly however, what the school does is utterly irrelevant. Almost all the students have their own completely independent access to the big bad 'net.

Which makes it Not Their Problem. They have a requirement (whether legislation, policy, or politics) to secure their network. What Jimmy does on their cellphone is now the telco's problem.

Comment: Yes (Score 3, Insightful) 627

by Imagix (#46327337) Attached to: Does Relying On an IDE Make You a Bad Programmer?
Offhand, yes, you are a less effective programmer if you rely on the IDE. I've seen many "programmers" that get completely lost if the IDE doesn't autocomplete everything for them. They have no sense as to how the program as a whole hangs together. (Note the specific phrasing of "rely on the IDE". Not the same as "uses an IDE". Not using the tool is silly. Requiring the tool is the problem.)

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]