Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Whats the problem? (Score 1) 141

by Imagix (#47431433) Attached to: Aereo Embraces Ruling, Tries To Re-Classify Itself As Cable Company
Because the people paying for ads to show on WABC7 in NY are expecting viewership in NY to be the ones consuming the ads. If the audience is now nationwide, then the value per eyeball goes way down since now a smaller percentage of the eyeballs matter. So actually both sides of the equation don't like it. The advertisers aren't advertising to the demographic they want, and since the demographic is now much wider, WABC7 can't charge as much per eyeball since many of them are useless to the advertiser.

Comment: Re:Because I'm lazy (Score 1) 279

by Imagix (#47318483) Attached to: Why Software Builds Fail
Yep. Compile with -Wall -Werror. All warnings are now errors. If the compiler is warning you about something, it is likely that you're not telling the compiler a consistent message. "Do not try to outsmart the compiler, it will get its revenge." Rework the code so that it doesn't warn. Also, gcc has a compiler flag to tell the compiler that certain directories are "system" includes, and not to warn about stuff in them.

Comment: Re:Who owns them? (Score 1) 474

no more data cap

Why? The cable modem will be able to figure out what traffic is coming from the home vs. coming via the public wifi, and can count those separately. (And can do different speed shaping and prioritization).

subscriber cancels service

Same question. If the cable modem is plugged in, they just need to block the ethernet and "personal" SSID, leaving the "public" SSID operational.

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 5, Insightful) 132

by Imagix (#47120289) Attached to: OpenSSL To Undergo Security Audit, Gets Cash For 2 Developers
Yet again, another person who can't distinguish between the technology and a particular application of that technology. What you're complaining about has nothing to do with the implementation of OpenSSL (which is what this article is about), but has to do with the application of OpenSSL. OpenSSL is doing it's job by verifying the presented certificates against the list of trusted certificate authorities that you have configured. The fact that you're trusting too many people isn't a problem with OpenSSL. (It is also not OpenSSL's concern as to how you obtained your list of trusted CAs, only that you have one.)

Comment: Re:Customers are not property. (Score 5, Insightful) 417

by Imagix (#46956647) Attached to: London Black Cabs Threaten Chaos To Stop Uber
Not really... the cabs are being artificially hamstrung by regulation that was put into place precisely because private people were doing bad things and thus government was lobbied/decided upon that regulation was required in order to protect public safety. So now there are a bunch of cabs which are following said regulations (likely at a pretty significant cost), and now this other organization is setting up a de facto cab company, but doesn't have to follow the regulation. Now... if the cab companies no longer had to follow the regulations and _still_ couldn't compete with Uber, then so be it. But as it is now you're comparing the performance of two race horses, but one of them has its legs tied together.

Comment: Re:Do you see the problem with this? (Score 1) 461

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) 461

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....)

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz