Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:IE 6 (Score 2) 140

by Frobnicator (#49564975) Attached to: JavaScript Devs: Is It Still Worth Learning jQuery?

In my experience, I haven't noticed any issues on mobile devices for websites using jQuery.

I can list of plenty of mobile websites with horrible experiences that use jQuery.

But I would not say jQuery itself is the reason for that.

jQuery itself is not inherently a problem. It can be leveraged to do many memory-hungry and processing-heavy actions that break mobile browsers, but that's not jQuery's fault. People can make memory-hungry and processing-heavy PC-centric websites using many different tools.

Comment: Re:This seems backwards. (Score 4, Informative) 55

by Frobnicator (#49564819) Attached to: Supreme Court To Consider Data Aggregation Suit Against Spokeo

Or as is very likely the case, a company passes up on hiring him for something.

That's nifty and all, but that's not the actual lawsuit.

The key feature of the lawsuit is that the individual cannot show any specific harm was done, only that their legal rights were infringed. Most aspects of civil law require that the person show some sort of injury. In this case the specific law does not require damage. Damage to consumers is assumed as automatic if the company does not comply with the law. The wording of the law is only about compliance, not about harm.

The big data companies absolutely want to forbid standing in the case. If he could show specific harm he'd have a strong case but it would be a different case. This is about data aggregators being compelled to follow the law.

The first court dismissed it, claiming since he had no specific "actual or imminent harm" he couldn't sue.

The appeals court observed that the law required specific actions by the company, and the law tied failure to comply with the rules to a $100-$1000 fine for noncompliance. That's even the name of the section: "Civil liability for willful noncompliance". Again, the law specifies damages for failing to comply, not damages for actual harm. The appeals court ruled that since the law as written does not require any actual damages -- the law is about compliance by the company, with damages assigned to "any consumer" affected by non-compliance -- he can sue. He qualifies under the definition of "any customer", and the law is only about compliance, not about actual harm.

Because of the exact wording of the law, my money is on Robins on this one. The actual law does not rely on harm to the individual. The wording of the law is based entirely on compliance, with noncompliance resulting in liability. Additional harm is not mandated.

But let's turn it around. Frequently the courts will examine the consequences if the court rejects the arguments. If they turn it down, if they say consumers cannot have standing unless there is real harm, then they would effectively void sections 1681n and 1681o. There would only be civil liability for actual harm, there would not be any civil liability for noncompliance. Generally the SCOTUS relies on a Constitutional reason to void large chunks of law like that, but in this case there are several solid reasons for Congress to pass the law. If he doesn't have standing then SCOTUS is voiding the law since no other method is available for liability. The Justices tend to be careful about voiding the law, generally only voiding laws when it falls outside what the Constitution allows. I'm absolutely certain that will come up in the oral arguments: if they deny standing how else can the noncompliance law be applied? If they deny standing they seem to be voiding the law without a constitutional reason.

Comment: Re:Ever cheaper computers (Score 2) 417

by afidel (#49540919) Attached to: We'll Be the Last PC Company Standing, Acer CEO Says

Intel's new SoC's reduce what you need for a basic end-user computer to a motherboard the size of a stick of gum. And that's not an exaggeration.

Oh yes it most certainly IS an exaggeration, it's 10cm by 4cm, much larger than a gum stick at 8.5cm by 2cm. Plus the Intel needs a fairly large power brick. Now some of the Android sticks are as small as a pack of gum and are low enough power that they can run off the USB port built into some TV's (if they're made for charging a phone it will work, if they're only for running a flash drive then it won't) so they really are tiny.

Security

Swallowing Your Password 118

Posted by samzenpus
from the eat-and-login dept.
HughPickens.com writes: Amir Mizroch reports at the WSJ that a PayPal executive who works with engineers and developers to find and test new technologies, says that embeddable, injectable, and ingestible devices are the next wave in identification for mobile payments and other sensitive online interactions. Jonathon Leblanc says that identification of people will shift from "antiquated" external body methods like fingerprints, toward internal body functions like heartbeat and vein recognition, where embedded and ingestible devices will allow "natural body identification." Ingestible devices could be powered by stomach acid, which will run their batteries and could detect glucose levels and other unique internal features can use a person's body as a way to identify them and beam that data out. Leblanc made his remarks during a presentation called Kill all Passwords that he's recently started giving at various tech conferences in the U.S. and Europe, arguing that technology has taken a huge leap forward to "true integration with the human body." But the idea has its skeptics. What could possibly go wrong with a little implanted device that reads your vein patterns or your heart's unique activity or blood glucose levels writes AJ Vicens? "Wouldn't an insurance company love to use that information to decide that you had one too many donuts—so it won't be covering that bypass surgery after all?"

Comment: Re:$100 billion for 150 miles? (Score 1) 189

by afidel (#49523409) Attached to: Maglev Train Exceeds 600km/h For World Record

Very cool, then it should be able to smoke a plane in destination to destination times, between crowded takeoff slots and the fact that trains can do city center to city center it's no contest. The cost is obviously astronomical because of the tunneling, but I'm not sure an artificial island expansion to add air capacity would be that much cheaper, Kansai was $20B and Chbu was $7B, add in inflation and more expensive raw material costs and you're looking at probably half the cost of the train route.

Comment: Re:They should resurrect some shows... (Score 1) 214

by afidel (#49522797) Attached to: Netflix Is Betting On Exclusive Programming

They can't un-cancel Fringe, Leonard Nimoy is dead, Josh Jackson got picked up for a second season of The Affair, John Noble is doing Sleepy Hollow. They could pickup the idea and reboot the series but the head writers are all on other projects, JJ Abrams is a bit busy, only J.H. Wyman is available from the original staff so even a reboot would be unlikely to be anything like the original run.

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 2) 400

All it does is create a very slim frame up where you can't wait for another unit to arrive, because you announced you where done with the ticket.

No, this creates a reasonableness test for a dog search without probable cause. If tickets are normally handled in 5 minutes and the officer suddenly takes 45 minutes to issue a ticket and it just so happens the drug dog shows up in 44 minutes, well then that's outside the ruling. This is where video evidence will be important, defense attorneys can establish that an average stop takes X minutes, and only stops where they want to request a drug dog without cause take X + n minutes. The cops can either slow down all stops (and get less revenue), or they can stop using drug dogs without probable cause because they can't jerk people around waiting for a dog to do a no warrant search.

Comment: Re:A sane supreme court decision? (Score 5, Informative) 400

To be honest, I figured that it /had/ to be a bad ruling and ...

No, it's all due to the stupid vague line between a "temporary stop", a "detention", and an "arrest". Our various branches of government have struggled with it for two centuries now.

Police need people to interact with them so the officers can do the job of investigating crimes. But legally in order to do that they must seize the thing, seize the person, seize the property, whatever. The requirements about due process, seizure of people and property, the law needed to allow for certain types of temporary seizures of people, and the balance is a hard one.

The traffic stop is just that, a stop. A temporary detention that can only last as long as necessary for the administrative task.

In the ruling (and according to most judges already), the officer stopped the individual and performed the task of writing a citation. Anything more than that is no longer a stop, it becomes either a detention or an arrest.

The ruling is clear on what the problem was here. The officer testified that they "had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reasons for the stop out of the way." Then after the stop was complete he did not allow the man to leave, even after the man asked to go, so the officer could call in a drug-sniffing dog. That was a second detention, done without probable cause (since he had already dealt with the reason for the stop), and was therefore unlawful.

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...