Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: $380K (Score 1) 705

If you're honestly conflating the statement, which I interpreted as "security was inadequate, they should have upgraded it before the issue got worse" with some idea that they can't be hacked because they were throwing money at it, without proof that is actually what is being implied, congratulations, you're an idiot.

Comment Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score 1) 222

That makes no sense at all. Seriously. IF someone owned a CD that was stolen, person B likes it, buys it off of them thinking it was legitimately theirs (a CD is innocuous, but just an example), then it was stolen, they can get in trouble just on that alone? I've been Googling penal laws for various states on the matter, and they seem to support the assertion I am making... that you get in trouble if you obtain it knowing it was stolen, or keep it/refuse to turn it in after it was revealed to be stolen.

Comment Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score 1) 222

That makes no sense at all. What I am saying is that - based on the research I have done - you can't just get in trouble if you own property if you obtain it, and then find out it is stolen - you have to know it was stolen beforehand, or not turn it on/whatnot after it was discovered that the property was n fact stolen - and most of the penal codes I have been googling up support this idea.

Comment Re:CBC assumed CNN owned it (Score 2) 222

Yeah, and if the car was stolen, your sister would be in jail for receiving stolen property.

Maybe I am missing something, but if you're saying the sister would be in trouble just because of the purchase, that might not be correct - if I recall, you have to have knowingly engaged in the purchase, but IANAL. (seems logical though, why get someone in trouble if they, in good faith, thought they were buying something legitimately that later turned out to be stolen?)

Comment But is it a problem... (Score 1) 73

with the language itself, or an issue that boils down to the coders, and how attentive they are to the vulnerabilities while they are producing the code for whatever they are working on?

My thought is that it is the latter (that it boils down to the coders, and their attentiveness + planning out their work to avoid such issues, but that's just one opinion.

Comment Re:Carpenter Bees (Score 1) 225

Once I went to a zoo with my GF-at-the-time. We were in a gift shop mucking around with the various doodads, next thing I know, I see flakes falling from above. I look up at the wood beams running along the ceiling, and watched as a carpenter bee dug through the wood, crawled out of the hole and then flew away. Those suckers dig fast.

Comment Re:The honest version (Score 1) 48

It's not censorship if it's done by private companies.

citation needed.

Every definition I have read has nothing on where the SOURCE of the action is, just on the ACTION itself. Censorship is not about who does it, but that there is an editing, a repressing of opinion - some cases, like private companies editing their journalists (to various extends) are fine, but that's not a matter of "censorship" versus "not censorship," but a question of "acceptable censoring" versus "unacceptable censoring."

Comment Re:no surprise here (Score 1) 48

Only if you're utterly an utter failure at critical thinking. Liberalizing alone does not give any hint at the extent, which can be as simple as preventing them from lasting as long as they do, and allowing consumers to do modifications, and backing up unhindered (as well as the ability to play media on whatever device they want unhindered) - which is a far cry from that in any sense of the word *

* purposefully excluding the fact that copyright infringement =/= theft legally, and the opinion that the two should stay separate on all levels, because of how much of a tangent I risk going off of by touching that can of worms.

Comment I mean... (Score 1) 56

I'm a little lost... why under the existing license would it be hard for the rightsholder to specific games to just go to the MAME team, and work it out? OF course, a more flexible, and open license is always a good thing IMO (too much rigidity hinders efforts that could be legal and good of course, but this specific example given still puzzled me.

And I wish they'd make some progress on Bemani System573 Digital emulation. :(
Programming

Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality 247

itwbennett writes: A team of researchers in Sri Lanka set out to test whether common refactoring techniques resulted in measurable improvements in software quality, both externally (e.g., Is the code more maintainable?) and internally (e.g., Number of lines of code). Here's the short version of their findings: Refactoring doesn't make code easier to analyze or change (PDF); it doesn't make code run faster; and it doesn't result in lower resource utilization. But it may make code more maintainable.

Comment Re:Not Censorship (Score 1) 285

Last I checked, no definition of censorship I know of requires a government entity be doing it. Self censorship, for example, is censorship by definition since you are keeping whatever - opinions, explicit outbursts, etc hidden or edited, but doing it on your own to yourself... it's still censorship though because of that editing, or hiding mechanism being in place. Now, if you tackle the issue from a "is it allowed" or even a "is Google morally allowed to do this" standpoint, the legal answer probably (IANAL) being yes, the moral answer being subjective, personal opinion...
tl;dr version:
  • - Whether it is censorship or not is not based on if the entity censoring is a government entity at all, but rather the act of editing or hiding information.
  • - This is a basic definition, something of that effect in pretty much every fucking dictionary definition
  • - All Google owning the servers means is they can censor certain things legally - whether it is moral or not IS up to opinion, but going by any textbook definition, it is still censorship.
  • - Why do I feel like the OP might be too stupid to understand all this?

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...