Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:EU should act over forced upgrades via deceptio (Score 4, Insightful) 501

That alone isn't enough. They needed to be fined enough that they get the message. There's no way their legal department didn't inform the higher ups that this kind of abuse would leave them open to liability, but the past has proved to them any resulting fines are a minor fraction of the money they made doing it. The only way to actually discourage this kind of behavior is to make the fine so severe that their shareholders take notice. I'm thinking a whole quarters profit should get that message across, which Google tells me was $5bn in Q1 2015.

Comment (Score 1) 331

These days, most of those folks have moved on to Python.

And the flip side of that is many of the people still coding in VB6 write excellent code. Most samples being posted today have full sanity checks and error handling, are very easy to follow, support Unicode, have documentation and commenting... just what do you think makes 'good code' that VB6 programmers aren't generally doing these days? Sure there's still lots of people very new to it and writing terrible code (lots of new users coming from non-english speaking countries actually)... but I have a hard time believing good code is as rare as you're making it out to be these days.

Comment (Score 1) 331

I'm a "people". I'm very passionate about VB6. And I only work with it as a hobby, it's unrelated to my job. Here the thing: For standard Windows GUI-focused apps, there's nothing better. VB.NET might as well be something entirely different and basic tasks are far more complex. VB is still relevant not only because of the business case, but because there's all the benefits it originally had and it's still capably of making modern apps.
The power of VB6 is always understated. People think of ugly, old GUIs but it also lets you make GUIs with the latest Common Controls version and also lets you access all the modern shell features. There's plenty of room to be passionate about a language where all basic functionality is fast and easy, yet it provides virtually no upper limit to how complex you can get if you need to: I don't use the Win3.1-ish drive list and dropdown, I use the introduced-in-Vista IFileDialog. Why heck, VB6 will even allow you to use in-line assembly if you need to. Multi-threading? An actively developing frontier, just in the past year making true multithreaded apps has been made much easier.
Modernizing VB6 is in fact my biggest programming passion. There's a special joy that certainly inspires passion in bringing all the shell goodies that have been introduced in XP, Vista, 7, etc into a language from the 90s. My latest project was making the full suite of Core Audio (introduced in Vista) interfaces usable in VB6. Other people have brought in long-missing support for modern alpha-blended graphics/icons.
Have a look see on a site like, there's huge amounts of passion from real people, and huge amounts of quality code. The applications being made today can't even be visually distinguished from VB.NET.

Comment Re:But they do, so do you (Score 2) 113

So my daughter might be taking nude selfies of herself on her phone, which Google flags as child porn. But its not a pedo, its a selfie. So the engineers should carefully review those selfies, decide the phone belongs to a child, and the pictures are likely her own.

Except it is pedo, she's guilty of manufacturing CP, distributing CP if it's been sent to her BF, and exploitation of a minor (herself).. and the authorities should handle it since criminal charges will teach her not to ruin her life, by ruining her life. At least that's what some police officers and prosecutors think, and judges don't seem to mind either. It's not theoretical either, kids have actually been hit with those charges, most commonly for sharing, but for possessing too-- that's right, a prosecutor in NC actually had the gall to charge a 17 year old and his gf with exploitation of a minor for possessing naked pictures of themselves (distinct from the various other charges for sending and having their partners pics), in just one example of this obscene abuse of the law. If you think that's crazy, the insanity didn't even stop there: the boy was charged as an adult!
This country has completely lost its shit over teenage sexuality since it's been combined with technology. Probably because childhood has been extended so far that people don't recognize the difference between 17 and 7, so are equally freaked out by sex with the two ages.

Comment Re:Well yes duh (Score 3, Informative) 279

Of course by "proves" you mean "claims with no evidence and simply has to say 'yes we own that' again with no evidence if you appeal, even if you prove they don't even own the copyright to what they're saying they do" right? Then if you attract enough attention through the media to get their PR department to notice, or hire a lawyer and start fighting just on principle, they might finally relent, but the false claimant gets to keep the revenue they've made in the first few weeks/months, which accounts for most of what will be made.
And they're still not doing enough to stop infringement according to "rightsholders", who have access to the system to monetize/takedown videos under their control with no oversight or repercussions for false and even outright fraudulent claims.

Comment Re:reality time (Score 1) 197

Um, that sounded like sarcasm to me. Apart from those on suicide watch/psychiatric lockdown (and possibly supermax type facilities for the very violent, but I'm not familiar with them), prisoners do get bleach when they're on cleaning details, and do get razors to shave with*. Healthy balanced diet not so much, which is why those other two seemed like sarcasm. Inmates on work details sometimes even have access to [gasp] box cutters and knives.. it's almost like they're people instead of animals!

* - and the one suicide attempt I saw, the dude didn't even use the razor, he took apart a handheld radio from the commissary and sharpened some of the electronics on the inside. It would have worked too if the CO didn't notice so quick, dude lost A LOT of blood (which, by the way, inmates then cleaned up with bleach and one of those deadly soap balls).

Comment Re:Justice v. Executive (Score 1) 105

The consequences was the arrest of over 100 pedophiles.

And according to the official rationale, the re-victimization of thousands of abused children.

They did not run the website.

They absolutely did. They seized control and moved the site to their own servers, where they continued full operation. Their servers managed by their IT staff served abuse pics, accepted new members, accepted and distributed new pictures... everything.

They basically created a honey pot to collect information on any visitors.

They had to serve existing content and allow new content to do this? Never been an issue before with just not serving the real deal.

Law enforcement agencies engage in undercover actions all the time. One example is when undercover agents buy a few kilos of cocaine to go after the dealer. Purchasing the drugs does not mean they are dealing drugs. Buys of this nature go right into the evidence lockers and are eventually destroyed when no longer needed. anymore

But that's not what happened here. Imagine the officers bought those few kilos and sold it to thousands of men, women, and children, then just turned around and arrested 1% of them, long after they had consumed the content and in all likelihood sold it along to more people.

I imagine in this case that the entire website will be saved as evidence. Depending on where the site was hosted they will go after any server logs related to this site.

Which is what they should have done exclusively instead of becoming the administrators of a large scale child exploitation site.

Every thing they did in this investigation so far was perfectly legal.

According to a single low level judge. It's far from clear and far from resolved. There's material omissions in the warrant application alone that could invalidate the whole thing, like not mentioning they planned to take up serving images for 2 weeks (and it's pretty damn close to one of those 'general warrants' our founders hated so much; broad discretion to hack into and search an unspecified number of unknown people many of which were even outside US jurisdiction). *If* this practice stands, it's only because the clearly illegal nature was ignored for the benefit of catching pedophiles.

And you do realize you are actually support the suspected pedophiles? You are going after the FBI instead of the pedophiles. You are awarding the pedophiles the benefit of a doubt while giving none what so ever to the law enforcement agencies in this case.

And you're saying it's perfectly legal and ok for the FBI to victimize children in pursuit of people who viewed images. You've misstated their actions in clear bias towards being an authoritarian assclown who thinks any means are justified if the government says so, damn the implications, damn the victims, damn the victims families, damn due process, damn the law, damn the constitution, damn the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty', and damn the children whose records of horrific abuse were distributed to even more people by their very own government. Piss off. And nice job hiding behind AC.

Comment Re:1,300 seems a bit low (Score 1) 105

The exploit almost certainly required Javascript to be enabled like the last time they did this.. This effected people stupid enough to turn it on, and those stupid enough to not turn it off for the versions where it was enabled by default (and not update). Which makes what the FBI did even worse, because they had no realistic chance of even catching a large percent of US-based users. 1,300 should actually be appreciated as a huge number considering the small percentage of people smart enough to get on tor and locate such a site, but not smart enough to realize that visiting the most evil, illegal place on the whole of the internet with js enabled was just not a terribly good idea.

Comment Re:Not Really a Textualist (Score 4, Interesting) 1105

If you think that's bad, just look at his rulings in criminal justice. You have to be absolutely delusional to claim that the constitution text and founders intent allows the federal government to criminalize (i.e. enforced at gunpoint by a federal police force) a plant grown in your own home and used only by you done legally under state law (Gonzales v. Raich, decided 5-4 with Scalia concurring), an interpretation of the commerce clause that contradicted his previous opinions- when it involved guns he found the commerce clause meant something entirely different. He started with a partisan conclusion, then worked backwards to find support, frequently twisting logic beyond its breaking point.

Comment Re:This is crazy... (Score 2) 301

The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.

You're saying people have sex with children just to get some high fives online? It's illogical on its face. They might be more likely to record it if they're already doing it, but that's about it. Commercial transactions are an entirely different issue. Also, some people enjoy watching children beaten and brutally murdered. But that's legal (as long as the child isn't naked) to possess pictures/videos of. People get off on adults being raped too, but videos of that are legal. If viewing encourages the act, why aren't things like that illegal? Or maybe we should arrest anyone who has adult porn they can't find signed affidavits of affirmative consent for? The laws banning CP were created when most of it was purchased. When that was no longer the case they made up other rationales with little evidence and zero discussion of whether such a thin link was worth a massive infringement on freedom (destroying someones life because of data they possess) because why on earth would LE ever want to give up the massive power and carte blanche to ignore half the constitution that came with it. If it was really about protecting victims of crimes or that viewing encouraged crimes, a whole host of other things would be illegal.
You mentioned cartoons filling demand, but that doesn't go far enough: some studies have even indicated legal possession of already-created freely acquired CP (i.e. no realistic contribution to market) can actually satisfy a pedo so they don't go out and actually molest a kid, at a better success rate than completely abstaining from viewing such images. However disgusting CP is, if it prevents pedos from becoming child molesters at a higher rate than it encourages them to, the net result is less children hurt-- and that should be the goal, and right now it's not: we're far more interested in the low-hanging fruit of viewers.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped