Nobody was talking about either pre-2000 compilers or about C++ compilers, let alone pre-2000 C++ compilers, so whether those were written in assembly, C, C++, or even Fortran or any other language is not relevant.
C compilers haven't been written in machine code or even assembly for a long time, aside from a rare few. They've been written in C themselves for a while, but today's most common C compilers are written in C++.
Just because they have the right to sue doesn't mean the suit will be successful, it just means it's not obvious whether the suit has merit and should get before a judge. Yes, it's a broad interpretation, but not so broad that we already know beforehand how a judge would rule.
I'm the only one living in my house and I have a static IP address. Both my physical address and my IP address do identify me. You cannot know just by looking at them whether they identify a person, and that by itself should already be reason enough to treat them as potential personal data.
That said, you're being inconsistent. Date of birth does not identify a person. Date of birth in combination with other facts may. Party affiliation does not identify a person. Party affiliation in combination with other facts may. A physical address does not necessarily identify a person. That same address in combination with other facts may. An IP address does not necessarily identify a person. That same address in combination with other facts may.
You don't have to reserve memory and disk space like you do for a VM, you don't have the boot time of a VM, you can install Ubuntu's packages and have most of them actually work, even ones that haven't been tested, even without recompilation like for Cygwin, and you can safely read and write the files on the Windows side that you have access to. It's useful.
Used systems very likely have personal data on them. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the risk of letting malware or viruses be able to find anything like that.
"This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
Pulling support for Oculus Rift is also political and legal. If James Green doesn't support this just as well, then by his own logic, he is taking a position against American values.
My personal rule is that a goto should only ever go down the code and never into new blocks.
My personal rule is simpler: if the transition would make sense in a flowchart of what the code is meant to do, then it makes sense in the code. If the only way to write that transition is through the use of a goto statement, then it makes sense to use a goto statement. This generally allows a bit more than your personal rule, but requires the person writing the code to be capable of creating intelligible flowcharts. One thing your personal rule allows that mine doesn't is using goto to break out of an outer loop from within an inner loop in languages that have a break statement that supports this directly. I hope you agree that using goto in that case would not be the best approach.
Network access too, right? It wouldn't surprise me if there are default Windows network services that allow the Linux subsystem to effectively execute Win32 programs this way.
The post you responded to was about damages. If it turns out a vulnerability is found in Intel's CPUs, and you and I are using vulnerable CPUs, will Intel reimburse your and my cost (in part or in full) of patching, upgrading and/or replacing? The point of the post you responded to was if they're so confident the CPUs are "very secure", offering shouldn't do them any harm, and an unwillingness to attach a reasonable amount to that could be an indicator that the CPUs are not as secure as Intel say they are. (Note: I'm not sure yet whether I agree or disagree with that logic.)
Gawker had attempted to get the whole lawsuit dismissed, claiming the First Amendment allowed the publication. It was the judge, not the jury, that said no to that. If the judge had ruled otherwise, this never would have even got to a jury. But I did misspeak. The judge hadn't declared that it was illegal, merely that the Constitution didn't make it legal.
This isn't you or some private individual or company that's telling Gawker to shut up, this is a judge declaring that Gawker's publication was illegal under US law. The First Amendment is relevant. If the judge had ruled that Gawker's publication was constitutionally protected speech, the ruling would have been in Gawker's favour exactly because of the First Amendment.
That's what "or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State" is about. It's covered.
It's one paragraph in the law. It's easy to read. Don't jump to conclusions based on merely its title.
Looking for the closest analogies I can think of: what you say makes perfect sense so long as you also refer to the Earth, the Sun and the Moon.
Which the AP doesn't. They refer to the Earth, the sun and the moon. They appear to drop the capitalisation when it's not or no longer recognised by the general public as a name.
I'm not saying I care much for their style guide myself, but dropping the capitalisation of internet and web appears to play well with their views.
Beginning January 12, 2016, only the most current version of Internet Explorer available for a supported operating system will receive technical supports and security updates.
This would mean that IE9 will remain supported on Vista. According to Windows lifecycle fact sheet, Vista's support doesn't end until April 2017, and IE9 is the most current version of Internet Explorer available for Vista.
This is the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) for the Wine (WINdows Emulator) project.
1. What is Wine? What is it supposed to do?
The word Wine stands for WINdows Emulator. It is both a program loader
and an emulation library that will allow Unix users to run MS Windows
applications in a Unix environment. The program loader will load and
execute an MS Windows application binary, while the emulation library will
take calls to MS Windows functions and translate these into calls to
Unix/X, so that equivalent functionality is achieved.
You could use HTML5 local storage. Unlike cookies, the local storage is not sent to the server, so client-side JavaScript can use it to disable cookie banners in a way that isn't subject to those anti-tracking laws that prompted the cookie banners. Depending on the country, perhaps.
Back in August, the ILT (the responsible party) had already been sending out warnings to drivers that what they were doing was illegal and that they could be fined up to EUR 4200. Source (in Dutch). If it has taken more than a month for them to actually fine anyone, I'd say they've been very lenient, at least based on the current laws.
It means 60% on that list are suspected of having terrorist ties. It does not mean they really do have terrorist ties, and it does not mean the suspicion is reasonable. In other words, that 60% would need to be further categorised before it becomes a meaningful statistic.
The 40% on the other hand is already a meaningful statistic.
True, and making a useful -Wunreachable-code option for C is easier than for C++, but it's still significantly more difficult than for Java. For one thing, C has no abnormal returns, it has regular function calls that cause an abnormal return as a side effect, and in some cases, even in well-written C code, it is difficult for the compiler to statically determine whether those functions are called. For another, C has thousands (probably even more) of programs that have already been written without taking the not-yet-existing warnings into account, and users expect a new version of the compiler to not give too many bogus warnings. In contrast, Java was able to emit a warning right from the start, and programs have been modified to take the warning into account, to re-work the code if the compiler warns, even if the warning is not correct (logically speaking; it may still be correct based on the spec).
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody was talking about either pre-2000 compilers or about C++ compilers, let alone pre-2000 C++ compilers, so whether those were written in assembly, C, C++, or even Fortran or any other language is not relevant.
C compilers haven't been written in machine code or even assembly for a long time, aside from a rare few. They've been written in C themselves for a while, but today's most common C compilers are written in C++.
Just because they have the right to sue doesn't mean the suit will be successful, it just means it's not obvious whether the suit has merit and should get before a judge. Yes, it's a broad interpretation, but not so broad that we already know beforehand how a judge would rule.
I'm the only one living in my house and I have a static IP address. Both my physical address and my IP address do identify me. You cannot know just by looking at them whether they identify a person, and that by itself should already be reason enough to treat them as potential personal data. That said, you're being inconsistent. Date of birth does not identify a person. Date of birth in combination with other facts may. Party affiliation does not identify a person. Party affiliation in combination with other facts may. A physical address does not necessarily identify a person. That same address in combination with other facts may. An IP address does not necessarily identify a person. That same address in combination with other facts may.
The limitations are in unimplemented or incompletely implemented syscalls. If your interpreter runs, your custom scripts are likely to run as well.
You don't have to reserve memory and disk space like you do for a VM, you don't have the boot time of a VM, you can install Ubuntu's packages and have most of them actually work, even ones that haven't been tested, even without recompilation like for Cygwin, and you can safely read and write the files on the Windows side that you have access to. It's useful.
"through legitimate WinRAR and TrueCrypt installers"? By what logic are those installers legitimate?
Used systems very likely have personal data on them. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the risk of letting malware or viruses be able to find anything like that.
Pulling support for Oculus Rift is also political and legal. If James Green doesn't support this just as well, then by his own logic, he is taking a position against American values.
My personal rule is simpler: if the transition would make sense in a flowchart of what the code is meant to do, then it makes sense in the code. If the only way to write that transition is through the use of a goto statement, then it makes sense to use a goto statement. This generally allows a bit more than your personal rule, but requires the person writing the code to be capable of creating intelligible flowcharts. One thing your personal rule allows that mine doesn't is using goto to break out of an outer loop from within an inner loop in languages that have a break statement that supports this directly. I hope you agree that using goto in that case would not be the best approach.
Network access too, right? It wouldn't surprise me if there are default Windows network services that allow the Linux subsystem to effectively execute Win32 programs this way.
The post you responded to was about damages. If it turns out a vulnerability is found in Intel's CPUs, and you and I are using vulnerable CPUs, will Intel reimburse your and my cost (in part or in full) of patching, upgrading and/or replacing? The point of the post you responded to was if they're so confident the CPUs are "very secure", offering shouldn't do them any harm, and an unwillingness to attach a reasonable amount to that could be an indicator that the CPUs are not as secure as Intel say they are. (Note: I'm not sure yet whether I agree or disagree with that logic.)
Gawker had attempted to get the whole lawsuit dismissed, claiming the First Amendment allowed the publication. It was the judge, not the jury, that said no to that. If the judge had ruled otherwise, this never would have even got to a jury. But I did misspeak. The judge hadn't declared that it was illegal, merely that the Constitution didn't make it legal.
This isn't you or some private individual or company that's telling Gawker to shut up, this is a judge declaring that Gawker's publication was illegal under US law. The First Amendment is relevant. If the judge had ruled that Gawker's publication was constitutionally protected speech, the ruling would have been in Gawker's favour exactly because of the First Amendment.
That's what "or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State" is about. It's covered. It's one paragraph in the law. It's easy to read. Don't jump to conclusions based on merely its title.
It should be "an internet" rather than "a internet". It's that part that was likely a typo.
Looking for the closest analogies I can think of: what you say makes perfect sense so long as you also refer to the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. Which the AP doesn't. They refer to the Earth, the sun and the moon. They appear to drop the capitalisation when it's not or no longer recognised by the general public as a name. I'm not saying I care much for their style guide myself, but dropping the capitalisation of internet and web appears to play well with their views.
This would mean that IE9 will remain supported on Vista. According to Windows lifecycle fact sheet, Vista's support doesn't end until April 2017, and IE9 is the most current version of Internet Explorer available for Vista.
Are you perhaps thinking of C? Its meaning of NULL is nothing like SQL's.
You could use HTML5 local storage. Unlike cookies, the local storage is not sent to the server, so client-side JavaScript can use it to disable cookie banners in a way that isn't subject to those anti-tracking laws that prompted the cookie banners. Depending on the country, perhaps.
Surely harassment doesn't suddenly become acceptable if it's done to someone you agree with (but just don't like or respect)?
Back in August, the ILT (the responsible party) had already been sending out warnings to drivers that what they were doing was illegal and that they could be fined up to EUR 4200. Source (in Dutch). If it has taken more than a month for them to actually fine anyone, I'd say they've been very lenient, at least based on the current laws.
It means 60% on that list are suspected of having terrorist ties. It does not mean they really do have terrorist ties, and it does not mean the suspicion is reasonable. In other words, that 60% would need to be further categorised before it becomes a meaningful statistic.
The 40% on the other hand is already a meaningful statistic.
True, and making a useful -Wunreachable-code option for C is easier than for C++, but it's still significantly more difficult than for Java. For one thing, C has no abnormal returns, it has regular function calls that cause an abnormal return as a side effect, and in some cases, even in well-written C code, it is difficult for the compiler to statically determine whether those functions are called. For another, C has thousands (probably even more) of programs that have already been written without taking the not-yet-existing warnings into account, and users expect a new version of the compiler to not give too many bogus warnings. In contrast, Java was able to emit a warning right from the start, and programs have been modified to take the warning into account, to re-work the code if the compiler warns, even if the warning is not correct (logically speaking; it may still be correct based on the spec).