Bullshit, this guy is an American hero. If there are children, then the caregiver should get a reasonable amount of support from the spouse. If there are no children involved the spouse shouldn't get shit other than what she brought into the marriage and some portion of joint assets reasonably claimed as having been earned by by parties.
After spending 14 years in prison I would burn that money on video and send her the video before letting her have a penny of it.
Whatever. Most of you dorks have a box or two at home, and some of you have some small number of Linux machines at work. I work in a corporation with several thousand Linux machines and an intricate set of dependencies which means we can't just go out and install Linux patches at a whim.
So quit pretending everything is all rosy. Most of you are Linux hobbyists with no idea how things work in the real world.
Exactly. Finally someone on here who knows what he's talking about. Two issues - one was dereferencing a null and then trying to pretend compiler shouldn't have removed a post-facto test for it in heavy optimization. Second was having the gall to claim an IMPLICIT CAST of a pointer to a (what, int or bool?) should still have triggered some magic "but I know they really mean to use this as a pointer!" logic in the magic C compiler they apparently want to use.
No it's not. About all a C compiler can typically do is check if a variable is _never_ assigned and maybe warn about possible null pointer being used.
For being a bunch of Linux nerds, you all have a poor grasp of C/C++. That coder made a few mistakes. First, he used an implicit cast of a pointer to an int/bool. Second, he did the check after the pointer was dereferenced.
C is a dangerous language, and you can't blame it on the compiler. In a modern language like Java/C# this never would have even compiled. But of course you can't write a mainstream UNIX kernel in C# or Java.
You're like those neo-con retards and Christians. They like to pretend they are suffering from some kind of persecution when the facts clearly point out they are not. Indeed, Christians are a majority in this country but if you ask them they'll swear they're persecuted by the "librul eleet" [sic].
Any idiot can spend 2 minutes on Slashdot and see that it's dominated by old Linux nerds who resent, fear, and don't understand Windows.
Why would they market to a bunch of closed minded tech dinosaur dweebs? Are you going to "win over" a bunch of slobbering Linux-only retards? Seriously?
Bullshit. MS puts a high priority on any security issue. In addition, Windows has a built in patch distribution process that works very well. It will be ages and ages before a majority of Linux machines running this kernel version are updated.
C does not support threading. If this code breaks because of threading it is not the compiler's fault. This is not a compiler bug, and the correct behavior includes optimizing this away. It would be _nice_ if it warned.
Oh nonsense. You have no idea of the root cause of most Windows exploits. In fact, it would be interesting if you would get in your Way Back machine and point out the last time windows had an F'ING KERNEL exploit. Jesus.
At the OS level, anyone with half a brain can guess that Linux is probably less secure than Windows. It's all the shit that runs on Windows that has the issue. Yet you apologists all come on and act like any kind of Linux flaw is just some odd anomaly and easily explained away.
What's worse, how long will this exploit live in the wild? You'll all foam at the mouth how quickly it will be patch. OK. That's nice and all, but how long until it's disseminated on say 90% of Linux machines exhibiting the flaw? And I'm sure, being Linux, this won't take a reboot right? (I'm joking on that last one - of course it will).
People think "at work" is some special "zone" that's somehow owned by we, the people or the big nanny government. It's not. These laws are all stupid and unconstitutional. Alas, we're stuck with them so they should only be used in the most blatant cases.
Oh bullshit. You should have gone to the police. Why should _you_ get money out of something like this when some poor guy or woman who gets raped by unknown assailants in the alley gets jack shit? Civil law in this country shouldn't be used to right all wrongs, it should be used in cases of fraud or negligence. The criminal code is intended for stuff like assault.
What part of "the multibillion dollar insurance industry has people who do this for a living who are far, far better at it than you" don't you understand? They are not "guessing". They have numbers and math to back up their expectations of risk. I'm not sure why you are arguing with the grandparent's unarguable post.
Ahh. You think Linux is a representative OS. There's your problem.
Microsoft has this thing called quality control (insert Micro$haft joke here). Third parties rely on the Windows OS not to just change overnight. There could be all kinds of software out there that does depend on the actual IE executable. Bad software? Sure. But it doesn't matter when it breaks - lots of people will bitch.
You're right, MS can't "pull out" of the EU. They can however close all their sites in the EU except for a few small sales and marketing sites. Really enough is enough - these tin pot bureaucrats are simply shaking down US companies to fill their own coffers. And yes, a few billion dollars is a lot of money for a single EU regulatory commission to bring in. I wonder... does that fine money go to pay their own salaries, fund their buildings, let them live high on the hog? I'm kidding - of course it does. And it brings in a good chunk of change to a region which is realizing it will fail under the weight of its own socialist policies in conjunction with population growth and demographic shifts.
Frankly - couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of assholes. Have fun watching your socialist utopia crumble around you, but don't worry the US is moving in that direction too and it will happen here in the not too distant future.
You're using the interpretation of the law as a definition of the law to defend the law? Brilliant, kiddo. There is no browser market, and the intent of monopoly law is not to hog-tie a company so they can't compete. Only deranged EU socialists think a company shouldn't be able to deliver a product with features substantially similar to their competitors because of their alleged "monopoly" status. Deranged EU socialists and groupthink SlashDot Linux dweebs, that is.
There was no crime. There was an interpretation by a board of bureaucrats that they didn't "like" MS's business dealings. They then applied very high level, generalized "laws" and decided to implement a fine. It was a kangaroo court involved in a shakedown.
And don't let the "but to the EU this fine was a very small amount". No, it wasn't. $1.3 billion dollars is a lot of money, it's especially a lot of money to be coming in as revenue credited to a fairly small board of EU bureaucrat scum.
Says... the market? Every other OS vendor? If you're a socialist and lie that MS has some kind of monopoly, even that doesn't mean MS can't do something every other vendor does. Want to prevent them from forcing a company to buy "all or nothing" with MS OS's because they have a "monopoly"? Fine. Preventing them from selling a product with features competitive with other OS's? Silly.
The EU are a bunch of bureaucrats and the citizens they represent will get to pay the price. If I were MS I would close down all sites in the EU and fire all employees other than ones essential to get the product sold there.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit, this guy is an American hero. If there are children, then the caregiver should get a reasonable amount of support from the spouse. If there are no children involved the spouse shouldn't get shit other than what she brought into the marriage and some portion of joint assets reasonably claimed as having been earned by by parties.
After spending 14 years in prison I would burn that money on video and send her the video before letting her have a penny of it.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Do you think C has some special logic for (!x) to check (x != null)? No. (!x) checks if X is 0 or nonzero. Period.
Tun is being checked for zero or nonzero.
God you people are clueless. Do you think that list has anything to do with corporate computing?
Whatever. Most of you dorks have a box or two at home, and some of you have some small number of Linux machines at work. I work in a corporation with several thousand Linux machines and an intricate set of dependencies which means we can't just go out and install Linux patches at a whim.
So quit pretending everything is all rosy. Most of you are Linux hobbyists with no idea how things work in the real world.
Exactly. Finally someone on here who knows what he's talking about. Two issues - one was dereferencing a null and then trying to pretend compiler shouldn't have removed a post-facto test for it in heavy optimization. Second was having the gall to claim an IMPLICIT CAST of a pointer to a (what, int or bool?) should still have triggered some magic "but I know they really mean to use this as a pointer!" logic in the magic C compiler they apparently want to use.
No it's not. About all a C compiler can typically do is check if a variable is _never_ assigned and maybe warn about possible null pointer being used.
For being a bunch of Linux nerds, you all have a poor grasp of C/C++. That coder made a few mistakes. First, he used an implicit cast of a pointer to an int/bool. Second, he did the check after the pointer was dereferenced.
C is a dangerous language, and you can't blame it on the compiler. In a modern language like Java/C# this never would have even compiled. But of course you can't write a mainstream UNIX kernel in C# or Java.
It is being dereferenced.
Yeah....about that...no.
struct sock *sk = tun->sk; // initialize sk with tun->sk
if (!tun)
return POLLERR; // if tun is NULL return error
There's no null check. 'tun' is literally being checked for 0 or not 0. I don't know why you're blathering on about nonzero NULL values.
Because... so many people know the C language? And you clearly don't?
You're like those neo-con retards and Christians. They like to pretend they are suffering from some kind of persecution when the facts clearly point out they are not. Indeed, Christians are a majority in this country but if you ask them they'll swear they're persecuted by the "librul eleet" [sic].
Any idiot can spend 2 minutes on Slashdot and see that it's dominated by old Linux nerds who resent, fear, and don't understand Windows.
Why would they market to a bunch of closed minded tech dinosaur dweebs? Are you going to "win over" a bunch of slobbering Linux-only retards? Seriously?
Yes. In the server market. You people who think "server market" means "Internet web servers run by some Joe Schmoe".
Microsoft dominates in the corporate server environment, you clueless git.
Bullshit. MS puts a high priority on any security issue. In addition, Windows has a built in patch distribution process that works very well. It will be ages and ages before a majority of Linux machines running this kernel version are updated.
C does not support threading. If this code breaks because of threading it is not the compiler's fault. This is not a compiler bug, and the correct behavior includes optimizing this away. It would be _nice_ if it warned.
This is not a GCC bug.
Oh nonsense. You have no idea of the root cause of most Windows exploits. In fact, it would be interesting if you would get in your Way Back machine and point out the last time windows had an F'ING KERNEL exploit. Jesus.
At the OS level, anyone with half a brain can guess that Linux is probably less secure than Windows. It's all the shit that runs on Windows that has the issue. Yet you apologists all come on and act like any kind of Linux flaw is just some odd anomaly and easily explained away.
What's worse, how long will this exploit live in the wild? You'll all foam at the mouth how quickly it will be patch. OK. That's nice and all, but how long until it's disseminated on say 90% of Linux machines exhibiting the flaw? And I'm sure, being Linux, this won't take a reboot right? (I'm joking on that last one - of course it will).
Double standard indeed.
People think "at work" is some special "zone" that's somehow owned by we, the people or the big nanny government. It's not. These laws are all stupid and unconstitutional. Alas, we're stuck with them so they should only be used in the most blatant cases.
Oh bullshit. You should have gone to the police. Why should _you_ get money out of something like this when some poor guy or woman who gets raped by unknown assailants in the alley gets jack shit? Civil law in this country shouldn't be used to right all wrongs, it should be used in cases of fraud or negligence. The criminal code is intended for stuff like assault.
What part of "the multibillion dollar insurance industry has people who do this for a living who are far, far better at it than you" don't you understand? They are not "guessing". They have numbers and math to back up their expectations of risk. I'm not sure why you are arguing with the grandparent's unarguable post.
Only on Slashdot...
Ahh. You think Linux is a representative OS. There's your problem.
Microsoft has this thing called quality control (insert Micro$haft joke here). Third parties rely on the Windows OS not to just change overnight. There could be all kinds of software out there that does depend on the actual IE executable. Bad software? Sure. But it doesn't matter when it breaks - lots of people will bitch.
You're right, MS can't "pull out" of the EU. They can however close all their sites in the EU except for a few small sales and marketing sites. Really enough is enough - these tin pot bureaucrats are simply shaking down US companies to fill their own coffers. And yes, a few billion dollars is a lot of money for a single EU regulatory commission to bring in. I wonder... does that fine money go to pay their own salaries, fund their buildings, let them live high on the hog? I'm kidding - of course it does. And it brings in a good chunk of change to a region which is realizing it will fail under the weight of its own socialist policies in conjunction with population growth and demographic shifts.
Frankly - couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of assholes. Have fun watching your socialist utopia crumble around you, but don't worry the US is moving in that direction too and it will happen here in the not too distant future.
You're using the interpretation of the law as a definition of the law to defend the law? Brilliant, kiddo. There is no browser market, and the intent of monopoly law is not to hog-tie a company so they can't compete. Only deranged EU socialists think a company shouldn't be able to deliver a product with features substantially similar to their competitors because of their alleged "monopoly" status. Deranged EU socialists and groupthink SlashDot Linux dweebs, that is.
There was no crime. There was an interpretation by a board of bureaucrats that they didn't "like" MS's business dealings. They then applied very high level, generalized "laws" and decided to implement a fine. It was a kangaroo court involved in a shakedown.
And don't let the "but to the EU this fine was a very small amount". No, it wasn't. $1.3 billion dollars is a lot of money, it's especially a lot of money to be coming in as revenue credited to a fairly small board of EU bureaucrat scum.
Says... the market? Every other OS vendor? If you're a socialist and lie that MS has some kind of monopoly, even that doesn't mean MS can't do something every other vendor does. Want to prevent them from forcing a company to buy "all or nothing" with MS OS's because they have a "monopoly"? Fine. Preventing them from selling a product with features competitive with other OS's? Silly.
The EU are a bunch of bureaucrats and the citizens they represent will get to pay the price. If I were MS I would close down all sites in the EU and fire all employees other than ones essential to get the product sold there.