That'd be Fortran. Code generally had to start in column 7. But that had nothing to do with loops or conditional structure. Fortran code isn't generally indented to show structure. After all, it was hard to write; it should be hard to read. (More reasonably, since code is limited to columns 7-72, there's not much space to be wasted on frills like indentation.)

For values of "works" equal to "appears to work while looking a hell of a lot like malware" anyway.

Perhaps the OP wants something more trustworthy than a black box labeled "trust us" and signed by people whose deviousness is pretty well substantiated by this here story.

Again, the warrant should only give MLB an out on the promise of confidentiality. "Anonymous and confidential" means anonymous AND confidential. They're two different things; you can't say "this is anonymous because we'll just never tell anyone whose name is attached to it." That's just confidentiality. The only way it's anonymous is if nobody - not just "nobody but a privileged few" - can determine whose it is.

That's the whole point of "anonymous and confidential": if the confidentiality is breached, either legally (as in this case) or not, the anonymity is supposed to be the backup.

They're suing over the loss of confidentiality. As near as I can tell, the fact that the loss of confidentiality was able to have any effect on them at all is because there never was any of the promised anonymity. The government is not the only party who did something wrong here.

A promise that information will remain anonymous is not a promise to destroy all information relating to identity.

Well, yeah, actually, it kinda is. That's what anonymous means.

There are protocols that could allow for retesting without the testing or collecting parties needing to know anything about the identity of the party being tested. The simplest one I can think of off the top of my head: randomly issue a sheet of identically numbered labels to each participating player, without tracking which player gets which labels, and have each player apply one of their labels to each test sample. Obviously, there might need to be additional protocols in place to prevent correlation of labels with players after the fact, but the point is that it's a solved problem, and one that the medical testing community has dealt with before.

I'm not saying the players should sue for the breach of confidentiality; there's really nothing that can be done about that. But there was never any serious attempt made at anonymity, despite promises that the data would be both anonymous AND confidential, and that should be a concern.

From the article:

The players were assured that the results would remain anonymous and confidential

So the question is, why isn't the players' union suing Major League Baseball for breach of contract? Anonymous and confidential is not the same as identifiable but confidential; if the results actually had been anonymous as promised, this breach never could have happened.

But the context of the discussion was that the object code should be flawless. In that case, whether the tools that turn source code into object code have bugs turns out to be relevant.

And I didn't say int main(void) was wrong or bad; what I intended to imply was that some compiler might have only been properly tested for the more common argc/argv prototype. Heck, it might not have been tested at all; as another poster mentions it might be a bug in all code the compiler generates.

and skype

So even the embedded OS hasn't managed to avoid a malware infection, then?

Are you sure your compiler doesn't have any bugs that might be exacerbated by, say, a main that doesn't take any arguments?

It can be, depending on the cable and the motherboard.

Some IDE cables have a filled hole in the female connector that aligns with a missing pin on the male connector. Some cables have a bulge on the female connector body that aligns with a slot in the male connector body. Some cables have neither, and some motherboards (especially cheap ones) don't have the plastic shroud surrounding the male connector, allowing the cables with bulges to be plugged in either way (and potentially off by one or more pins in either direction, too.)

You cut out the part where I mentioned that the same problem exists in the GP's referer-based "solution."

But EOT actually has other functionality that makes it harder to just borrow someone else's font like you'd borrow their images today: subsetting. Of course, back in the bad old days when only Microsoft knew how to make an EOT font, that was a big pain for the person creating the website, but now that the file format is public there should presumably be all manner of tools that can automatically subset fonts as needed.

Or, well, there would be if some browser besides IE supported EOT.

That's a problem that's already been solved for people using subsetted fonts in the EOT format, to the extent that you can trust the user's web browser (which is also true of anyone checking referers.)

Obviously, you only give out example+real@gmail.com to those you trust.

Who then put it in their address books, which get sent to the spammers regularly thanks to all that spyware they're running.

I get spam to hundreds of addresses at my domain that have never existed, because those addresses were forged as the senders on spam email. Someone out there is harvesting email addresses from people's inboxes, or that wouldn't happen.

The announcement showed up on Newsguy's servers, too. Seriously, if AT&T sucked so bad at Usenet that they couldn't keep their 'private' announcements in-house, maybe it's just as well.

Speaking of which, Newsguy is pretty darned awesome, in my experience (which is admittedly limited, in that I've only had an account with them since Scumcast dropped their Usenet service a little under a year ago.)

Though that's not stated in the GPL in so many words it is stated in the FAQ.

(Also, it's worth nothing that GPLv3 does away with the term 'distribution.' There's a FAQ about that, too.)