Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Not entirely true (Score 5, Informative) 250

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.

Comment Re:wine (Score 2) 119

References help. Here's the oldest copy of the Wine FAQ I could find:

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.

Comment Re:Yeah that will work (Score 1) 114

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.

Comment Re:Bullying (Score 4, Interesting) 282

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.

Comment Re:So 60% positive ? (Score 4, Insightful) 256

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.

Comment Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! (Score 1) 739

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).

Comment Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! (Score 1) 739

gcc used to have an -Wunreachable-code option, but it depended too heavily on the exact optimisations enabled, so you could never tell what it would and wouldn't warn about, so that was dropped in 4.5. gcc 4.4 and earlier were capable of warning about this. clang does still have a warning for this, with a somewhat different approach so that it should be far more reliable, and the option name is the same as what gcc used to have. It is still not reliable enough to get enabled by default, though, unfortunately.

C++ is simply a significantly more complex language than Java. This sometimes has its advantages, but it also has disadvantages, and unreachable code detection is one of the major disadvantages: there are just too many examples where the compiler can tell that code is unreachable, and optimise accordingly, but the developer won't want a warning. For a simple example, a check that a function parameter value is negative may appear in a template function, but if the parameter type is dependent, and in the only particular instantiation in the program it happens to be unsigned, then the code will clearly be unreachable, but should most likely not be removed. This is much less of a problem for Java, since Java does not have templates. It does have generics, but generics work differently, and suffer much less from this problem.

Comment Re:Everyone on the underhanded snooping bandwagon? (Score 1) 113

I do not know enough about the FCC investigation to comment on that part, but a cover-up attempt is definitely not what is happening. No one would have even known about this if Google had not voluntarily come forward with the information. Here is the blog post from four years ago, from Google themselves, and they did in fact work with relevant agencies in various countries to determine how to fix the mess they caused.

Comment Re:Everyone on the underhanded snooping bandwagon? (Score 4, Informative) 113

FTFA: "Google has admitted that its camera-equipped Street View cars inadvertently captured emails, passwords and other data from unprotected wireless networks as they drove by." The key word that should make all the difference is "inadvertently". It's up to you to choose whether you believe it (I do), but they claim they weren't looking at the private data at all, and only found out later that it had got recorded along with the data that was supposed to be recorded.

Comment Re:Preposterous (Score 2) 288

Another fun one is a password containing a backslash. To make matters worse, the customer support is not willing to reset the password, because the web site offers a way to retrieve the password already via e-mail, despite the fact that entering the exact password as it appears in the e-mail does not work. And the fact that the password can be retrieved at all (instead of only reset) is not a good sign either.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries