Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Ridiculous (Score 2) 38

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.

Comment Re: Yes? (Score 1) 163

Now I have some scripts from Bob my coworker uses and some custom XML APIs for PHP to get my web app up. Will they work? Probably not.

The limitations are in unimplemented or incompletely implemented syscalls. If your interpreter runs, your custom scripts are likely to run as well.

Comment Re:Yes? (Score 1) 163

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.

Comment Hypocrite much? (Score 2) 657

"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.

Comment Re:Goto (Score 2) 674

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.

Comment Re:Stop worrying (Score 1) 245

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.)

Comment Re:1st Amendment? (Score 1) 284

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.

Comment Re:1st Amendment? (Score 1) 284

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem. -- Peer