I don't really understand why it should be hard to Zoom - as you describe it - right. You as programmer know about the content within the window, so you have all the information.
Zoom/maximise is normally handled by the GUI, not the programmer who wrote the app.
On OS X, zoom normally makes the Window exactly as big as it needs to be to lose the scroll bars or to reach the edge of the screen.
When I'am writing a paper I just want to concentrate on the text. So I really want to get rid of as much distraction as possible.
alt-command-h is your best option (hide others). It's not perfect because you can still see the dock and the desktop, but I guess you can hide the dock and not put anything on your desktop.
Personally I prefer narrow windows because text is easier to read in narrow columns.
The main house is not very nice. It's an architectural mish mash and is about as ugly as a stately home could be. Were it not for its historical significance, it would have been levelled years ago and nobody would miss it.
I'm a regular reader of TDWTF and I can't recall a single example of a gross exaggeration by Alex that has been called out by the contributor. There are often examples of misunderstandings and ambiguities that have to be corrected by the contributor, but i suspect that most of the exaggeration is done before Alex sees the story.
That's experience. It turns out empirically that e-mail is reliable. People send hundreds of e-mails a week and almost none of them get lost. However, faxes get lost all the time particularly if the fax machine is not next to the recipient's desk.
1. Many people have a separate SMTP server (not MS Exchange) in their DMZ with no access to their list of valid users. I guess this is fixable with an LDAP look up.
2. This would be a great way for the spammer to harvest guaranteed real e-mail messages.
telnet somemailserver.com 25
Trying 123.123.123.123...
Connected to somemailserver.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 somemailserver.com ESMTP ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:49:11 +0100
ehlo fakedomain.com
250-somemailserver.com Hello [111.111.111.111], pleased to meet you
mail from: foo@fictional.com
250 2.1.0 foo@fictional.com... Sender ok
rcpt to: jeremya@somemailserver.com
550 5.1.1 jeremya@somemailserver.com... User unknown
rcpt to: jeremyb@somemailserver.com
550 5.1.1 jeremyb@somemailserver.com... User unknown
...
rcpt to: jeremyp@somemailserver.com
250 2.1.5 jeremyp@ somemailserver.com... Recipient ok
"Aha!" says the spammer, jeremyp is a real address.
Yes, it's one that requires some knowledge and self-discipline to own and use safely, but that's all it is
Isn't that the problem though. If a stranger approaches you with a gun, how do you know that they know how to handle it? What if they are a psycho, or worse, incompetent. It's quite possible that they might shoot you by accident.
Would that We the People spent as much time bitching about the poorly-trained drivers we have in this country as we do about gun owners.
If you see somebody coming towards you down the street in a car, you think nothing of it. If you see somebody coming towards you with a gun, you know they are expecting a confrontation that might go badly. That's the problem with guns, the situation gets escalated just by their mere presence.
In that case, the engine block would cool down to the point where the reaction wouldn't work even with the catalyst pretty quickly. A car engine needs to produce something of the order of 100kW. If the technology existed to allow a car to "suck out" 100kW from the environment, it would already be in use on the roof of every single house in the Western World and there would be no need for power stations.
Yes but they were at least found guilty by due process for something. The people in Guantanamo Bay have never been near a proper legal process. And currently in my country you can be detained for 28 days (42 days when the current act eventually goes through) without even being told why you are being held. I'm ashamed and embarrassed of the things my government is doing to dismantle basic freedoms. It's supposed to be to protect me, but this is the kind of protection I'd be happy to do without.
From where I sit in the UK, it took about 2,000 deaths to change the World. My country's army is involved in a war in Afghanistan as a direct consequence of 9/11. It looks like I'm going to have to carry an ID card as a direct consequence of 9/11. My government can put me in prison for up to 28 days (soon to be 42) without charge as a direct consequence of 9/11. I can't carry so much as a screwdriver onto a plane as a direct consequence of 9/11.
If you are the owner of this website, you may need to upgrade to a more advanced plan.
I really think Slashdot should try to avoid linking sites that only allow ten concurrent connections, although I admit I don't know how they could figure that out without doing some sort of stress test.
This is off topic. We are talking about cults here. So would you be arrested for obscenity for shouting "George Bush is a cult"? Or would you be arrested for poor spelling?
I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for MMO developers
I think it's because it's really hard to get it right. Even with WoW virtually every single patch tweaks aspects of the classes, presumably to improve balance.
As a DBA, my heart sinks at the thought of amateurs pawing through my database.
Why? What's wrong with it? Are you worried that the customer will post the schema at The Daily WTF?
Unfortunately, 'because you are stupid' is not considered a valid business reason to reject their request.
Actually, that is a valid reason if framed in the correct language. You can easily claim that unrestricted ad hoc queries might cause performance issues because it's true. (There are ways to get around this, if the customer is prepared to pay e.g. a replica database). However, that's not your reason for restricting access. Your real reason is you don't want the customer "pawing through the database", so it seems to me that you aren't worried that the customer is too stupid but that they are bright enough to recognise a poor DB design when they see one.
Anyway, if you are based in the UK and your database contains contains personal data, the point is probably moot since what your customer is asking for may be illegal under the DPA (seek proper legal advice at the customer's expense).
Absolutely the wrong thing to do. If you give them a huge list of reasons, they'll know you are doing it just to spite them.
You just need one really good reason and some sort of reasonable alternative.
e.g.
"Sorry I can't do that Dave, it would put us in breach of the Data Protection Act with respect to our other customers. How about we give you a daily dump of your part of the database (or replicate it, or provide a set of views).
If you can't think of a one really good reason why your customer shouldn't be allowed read only access to your database, why are you even contemplating saying no?
At least it actually can maximise windows, unlike OS X.
Incorrect. OS X can maximise windows (it's the green button, top left, with a + in it). The semantics are slightly different from Windows in that maxmise means make the window big enough to display all content or as big as the screen, whichever is the smaller.
Alien is one of the best sci fi movies ever made and one of the best horror moves. In some ways it was truly ground breaking. Aliens is the same but with more action, more aliens and more survivors. For that reason, I rate Alien better.
When judging those two films, however, you always have to take into account that without them, Aliens 3 and 4 would never have been made.
I disagree with the assumption that laws cannot cover every situation. It is entirely reasonable to think that we could make a much smaller set of laws that would cover every necessary situation.
Go on then. See if you can frame a law to cover murder for every necessary situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh god no, that is so wrong.
And you have so missed the point.
You haven't got rid of the complex structure, you have only obscured it. Not only that, but the break obfuscates the loop post condition.
My coding standards would completely ban the use of continue and only allow break in switch statements.
Ahh thanks.
I was going to ask what language the code fragment was written in because I've never seen a --> operator.
Zoom/maximise is normally handled by the GUI, not the programmer who wrote the app.
On OS X, zoom normally makes the Window exactly as big as it needs to be to lose the scroll bars or to reach the edge of the screen.
alt-command-h is your best option (hide others). It's not perfect because you can still see the dock and the desktop, but I guess you can hide the dock and not put anything on your desktop.
Personally I prefer narrow windows because text is easier to read in narrow columns.
The main house is not very nice. It's an architectural mish mash and is about as ugly as a stately home could be. Were it not for its historical significance, it would have been levelled years ago and nobody would miss it.
I'm a regular reader of TDWTF and I can't recall a single example of a gross exaggeration by Alex that has been called out by the contributor. There are often examples of misunderstandings and ambiguities that have to be corrected by the contributor, but i suspect that most of the exaggeration is done before Alex sees the story.
Why would they want to make cheap clones when they make the real Apples?
That's not true. In fact the transcript I posted is a sanitised version of a real SMTP conversation with a current version of Sendmail.
So the spammer disconnects after a while and tries again with a new connection.
He's probably using a botnet.
That's experience. It turns out empirically that e-mail is reliable. People send hundreds of e-mails a week and almost none of them get lost. However, faxes get lost all the time particularly if the fax machine is not next to the recipient's desk.
I see two problems here.
1. Many people have a separate SMTP server (not MS Exchange) in their DMZ with no access to their list of valid users. I guess this is fixable with an LDAP look up.
2. This would be a great way for the spammer to harvest guaranteed real e-mail messages.
telnet somemailserver.com 25Trying 123.123.123.123...
Connected to somemailserver.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 somemailserver.com ESMTP ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:49:11 +0100
ehlo fakedomain.com
250-somemailserver.com Hello [111.111.111.111], pleased to meet you
mail from: foo@fictional.com
250 2.1.0 foo@fictional.com... Sender ok
rcpt to: jeremya@somemailserver.com
550 5.1.1 jeremya@somemailserver.com... User unknown
rcpt to: jeremyb@somemailserver.com
550 5.1.1 jeremyb@somemailserver.com... User unknown
rcpt to: jeremyp@somemailserver.com
250 2.1.5 jeremyp@ somemailserver.com... Recipient ok
"Aha!" says the spammer, jeremyp is a real address.
In that case, the engine block would cool down to the point where the reaction wouldn't work even with the catalyst pretty quickly. A car engine needs to produce something of the order of 100kW. If the technology existed to allow a car to "suck out" 100kW from the environment, it would already be in use on the roof of every single house in the Western World and there would be no need for power stations.
Yes but they were at least found guilty by due process for something. The people in Guantanamo Bay have never been near a proper legal process. And currently in my country you can be detained for 28 days (42 days when the current act eventually goes through) without even being told why you are being held. I'm ashamed and embarrassed of the things my government is doing to dismantle basic freedoms. It's supposed to be to protect me, but this is the kind of protection I'd be happy to do without.
From where I sit in the UK, it took about 2,000 deaths to change the World. My country's army is involved in a war in Afghanistan as a direct consequence of 9/11. It looks like I'm going to have to carry an ID card as a direct consequence of 9/11. My government can put me in prison for up to 28 days (soon to be 42) without charge as a direct consequence of 9/11. I can't carry so much as a screwdriver onto a plane as a direct consequence of 9/11.
Yep, 9/11 had no effect whatsoever on the World.
You didn't read the definition of Nil properly. Any Nil program effectively compiles to a NOP
Good one. I can picture the scene at your local right now.
nbannerman walks into the bar. "Hey everybody, want to see the photos of my day out with the kids?"
Everybody else starts edging towards the door. "Love to mate, but we've all got some drying paint to watch... Run!
This is off topic. We are talking about cults here. So would you be arrested for obscenity for shouting "George Bush is a cult"? Or would you be arrested for poor spelling?
Actually, that is a valid reason if framed in the correct language. You can easily claim that unrestricted ad hoc queries might cause performance issues because it's true. (There are ways to get around this, if the customer is prepared to pay e.g. a replica database). However, that's not your reason for restricting access. Your real reason is you don't want the customer "pawing through the database", so it seems to me that you aren't worried that the customer is too stupid but that they are bright enough to recognise a poor DB design when they see one.
Anyway, if you are based in the UK and your database contains contains personal data, the point is probably moot since what your customer is asking for may be illegal under the DPA (seek proper legal advice at the customer's expense).
Absolutely the wrong thing to do. If you give them a huge list of reasons, they'll know you are doing it just to spite them.
You just need one really good reason and some sort of reasonable alternative.
e.g.
"Sorry I can't do that Dave, it would put us in breach of the Data Protection Act with respect to our other customers. How about we give you a daily dump of your part of the database (or replicate it, or provide a set of views).
If you can't think of a one really good reason why your customer shouldn't be allowed read only access to your database, why are you even contemplating saying no?
Alien is one of the best sci fi movies ever made and one of the best horror moves. In some ways it was truly ground breaking. Aliens is the same but with more action, more aliens and more survivors. For that reason, I rate Alien better.
When judging those two films, however, you always have to take into account that without them, Aliens 3 and 4 would never have been made.
The greatest action movie ever made was Die Hard.
If I were out of the house and American Gladiators failed to record, I'd regard that as a lucky escape.
PHP is an open source project. Have you given back to it?