Yup, it's completely true. We all email each other and hold secret meetings with our own special handshakes. And you're not invited. All to make you rage those sweet, sweet tears.
I was about to make a joke, but seriously, the only language I can think of that doesn't have some nasty gotcha is . . . . ugh . . . BASIC. Python has the whole whitespace deal, Perl code tends to be unkempt, Java is fuggin java, Ada is a secret government spy, I don't even want to talk about C++, Bash is fine as long as you never have the misfortune of using quotes or variables, C guarantees regular segfaults, Matlab/Octave will delightfully inform you of your bugs deep in system library code, SAS's userfriendliness pars that of installing Linux from scratch, you can't write more than four lines of Fortran without painting some Star Trek action figure, and just fuck Cobol.
Honestly, BASIC's wins this round just by virtue of being so limited that it's hard to shoot yourself in the foot. I don't count GOTO, as jumps aren't really language specific. Having tutored programming for years, I can say that students are perfectly able to write speghetti code with or without goto.:p
Re:"hello" == 0 is TRUE
on
The New PHP
·
· Score: 1
I agree, and as annoying as it is . . . it really is a *very* bad habit to assume transitive property holds for most operations. For example, if a > c and b > c, it's not always the case that a + b > c. Or a * b > c. That's a nasty way to introduce a security exploit when using malloc (eg malloc(sizeOfObject*numberOfObjects)).
Re:"hello" == 0 is TRUE
on
The New PHP
·
· Score: 1
I personally complain a lot when I see those bugs in C. Great way to troll C newbies though . . .
Yes, it's called embryonic development. It affects millions of people around the world and leads to impaired math abilities, where the affected cannot handle hundreds of mental calculations before making an error. The only known cure is to spend years in a basement alone eating cheetos, while insulting others' trivial math and lingual mistakes.
No, I saw your point, you missed where I was getting at. You are not able to protect yourself from every [road] hazard. No matter how skilled you are, the skills that matter are the auto engineers, civil engineers - and most importantly - the other drivers. Automating driving just switches the responsibilities and statistics around; it does NOT change the nature of the game. And statistically speaking, automated cars have a much better safety track record than human drivers. Both for the occupants, and for the others on the road.
First off, No. Doesn't matter if you're the best, most attentive driver in the world, there's always a risk of getting into a serious accident. And the sad thing is, that risk is pretty big. Secondly, by driving manually as opposed to automatic systems you put others at risk, because as a human, you're a shite driver. Sorry, but mother nature forgot to check off that box that says "can manipulate deadly, explosive multi-ton monstrosities traveling at ridiculous speeds, on designated paths that have other streams of said monstrosities traveling the same speed in the complete opposite direction". Feel free to file a bug report on that one, but the wait time is horrendous. Ironically, the box labelled "can design system to manipulate, deadly, explosive monstrosities traveling at ridiculous speeds" somehow got some better love. This is what happens when the customer doesn't properly fill out design specification documents.
There are ways to profit from falling currencies. Particularly with strategically placed liabilities and investments.
For example, place an order in bitcoins amount of "product" equal to $X. Sell on streets in cash for $X + markup. Watch bitcoin value "conveniently" fall and pay back promised amount bitcoins, now valued much below $X. IRL cases would probably be much more complex, but bitcoins still suffer from an issue where there's large financial gains for some folks if the prices were to fall - and the means of significantly achieving such are plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
For both parties.
How hard is it to understand? Anybody who agrees with me is informed. Anybody who holds a dissenting viewpoint is an ignorant sheep. Very simple.
When he said Pluto wasn't a real planet. Some countries put you to death for that shit.
Both of them are perfectly free to stop trying ports of IE.
And a "Gigabyte" really means a single byte that is very large; weighing in at least 10 pounds or more.
You misspelled BSD; it doesn't have any 'w's in it.
Have you seen how big the Android phones are? Now remember this is Japan. :P
Ahhhh. Sweet, sweet, delicious tears of self righteous rage. Especially those from the line-toeing groupthink against special handshakes.
You can, if you redirect their standard streams right after forking off.
Yup, it's completely true. We all email each other and hold secret meetings with our own special handshakes. And you're not invited. All to make you rage those sweet, sweet tears.
That's a whole lotta words just to say "Please mod me down, I wanna pretend to be ironically persecuted so I can feel vindicated".
As in my example, calculating sizes. Often when working with memory buffers, when you multiple the number of something by the size of it.
Who said they were bad?
I was about to make a joke, but seriously, the only language I can think of that doesn't have some nasty gotcha is . . . . ugh . . . BASIC. Python has the whole whitespace deal, Perl code tends to be unkempt, Java is fuggin java, Ada is a secret government spy, I don't even want to talk about C++, Bash is fine as long as you never have the misfortune of using quotes or variables, C guarantees regular segfaults, Matlab/Octave will delightfully inform you of your bugs deep in system library code, SAS's userfriendliness pars that of installing Linux from scratch, you can't write more than four lines of Fortran without painting some Star Trek action figure, and just fuck Cobol.
:p
Honestly, BASIC's wins this round just by virtue of being so limited that it's hard to shoot yourself in the foot. I don't count GOTO, as jumps aren't really language specific. Having tutored programming for years, I can say that students are perfectly able to write speghetti code with or without goto.
I agree, and as annoying as it is . . . it really is a *very* bad habit to assume transitive property holds for most operations. For example, if a > c and b > c, it's not always the case that a + b > c. Or a * b > c. That's a nasty way to introduce a security exploit when using malloc (eg malloc(sizeOfObject*numberOfObjects)).
I personally complain a lot when I see those bugs in C. Great way to troll C newbies though . . .
Password hashing has always been easy: $hash = substr($_GET["password"], 0, 5);
:p
I know it's a joke, and that there are genes related to intelligence, but AFAIK there's no common gene for making stupid decisions.
Yes, it's called embryonic development. It affects millions of people around the world and leads to impaired math abilities, where the affected cannot handle hundreds of mental calculations before making an error. The only known cure is to spend years in a basement alone eating cheetos, while insulting others' trivial math and lingual mistakes.
No, I saw your point, you missed where I was getting at. You are not able to protect yourself from every [road] hazard. No matter how skilled you are, the skills that matter are the auto engineers, civil engineers - and most importantly - the other drivers. Automating driving just switches the responsibilities and statistics around; it does NOT change the nature of the game. And statistically speaking, automated cars have a much better safety track record than human drivers. Both for the occupants, and for the others on the road.
First off, No. Doesn't matter if you're the best, most attentive driver in the world, there's always a risk of getting into a serious accident. And the sad thing is, that risk is pretty big. Secondly, by driving manually as opposed to automatic systems you put others at risk, because as a human, you're a shite driver. Sorry, but mother nature forgot to check off that box that says "can manipulate deadly, explosive multi-ton monstrosities traveling at ridiculous speeds, on designated paths that have other streams of said monstrosities traveling the same speed in the complete opposite direction". Feel free to file a bug report on that one, but the wait time is horrendous. Ironically, the box labelled "can design system to manipulate, deadly, explosive monstrosities traveling at ridiculous speeds" somehow got some better love. This is what happens when the customer doesn't properly fill out design specification documents.
There are ways to profit from falling currencies. Particularly with strategically placed liabilities and investments.
For example, place an order in bitcoins amount of "product" equal to $X. Sell on streets in cash for $X + markup. Watch bitcoin value "conveniently" fall and pay back promised amount bitcoins, now valued much below $X. IRL cases would probably be much more complex, but bitcoins still suffer from an issue where there's large financial gains for some folks if the prices were to fall - and the means of significantly achieving such are plausible.
They do know cheap. And they know cheap gets you Apollo 1 do-overs.
*Sigh* This is what happens when you spend to much time living in a basement. Fermenting those sour grapes.
Let's play "count the fallacies". Go!