No it isn't. It contains some FreeBSD userland backported to the OS, but anyone who's used both can tell you that they have very little in common in practical terms, being structured differently and having entirely different and unrelated kernels.
No you wouldn't. If you did if("false") then yes, solely because you're passing in a non-null parameter (no attempt is made to examine the string - remember that if("") will have different results in PHP and C with the former treating "" as false, and latter seeing a non-null), but sprintf(buffer, true); if(strcmp("false", buffer")) will fail.
No, there isn't. There's a bad reason for it. It would be a good reason only if you would expect all data comparisons to be with form elements, and for those form elements to be that limited range of textual responses. Notably "false" and "off" are not false, according to ==. Remember that == is not a "Use this for some form fields when you're doing comparisons" operator, it's the one people are expected to use by default, with "===" being added to the language long after PHP became popular.
I'd also invite you to take a look at the other examples that people are responding to the posts with. This isn't confined to the examples I gave, those were just some obvious examples from the top of my head.
You're missing the point I was making. I wasn't criticizing it for doing coercion, I was criticizing it for doing the wrong coercion, with the result that the "==" operator's behavior is difficult to predict.
If you read the GP, you'll see I was responding to that point.
Did some experimenting after that and I just found a great one:
assert("false"==true);
Yes, it passes.
Re:PHP 6.0 without the stupid?
on
PHP 5.5.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
While that's true, the complaint isn't that PHP has a dynamic typing system and has some operators that reflect that, it's that the coercion and comparison rules are... not exactly easy to predict. Not to mention the fact === works the way you'd expect == to work, with == performing non-intuitive coercion to try to find a way to make different things the same.
* Intuitively to a non-PHP programmer, only the second one should.
* A PHP programmer with experience will, on the other hand, note that given "echo 1==2" products no output, only the first should be guaranteed to succeed with the second one maybe kinda succeeding.
The others? Dubious at best. The third should always fail, because "0" != "false" and "0" != "" (but PHP is doing the wrong coercion so it instead converts the string to a boolean rather than vice-versa), the fourth treats null in a way that almost makes SQL look logical.
Ironically, your observation makes my joke more accurate than originally intended. Given the behavior of == is not what's needed in a dynamically typed, softly typed, language, and === provides only one of the legitimate comparison operators necessary for such a language, we do, actually, need an ==== operator in PHP. Scary, huh?
Re:PHP 6.0 without the stupid?
on
PHP 5.5.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Funny
what_have youGot AGAINST $_THEWAY PHP works($dummy, WORKS_TODAY)? I think it's==great, wait, sorry I mean "I think it's===great." - I accidentally passed in null and that last condition gave me a bunch of false positives.
I'm hoping PHP6 will finally give programmers the ==== and ===== operators we've been waiting for.
That the consequences are irreversible. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.
What's that supposed to mean? That the technology can't be uninvented? Well, duh. The same applies to... well, anything. That a bad gene can't be made to disappear? That's going to depend but it's hard to see why making something resistent to a particular pesticide (and only one at that) is anything unusual in nature anyway or likely to cause problems down the road.
It also ups the ante in the arms race of evolution, which isn't universally seen as a good thing.
No, really, it doesn't. Realistically, selective breeding, or spreading pesticide, has more consequences for evolution than making a particular seed line resistant to one, and only one, pesticide.
Calling objection "hysteria" doesn't make it so. Some protesters are quite enlightened and think long term.
He called it hysteria because only some protesters, as you admit, are remotely enlightened and are legitimately thinking long term. Most are just parroting bizarre prejudices that are a mixture of reading too much Michael Chrichton and hating Monsanto because, well, it was one of the makers of Agent Orange and PCBs and that just proves they're evil because nothing ever changes.
The ones that are enlightened? Probably that tiny minority that are saying "OK, I can see how this mutation isn't a bad thing, but for the love of whatever please don't stick Terminator genes in or if you do, seriously consider how you're going to provide those seeds."
But those aren't the majority. The majority are the people who seem to think that Roundup Ready corn is going to interbreed with frogs causing them to reactivate dinosaur DNA because FAMINE.
However the the messaging of the TPB is watered down and idealistic. They want to be a mechanism to allow independents in music, video or other arts to have a mechanism to get content to the masses, which I wholeheartedly support, yet the primary and often only reason why people use TPB is to steal protected content. Why? Because its there.
Well, it's there, and it's linked to via a site called "The Pirate Bay". Which also kinda undermines the suggestion that the "messaging" for The Pirate Bay is "to allow independents in music, video, or other arts to have a mechanism to get content to the masses". The messaging of the name of the organization is that they exist to facilitate copyright infringement.
An outside door handle that anyone could have touched you mean? I think I spot the problem with using the presense of DNA on the door handle as evidence of, well, anything...
The BBC had abandoned mechanical TV well before WW-II focussing instead on the EMI 405 line system, and to the best of my knowledge the Baird (style) technologies weren't particularly common outside of the UK (I think similar technologies were used for a while in Germany but it, too, had gone electronic by that time.)
So it surprises me that a 1940s book would be suggesting that mechanical systems were the way to go or anything but the mainstream.
If I'm at a show that provides information on new and upcoming somethings, I can't see how it helps my mission there for something else that distracts me and has nothing to do with the show to be right there distracting me.
And it doesn't matter whether it's a "Hot chick" in a tight outfit, or a large, delicious, aroma-emitting bar of my favorite chocolate, all melty and yummy. "Hot chicks" is just lowest "common" denominator ("common" in quotes because if you're a het female or a gay male, it's not common to you. Though probably still distracting - assuming you're reading this as a het male, ask yourself how you'd feel if every both was manned by shirtless male bimbos in really right pants. Oh, suddenly you're seeing why women might see it as a kinda hostile environment?) and not in any remotely helpful way.
Political correctness? No, this part doesn't have to do with PCness. Few men at any age would, for the sake of political correctness, claim that the booth babes somehow do nothing for them.
This is a curious, unpleasant, case of exploitation where women (as a group, not necessarily the BBs themselves) are humiliated and men have their base instincts taken advantage of in a spectacularly unhelpful way.
Oh rubbish. You forget that in 2008 there really was a choice. One of the guys, a senator from Illinois, promised to end things like warrantless wiretapping, torture, wars on whistleblowers, etc, if he was elected.
Nonsense, on some issues for some of the time we have one or two people who do the right thing as long as its inconsequential and as long as they're generally kooky enough that it probably does more harm than good to have them associated with us.
Does NOFORN mean "Foreign intelligence agencies are not involved in the activities described by this document" or "Foreign intelligence agencies should not be shown or given access to this document"?
My guess would be the latter. Why would GCHQ be given a copy of this PowerPoint slideshow? Would they even need it?
Let's hope nobody completely ruins Google's idea here by creating some kind of device you wear all the time that records everything you're looking at, allowing you to record someone's expression without them thinking twice about it...
$50 in free pizza at Papa Johns might be used by President John Schnatter as damage control for his recent plan to raise the price of his food based on the healthcare reform act.
FWIW, to give him credit, he was quoted out of context over his supposed "attack" on HCR, which did include positive commentary on, for example, the fact it leveled the playing field and meant he could provide insurance to his employees without that giving his competitors an advantage over his company.
No, no they wouldn't. It's a payment for a service. You can refuse to pay, in which case you don't have any right to the service.
Insofar as there's a problem with it, it's that the laws enforcing it kinda presume that if you don't want the service then you don't want related services that are provided by the same means as the BBC but not the same funding (ie transmitted as standard unencrypted TV signals.) You can have all or nothing.
It's not abuse-the-frand. Frand doesn't mean license-free, it means a fair and reasonable license. Apple doesn't like the terms of the license, but nothing about them is particularly unfair. The usual claim by Apple apologists is that Apple doesn't pay the same terms as, say, HTC - but there's a reason for that: HTC happily cross licenses technologies of equal value - from Samsung's Point of View - in the same technological arena. If Samsung didn't like HTC's terms, Samsung would charge HTC the same rate as Apple, and most likely HTC wouldn't have a problem with that.
I don't like patents, but am somewhat less sympathetic to hardware makers who refuse to license FRAND patents, especially over something like this. You get two choices, pay the fair rate, or negotiate an alternative. Apple is apparently unwilling to do either.
If so many other countries are banning GMO foods, why aren't we in the US seriously considering this?
Because they're wrong or their reasons are not appropriate to the US agricultural environment? Some are banning on the basis of absurd health-based reasons that are demonstrably untrue. Others are concerned about local wheat (etc) production being affected by a lack of suitable self-sustaining cross pollinating plants - a laudable concern, but not relevent to the US farming industry.
If nothing else, why don't we at least label foods as GMO, so the consumer can decide?
Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not, and such a "warning" would be grossly misleading and would undermine other, more legitimate, labelling that might actually be helpful.
Farmers? Sure, they need to know if their seed is GMO, and if so what, exactly, the seed is designed to do (or not designed to do but does as a side effect) because such a thing does affect their business and their planting model. But when the food finally hits the plate, it's dead. It's genetically slightly different from other foods you've had before, but no more than "the same" foods from two different regions would be. It will have roughly the same properties.
That's not a valid use of the word "Except". You're not contradicting anything the GP said. You are superficially adding information, but nothing that wasn't already implied - the GP was very obviously providing a contrast when he gave an example of the Fed injecting money during the S&L scandal.
The GP is entirely right. Whether you're Keynes or Friedman, in fact whether you're anything other than the nutty Austrian kooks that seem to dominate today's economic agenda despite hundreds of years of evidence they're 100% wrong, the right thing for the Fed to do during a recession or depression is inject money into the system. That's what they do. It doesn't matter whether the cause was irrational exuberance or the Countrywide Mortgage Company, that's what the Fed is supposed to do. That's its mandate, for crying out loud.
If the Fed wasn't injecting money into the economy, that would be a reason to indict it.
"We" dont do any of this. A cabal of the best connected and wealthiest bankers in the country do it, in private, as they see fit, and we get no say.
Only true if that cabal decides to reduce the money supply, not increase it.
We have to spend it for it to work. We're not. That's why despite unprecedented monetary expansion we are not seeing inflation at the moment. The money is sitting in vaults (well, technically it's mostly numbers on computers, but...), it's not moving, and so virtually everything is at a standstill and will remain so unless someone figures out a way to get that money into people's hands and then out of those hands into other hands.
Instead, by and large, most people are using what money they have to pay off mortgages and settle other debts.
Slashdot Mirror
No it isn't. It contains some FreeBSD userland backported to the OS, but anyone who's used both can tell you that they have very little in common in practical terms, being structured differently and having entirely different and unrelated kernels.
No you wouldn't. If you did if("false") then yes, solely because you're passing in a non-null parameter (no attempt is made to examine the string - remember that if("") will have different results in PHP and C with the former treating "" as false, and latter seeing a non-null), but sprintf(buffer, true); if(strcmp("false", buffer")) will fail.
No, there isn't. There's a bad reason for it. It would be a good reason only if you would expect all data comparisons to be with form elements, and for those form elements to be that limited range of textual responses. Notably "false" and "off" are not false, according to ==. Remember that == is not a "Use this for some form fields when you're doing comparisons" operator, it's the one people are expected to use by default, with "===" being added to the language long after PHP became popular.
I'd also invite you to take a look at the other examples that people are responding to the posts with. This isn't confined to the examples I gave, those were just some obvious examples from the top of my head.
You're missing the point I was making. I wasn't criticizing it for doing coercion, I was criticizing it for doing the wrong coercion, with the result that the "==" operator's behavior is difficult to predict.
If you read the GP, you'll see I was responding to that point.
Did some experimenting after that and I just found a great one:
assert("false"==true);
Yes, it passes.
While that's true, the complaint isn't that PHP has a dynamic typing system and has some operators that reflect that, it's that the coercion and comparison rules are... not exactly easy to predict. Not to mention the fact === works the way you'd expect == to work, with == performing non-intuitive coercion to try to find a way to make different things the same.
All of these will succeed.
* Intuitively to a non-PHP programmer, only the second one should.
* A PHP programmer with experience will, on the other hand, note that given "echo 1==2" products no output, only the first should be guaranteed to succeed with the second one maybe kinda succeeding.
The others? Dubious at best. The third should always fail, because "0" != "false" and "0" != "" (but PHP is doing the wrong coercion so it instead converts the string to a boolean rather than vice-versa), the fourth treats null in a way that almost makes SQL look logical.
Ironically, your observation makes my joke more accurate than originally intended. Given the behavior of == is not what's needed in a dynamically typed, softly typed, language, and === provides only one of the legitimate comparison operators necessary for such a language, we do, actually, need an ==== operator in PHP. Scary, huh?
what_have youGot AGAINST $_THEWAY PHP works($dummy, WORKS_TODAY)? I think it's==great, wait, sorry I mean "I think it's===great." - I accidentally passed in null and that last condition gave me a bunch of false positives.
I'm hoping PHP6 will finally give programmers the ==== and ===== operators we've been waiting for.
Also Monsanto turned me into a newt.
What's that supposed to mean? That the technology can't be uninvented? Well, duh. The same applies to... well, anything. That a bad gene can't be made to disappear? That's going to depend but it's hard to see why making something resistent to a particular pesticide (and only one at that) is anything unusual in nature anyway or likely to cause problems down the road.
No, really, it doesn't. Realistically, selective breeding, or spreading pesticide, has more consequences for evolution than making a particular seed line resistant to one, and only one, pesticide.
He called it hysteria because only some protesters, as you admit, are remotely enlightened and are legitimately thinking long term. Most are just parroting bizarre prejudices that are a mixture of reading too much Michael Chrichton and hating Monsanto because, well, it was one of the makers of Agent Orange and PCBs and that just proves they're evil because nothing ever changes.
The ones that are enlightened? Probably that tiny minority that are saying "OK, I can see how this mutation isn't a bad thing, but for the love of whatever please don't stick Terminator genes in or if you do, seriously consider how you're going to provide those seeds."
But those aren't the majority. The majority are the people who seem to think that Roundup Ready corn is going to interbreed with frogs causing them to reactivate dinosaur DNA because FAMINE.
Well, it's there, and it's linked to via a site called "The Pirate Bay". Which also kinda undermines the suggestion that the "messaging" for The Pirate Bay is "to allow independents in music, video, or other arts to have a mechanism to get content to the masses". The messaging of the name of the organization is that they exist to facilitate copyright infringement.
An outside door handle that anyone could have touched you mean? I think I spot the problem with using the presense of DNA on the door handle as evidence of, well, anything...
The BBC had abandoned mechanical TV well before WW-II focussing instead on the EMI 405 line system, and to the best of my knowledge the Baird (style) technologies weren't particularly common outside of the UK (I think similar technologies were used for a while in Germany but it, too, had gone electronic by that time.)
So it surprises me that a 1940s book would be suggesting that mechanical systems were the way to go or anything but the mainstream.
Does it seriously matter?
If I'm at a show that provides information on new and upcoming somethings, I can't see how it helps my mission there for something else that distracts me and has nothing to do with the show to be right there distracting me.
And it doesn't matter whether it's a "Hot chick" in a tight outfit, or a large, delicious, aroma-emitting bar of my favorite chocolate, all melty and yummy. "Hot chicks" is just lowest "common" denominator ("common" in quotes because if you're a het female or a gay male, it's not common to you. Though probably still distracting - assuming you're reading this as a het male, ask yourself how you'd feel if every both was manned by shirtless male bimbos in really right pants. Oh, suddenly you're seeing why women might see it as a kinda hostile environment?) and not in any remotely helpful way.
Political correctness? No, this part doesn't have to do with PCness. Few men at any age would, for the sake of political correctness, claim that the booth babes somehow do nothing for them.
This is a curious, unpleasant, case of exploitation where women (as a group, not necessarily the BBs themselves) are humiliated and men have their base instincts taken advantage of in a spectacularly unhelpful way.
They'll probably give us 25% less legroom too!
Oh rubbish. You forget that in 2008 there really was a choice. One of the guys, a senator from Illinois, promised to end things like warrantless wiretapping, torture, wars on whistleblowers, etc, if he was elected.
Alas the other guy won. I think. He did, right?
Nonsense, on some issues for some of the time we have one or two people who do the right thing as long as its inconsequential and as long as they're generally kooky enough that it probably does more harm than good to have them associated with us.
Does NOFORN mean "Foreign intelligence agencies are not involved in the activities described by this document" or "Foreign intelligence agencies should not be shown or given access to this document"?
My guess would be the latter. Why would GCHQ be given a copy of this PowerPoint slideshow? Would they even need it?
Let's hope nobody completely ruins Google's idea here by creating some kind of device you wear all the time that records everything you're looking at, allowing you to record someone's expression without them thinking twice about it...
FWIW, to give him credit, he was quoted out of context over his supposed "attack" on HCR, which did include positive commentary on, for example, the fact it leveled the playing field and meant he could provide insurance to his employees without that giving his competitors an advantage over his company.
No, no they wouldn't. It's a payment for a service. You can refuse to pay, in which case you don't have any right to the service.
Insofar as there's a problem with it, it's that the laws enforcing it kinda presume that if you don't want the service then you don't want related services that are provided by the same means as the BBC but not the same funding (ie transmitted as standard unencrypted TV signals.) You can have all or nothing.
What's absurd about 2.5%?
It's not abuse-the-frand. Frand doesn't mean license-free, it means a fair and reasonable license. Apple doesn't like the terms of the license, but nothing about them is particularly unfair. The usual claim by Apple apologists is that Apple doesn't pay the same terms as, say, HTC - but there's a reason for that: HTC happily cross licenses technologies of equal value - from Samsung's Point of View - in the same technological arena. If Samsung didn't like HTC's terms, Samsung would charge HTC the same rate as Apple, and most likely HTC wouldn't have a problem with that.
I don't like patents, but am somewhat less sympathetic to hardware makers who refuse to license FRAND patents, especially over something like this. You get two choices, pay the fair rate, or negotiate an alternative. Apple is apparently unwilling to do either.
Because they're wrong or their reasons are not appropriate to the US agricultural environment? Some are banning on the basis of absurd health-based reasons that are demonstrably untrue. Others are concerned about local wheat (etc) production being affected by a lack of suitable self-sustaining cross pollinating plants - a laudable concern, but not relevent to the US farming industry.
Because food labelling should be appropriate and helpful. To the end consumer, there is no benefit to knowing whether the food was GMO or not, and such a "warning" would be grossly misleading and would undermine other, more legitimate, labelling that might actually be helpful.
Farmers? Sure, they need to know if their seed is GMO, and if so what, exactly, the seed is designed to do (or not designed to do but does as a side effect) because such a thing does affect their business and their planting model. But when the food finally hits the plate, it's dead. It's genetically slightly different from other foods you've had before, but no more than "the same" foods from two different regions would be. It will have roughly the same properties.
That's not a valid use of the word "Except". You're not contradicting anything the GP said. You are superficially adding information, but nothing that wasn't already implied - the GP was very obviously providing a contrast when he gave an example of the Fed injecting money during the S&L scandal.
The GP is entirely right. Whether you're Keynes or Friedman, in fact whether you're anything other than the nutty Austrian kooks that seem to dominate today's economic agenda despite hundreds of years of evidence they're 100% wrong, the right thing for the Fed to do during a recession or depression is inject money into the system. That's what they do. It doesn't matter whether the cause was irrational exuberance or the Countrywide Mortgage Company, that's what the Fed is supposed to do. That's its mandate, for crying out loud.
If the Fed wasn't injecting money into the economy, that would be a reason to indict it.
Only true if that cabal decides to reduce the money supply, not increase it.
We have to spend it for it to work. We're not. That's why despite unprecedented monetary expansion we are not seeing inflation at the moment. The money is sitting in vaults (well, technically it's mostly numbers on computers, but...), it's not moving, and so virtually everything is at a standstill and will remain so unless someone figures out a way to get that money into people's hands and then out of those hands into other hands.
Instead, by and large, most people are using what money they have to pay off mortgages and settle other debts.