Can't stand the word "Meatspace", come on, thats where all the Wetware hang out!
(Hint: Take the contents of the server room to the top of the building. Start dropping stuff off it. The stuff that goes "crash" is hardware. The stuff you can't drop is "sofware". The stuff that goes "splat" is "Wetware".)
...the heart of the trick is to demonstrate you are more interested in them and what they are saying than in all the tech you love so much....
Umm, you don't perhaps want to give up now do you?
Still listening? Sigh! Biology has you by the balls, eh?
Ok. First off. Wash. Squeaky clean, shaved and no smells.
Next, practice. Practice on a captive chained wage slave.... I mean till operator.
Practice, being polite, nice, more interested in what they are interested in than in yourself, complimentary. You know that incredibly boring weather and hair stuff smalltalk (not the OOP language) you hate? Get over that and practice anyway. Not about tech, not about what's wrong with your life, but what the girl is saying, doing, thinking.
Be always squeaky clean and nice. The next step is tricky... you see, men deceive themselves that they can get the girls. It's the other way round. Human biology works the other way.
Men merely demonstrate that they at least have some capability of being molded into a domesticated breeding partner.... and then the girls take their pick.
Thereafter make yourself available. Place yourself in contexts where the opposite gender exist. Going to Linux meetings or motorbike meets is not what I mean. Church socials are an excellent place, visit married friends (with eligible friends and sisters),...
...then let nature take it's course.
Umm, let be a bit clearer.. Nature's course is some girl will attempt to mold you like putty. Change what you wear and how, what you eat, how you live, what you do etc. If you show you are (to the appropriate degree) pliable...AND more interested in what she is doing and saying than your tech.
She may decide you are marriagable material.
Still here? Sure you don't want a new netbook instead? Or perhaps an inflatable friend?
Sigh! Girls, they're the ultimate bait and switch.
And NO, you not having my wife, get your own. I may grumble, but I wouldn't swop her for anything. Not even a new motorbike.
Designed in America... the folks that gave us the Madoff & Greenspan pyramid & bubble school of economics - and when all else fails... Send in the Marines!
I watch a youtube video because someone told me it was cool. He watched it because someone told him......
Now if each had to wade the the rigmarole of signing up, paying, keep the piggy bank full,.... the chain would break. Somewhere, anywhere.
And the recommendation wouldn't reach me.
So I wouldn't watch.
yes Virginia, Solaris is more stable than Linux.
Yip, solaris is stable alright.
So is a concrete block.
Which is about as usable as a solaris box.
Sigh! I have used many suns and many linux boxen.... and I always heave a sigh of relief when I can get back to linux.
All the tools I need are instantly available under Linux and installed right.
Hmm. I bet there will be a mini-flood of "Oh Shit! Some bastard has worked out how to make the browser crash (yet again) (or leak the sandbox) by doing something truly evil and unexpected with JavaScript again."
It's hard to get that sort of thing really secure. If they do it truly securely, well... my hat's off to them.
How about a billion dollars for violating LSP.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/03/1459209
If you think about it, That's exactly what Tony Hoares mistake was. A violation of LSP. Sometimes the thing pointed to by "T *" does not behave as an instance of T. When it doesn't, as all too often it doesn't. Bad Shit happens. Sorry, type checking compiler can't help you thanks to Hoare's mistake.
A bug is a deviation from requirements and requirements should never be assumed.
Contrariwise. The requirement is clear. When you specified a parameter type, you are specifying the requirement that the parameter passed IS one of those types.
Inheritance means "IS A", if you specify that something uses the parent class, then you have specified the requirement that it works with the subclass since an instance of the subclass "IS (also) A" instance of the parent class.
If it doesn't, then you have violated your clearly specified requirement. Hence you have a bug. It may not bite you in this release, it may not bite on this test. It will bite you in the long run. Sorry mate. Consciously violate LSP, you are consciously introducing a defect. It's not a management proclaimed Best Practice. It's solid mathematics.
It's a guideline in the sense that "Don't drop bricks on your toes" is a guideline. Having let go of the brick, hard physics takes over. Violate LSP, hard mathematics takes over which results at some point in pain for someone.
Sadly, too many people still think it's a guideline, not a rule. Sorry, if your code violates the LSP, you've got a bug, it just hasn't bitten you yet.
She deserves recognition for the vast number of latent defects she has effectively removed from the worlds software with the LSP alone, I'm glad she got the award.
The user interface is "house key"+key press rather than fat icon oriented. It's slim (not lots of cruft), based on Ubuntu Intrepid so you can pull in anything you need, uses array.org kernel, has eee configuration applet. Works for me.
I bet at the root of that little horror story is some patriarchal society dictate.
Bishop Tutu noted that the few exceptions to the rule, where women were the perpetrators attracted huge amount of media _because_ they were so strange.
Women are often the villains of literature and film, because it is so horrifying like unlike reality.
Well, actually if you read Zimbardo's book. He was thinking "Cool! What exciting results I'm getting", but his girlfriend (now wife) threatened to dump him if he didn't stop it right away.
Which reminds me of the other fascinating datapoint from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. Women were equally likely as men to be victims of violence, but 500 times less likely to be the perpetrators. Read that and weep. 500 hundred times better than men.
Want to make America better? Listen to your women.
I guess you like your news predigested and anything disturbing of your world view filtered out. I only read the embedded reporters when I wanted to know which world view direction the Pentagon was currently touting.
In war, truth is the first casualty, and is missing in action for years to come.
The phrase "I Accept" has become the internationally recognized slang for "GET LOST YOU SLIMY CREEP".
Tell me honestly, have you _ever_ clicked on an "I Accept" button with the intent in your mind to be bound to every term (of which you are lucidly aware) of an EULA?
No. You didn't.
The thought uppermost in you mind at the time of going "Click" was one of...
"Blah blah blah.
Fuck off
GET LOST YOU SLIMY CREEP
Gahhh I hate them and the horse they rode in on.
... add your own.
So that's it. Somebody create an web site explaining what the phrase "I Accept" means. (You can reference several of my posts on slashdot and the like).
Then somebody else can create a Wikipedia entry referencing the other web site.
Wait a few months until it makes it's way into the latest dictionaries and the like.
And there you have it. In court you say, "But didn't you know, the commonly accepted meaning of "I Accept" is "GET LOST", see here in this dictionary of common usage, and I really really did mean that when I clicked on that button.
gcc does have whole program optimization, which is a different thing from LTO.
Stuff all the source for a program into one dirty great file.... and compile with gcc -fwhole-program and the compiler can then make such happy optimizations as if a func is use only once anywhere, then it can always be inlined.
LTO means compile all your.c's into.o's and then at link time do an additional set of optimizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry mate, you're still a complete idiot, it's just your self awareness is laggy.
Releasing a "new improved" predator into an already overfished sea strikes me as absurdly dumb.
(Hint: Take the contents of the server room to the top of the building. Start dropping stuff off it. The stuff that goes "crash" is hardware. The stuff you can't drop is "sofware". The stuff that goes "splat" is "Wetware".)
Umm, you don't perhaps want to give up now do you?
Still listening? Sigh! Biology has you by the balls, eh?
Ok. First off. Wash. Squeaky clean, shaved and no smells.
Next, practice. Practice on a captive chained wage slave.... I mean till operator.
Practice, being polite, nice, more interested in what they are interested in than in yourself, complimentary. You know that incredibly boring weather and hair stuff smalltalk (not the OOP language) you hate? Get over that and practice anyway. Not about tech, not about what's wrong with your life, but what the girl is saying, doing, thinking.
Be always squeaky clean and nice. The next step is tricky... you see, men deceive themselves that they can get the girls. It's the other way round. Human biology works the other way.
Men merely demonstrate that they at least have some capability of being molded into a domesticated breeding partner.... and then the girls take their pick.
Thereafter make yourself available. Place yourself in contexts where the opposite gender exist. Going to Linux meetings or motorbike meets is not what I mean. Church socials are an excellent place, visit married friends (with eligible friends and sisters), ...
Umm, let be a bit clearer.. Nature's course is some girl will attempt to mold you like putty. Change what you wear and how, what you eat, how you live, what you do etc. If you show you are (to the appropriate degree) pliable...AND more interested in what she is doing and saying than your tech.
She may decide you are marriagable material.
Still here? Sure you don't want a new netbook instead? Or perhaps an inflatable friend?
Sigh! Girls, they're the ultimate bait and switch.
And NO, you not having my wife, get your own. I may grumble, but I wouldn't swop her for anything. Not even a new motorbike.
Get a personality and what to put on your web page comes naturally.
Designed in America... the folks that gave us the Madoff & Greenspan pyramid & bubble school of economics - and when all else fails... Send in the Marines!
*Cough* ...these microbes killed all the dinosaurs and now they have got m
I watch a youtube video because someone told me it was cool. He watched it because someone told him...... Now if each had to wade the the rigmarole of signing up, paying, keep the piggy bank full, .... the chain would break. Somewhere, anywhere.
And the recommendation wouldn't reach me.
So I wouldn't watch.
yes Virginia, Solaris is more stable than Linux. Yip, solaris is stable alright. So is a concrete block. Which is about as usable as a solaris box. Sigh! I have used many suns and many linux boxen.... and I always heave a sigh of relief when I can get back to linux. All the tools I need are instantly available under Linux and installed right.
...is you have to put up with two full days of April Fools crap.
Disemvowel the test and send a disemvowelled reply to the scumbags, umm, lawyers stating you have done so. :-)
Hmm. I bet there will be a mini-flood of "Oh Shit! Some bastard has worked out how to make the browser crash (yet again) (or leak the sandbox) by doing something truly evil and unexpected with JavaScript again."
It's hard to get that sort of thing really secure. If they do it truly securely, well... my hat's off to them.
How about a billion dollars for violating LSP. http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/03/1459209 If you think about it, That's exactly what Tony Hoares mistake was. A violation of LSP. Sometimes the thing pointed to by "T *" does not behave as an instance of T. When it doesn't, as all too often it doesn't. Bad Shit happens. Sorry, type checking compiler can't help you thanks to Hoare's mistake.
Contrariwise. The requirement is clear. When you specified a parameter type, you are specifying the requirement that the parameter passed IS one of those types.
Inheritance means "IS A", if you specify that something uses the parent class, then you have specified the requirement that it works with the subclass since an instance of the subclass "IS (also) A" instance of the parent class.
If it doesn't, then you have violated your clearly specified requirement. Hence you have a bug. It may not bite you in this release, it may not bite on this test. It will bite you in the long run. Sorry mate. Consciously violate LSP, you are consciously introducing a defect. It's not a management proclaimed Best Practice. It's solid mathematics.
It's a guideline in the sense that "Don't drop bricks on your toes" is a guideline. Having let go of the brick, hard physics takes over. Violate LSP, hard mathematics takes over which results at some point in pain for someone.
She deserves recognition for the vast number of latent defects she has effectively removed from the worlds software with the LSP alone, I'm glad she got the award.
> Man, we _are_ in trouble!
I'm truly sad to say, but yes, the parent is right, and you are right, and indeed we are in trouble.
Neither would a croc. I mean what's next? Thrown shoes?
I'm using Crunchbang Linux on my EEE 901.
The user interface is "house key"+key press rather than fat icon oriented. It's slim (not lots of cruft), based on Ubuntu Intrepid so you can pull in anything you need, uses array.org kernel, has eee configuration applet. Works for me.
Bishop Tutu noted that the few exceptions to the rule, where women were the perpetrators attracted huge amount of media _because_ they were so strange.
Women are often the villains of literature and film, because it is so horrifying like unlike reality.
Well, actually if you read Zimbardo's book. He was thinking "Cool! What exciting results I'm getting", but his girlfriend (now wife) threatened to dump him if he didn't stop it right away.
Which reminds me of the other fascinating datapoint from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. Women were equally likely as men to be victims of violence, but 500 times less likely to be the perpetrators. Read that and weep. 500 hundred times better than men.
Want to make America better? Listen to your women.
I guess you like your news predigested and anything disturbing of your world view filtered out. I only read the embedded reporters when I wanted to know which world view direction the Pentagon was currently touting.
In war, truth is the first casualty, and is missing in action for years to come.
The phrase "I Accept" has become the internationally recognized slang for "GET LOST YOU SLIMY CREEP".
Tell me honestly, have you _ever_ clicked on an "I Accept" button with the intent in your mind to be bound to every term (of which you are lucidly aware) of an EULA?
No. You didn't.
The thought uppermost in you mind at the time of going "Click" was one of...
So that's it. Somebody create an web site explaining what the phrase "I Accept" means. (You can reference several of my posts on slashdot and the like).
Then somebody else can create a Wikipedia entry referencing the other web site.
Wait a few months until it makes it's way into the latest dictionaries and the like.
And there you have it. In court you say, "But didn't you know, the commonly accepted meaning of "I Accept" is "GET LOST", see here in this dictionary of common usage, and I really really did mean that when I clicked on that button.
gcc does have whole program optimization, which is a different thing from LTO.
Stuff all the source for a program into one dirty great file.... and compile with gcc -fwhole-program and the compiler can then make such happy optimizations as if a func is use only once anywhere, then it can always be inlined.
LTO means compile all your .c's into .o's and then at link time do an additional set of optimizations.
So maybe what is being protected is someone's career. Sane spending on risk management be damnned. So xor the data with "STFU"