The strong parallels to addition and multiplication become evident when you consider the following: A * 1 = A A * 0 = 0 A + 0 = A The nice pattern breaks down a little with A+1=1, but that makes sense too (with respect to the arithmetic addition metaphor) if you keep in mind there's no such thing as 2. Oh look, an inadvertent Futurama quote!
Of course not. It's a troll because it is inflammatory and phrased in order incite angry replies. But although I question the intent of the poster, this has nothing to do with the truth of his (or her) facts, nor the validity of his argument. The original AC didn't express "an opinion [I] don't like," he raised a true point about the lack of a Linux gaming market.
Just admit that linux users are too small of a percentage to viably sell any commercial games popular on other platforms.
Although this is obviously a troll, there is a little truth to it (at the very least, truth in the minds of game publishers, where it counts most).
However on the other hand, there are countless thousands of tech-smart gamer kids out there who would not hesitate to give Linux a try if only they could play games on it. So the argument is really invalid, since the demand for Linux games is not constant (presumably too low a constant to justify Linux game production, although this might be arguable too), but in this case directly related to the supply.
And besides, I don't know what this other guy is talking about; Linux is some damn tasty fruit if you ask me.
What? No. Cigarette smoke has been conclusively linked to higher cancer rates.
What you are probably thinking of is the more important claim of whether it is the cigarette smoke that causes the higher cancer rates. It is a perfectly reasonable possibility that the people who like to smoke just happen to be more suceptible to cancer. For instance, "Type A" personalities might take up smoking more often to relieve stress, and meanwhile their higher stress might put them at a higher risk of developing cancer. In that case, the two would be linked, but not causally linked.
Anyway, to prove a causal link between cigarettes and cancer, a study would have to select a random group of people and not allow them to smoke, and another group of people TO smoke, but such an experiment would be unethical to conduct. So, we are left with no scientifically provable conclusion about whether smoking causes cancer or not, but I think most people have a hunch.
Human: 99.84% accurate = 0.16% inaccurate Filters: 99.984% accurate = 0.016% inaccurate
0.16% inaccuracy means ten times as much spam will get through as 0.016% inaccuracy, thus, ten times better. (At least by that standard of "better", I must qualify for anyone who wants to twist the statistics another way!)
* (an asterisk) is also a Vim shortcut for "search for word under cursor". Or, # to search backwards. I never knew \ meant end of current word, thank you.:)
I think you missed the point of the parent poster. The beauty of 'i' is that you should never have to search for it. Its entire scope should fit on the screen.
Of course if you're writing a very long loop or one that does anything much more interesting than just iterating through a series of elements, then it would be wise to consider if a more descriptive name might make things clearer. But in short loops, if you use anything longer than 'i' (or 'j', etc) then this longer variable name can, in fact, draw attention away from what is really going on in the code. It's short because it's supposed to be ignored.
After having seen the first two movies I sat down and read through them all and it was much easier because now I knew what the various characters looked like and it was much easier to keep track of who is who.
You, kind sir, have just given me a wonderful flash of insight into what I now think was probably a major reason why I could never get into Tolkien. I had always figured that something about his particular style of, shall we say, painstaking attention to detail was just incompatible with my taste in literature. But after seeing the (wonderful) movies, and this minor epiphany, I will give FotR another shot. Thank you!
Restoring save file... You return to level 8 in Black Mesa.--More--
Hello Gordon, welcome back to NetHack! You are a lawful male quantum physicist.
Weapons a - a +0 9mm pistol (weapon in hand) b - 24 +0 bullets (in quiver) Armor c - a +1 H.E.V. suit (being worn) j - a cursed +0 pair of jumping boots (being worn) Tools d - a blessed +2 crowbar (alternate weapon; not wielded) e - a large box f - an uncursed pair of lenses (being worn) t - a blessed bag of holding (end)
You miss the headcrab. You miss the headcrab. The headcrab hits! You just miss the headcrab. Your pet security guard hits the headcrab. You miss the headcrab. The headcrab hits! d - a blessed +2 crowbar (weapon in hand) You begin bashing monsters with your crowbar. The headcrab is killed!--More-- Your pet security guard picks up a headcrab corpse. "That'll look nice in my trophy room."
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: Pop-Under Ads are not dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered community of internet users when recently Exit Exchange confirmed that they are in the process of patenting Pop-Under ads. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Pop-Under advertisement has gained more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Pop-Under advertisement is exploding in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin poll of "Favorite Things Ever".
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Pop-Under ads' future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Web faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for some web pages because Pop-Under ads have nearly consumed them entirely. Things are looking very good for the Online Advertisement Industry. As many of us are already aware, Pop-Ups and idiotic flashing banners continue to gain market share. Browser windows reproduce like the heads of the Hydra. Pop-Under Ads are the most endangering of them all, being patented by its supposed core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Exit Exchange tour guide Jenny states that there are 40000 members of the ExitExchange Network. How many users of Pop-Under Ads are there? Let's see. The number of Pop-Under Ads versus Exit Exchange posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1, because of course Usenet is a statistically reliable and significant measure of anything. Therefore there are about 40000*5 = 200,000 Pop-Under advertisers. X-10 camera posts on Usenet are about twice the volume of Pop-Under posts. Therefore there are about 400,000 users of crappy X-10 cams. Personal experience put porn sites at about 80 percent of the Pop-Under market. Therefore there are... [raises pinky to corner of mouth] ONE HUNDRED BILLION DAMN POP-UPS. This is consistent with the number of pornographic Usenet posts.
Due to a recent change in patent law, extreme greed, and so on, Exit Exchange decided to patent Pop-Under "technology" and is seeking royalties from Yahoo!, DoubleClick, and Microsoft ["who sell another troubled OS," reads the original here]
All major surveys show that Pop-Under Ads have steadily increased in market share. Pop-Under Advertisement is very sick and long-term elimination prospects look very dim. If sane Web browsing is to survive at all it will be among alternative browser dabblers. Pop-Under Ads continue to multiply. Nothing short of a miracle could save us at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Pop-Under Ads are not dead.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait you mean you didn't ask for erotic G.I. Joe/Babylon 5 crossover fan fiction on your internet?
The strong parallels to addition and multiplication become evident when you consider the following:
A * 1 = A
A * 0 = 0
A + 0 = A
The nice pattern breaks down a little with A+1=1, but that makes sense too (with respect to the arithmetic addition metaphor) if you keep in mind there's no such thing as 2. Oh look, an inadvertent Futurama quote!
How do you feel about feed 'em Eliza, and see how long it takes them to figure things out?
Because, blowing things up is not only something we are already very good at, but it's also a lot of fun.
Of course not. It's a troll because it is inflammatory and phrased in order incite angry replies. But although I question the intent of the poster, this has nothing to do with the truth of his (or her) facts, nor the validity of his argument.
The original AC didn't express "an opinion [I] don't like," he raised a true point about the lack of a Linux gaming market.
Although this is obviously a troll, there is a little truth to it (at the very least, truth in the minds of game publishers, where it counts most).
However on the other hand, there are countless thousands of tech-smart gamer kids out there who would not hesitate to give Linux a try if only they could play games on it. So the argument is really invalid, since the demand for Linux games is not constant (presumably too low a constant to justify Linux game production, although this might be arguable too), but in this case directly related to the supply.
And besides, I don't know what this other guy is talking about; Linux is some damn tasty fruit if you ask me.
What? No. Cigarette smoke has been conclusively linked to higher cancer rates.
What you are probably thinking of is the more important claim of whether it is the cigarette smoke that causes the higher cancer rates. It is a perfectly reasonable possibility that the people who like to smoke just happen to be more suceptible to cancer. For instance, "Type A" personalities might take up smoking more often to relieve stress, and meanwhile their higher stress might put them at a higher risk of developing cancer. In that case, the two would be linked, but not causally linked.
Anyway, to prove a causal link between cigarettes and cancer, a study would have to select a random group of people and not allow them to smoke, and another group of people TO smoke, but such an experiment would be unethical to conduct. So, we are left with no scientifically provable conclusion about whether smoking causes cancer or not, but I think most people have a hunch.
Human: 99.84% accurate = 0.16% inaccurate
Filters: 99.984% accurate = 0.016% inaccurate
0.16% inaccuracy means ten times as much spam will get through as 0.016% inaccuracy, thus, ten times better.
(At least by that standard of "better", I must qualify for anyone who wants to twist the statistics another way!)
* (an asterisk) is also a Vim shortcut for "search for word under cursor". Or, # to search backwards. :)
I never knew \ meant end of current word, thank you.
I think you missed the point of the parent poster. The beauty of 'i' is that you should never have to search for it. Its entire scope should fit on the screen.
Of course if you're writing a very long loop or one that does anything much more interesting than just iterating through a series of elements, then it would be wise to consider if a more descriptive name might make things clearer. But in short loops, if you use anything longer than 'i' (or 'j', etc) then this longer variable name can, in fact, draw attention away from what is really going on in the code. It's short because it's supposed to be ignored.
With all due respect, you're wrong.
And the songs... oh god the songs.
After having seen the first two movies I sat down and read through them all and it was much easier because now I knew what the various characters looked like and it was much easier to keep track of who is who.
You, kind sir, have just given me a wonderful flash of insight into what I now think was probably a major reason why I could never get into Tolkien. I had always figured that something about his particular style of, shall we say, painstaking attention to detail was just incompatible with my taste in literature. But after seeing the (wonderful) movies, and this minor epiphany, I will give FotR another shot. Thank you!
I got excited when I thought it said "Trick People Using Their Mobile Phones"
On the other hand, it is very similar to the proportion of emails that don't contain viruses or other nasties.
"sporadic"?
I also agree!
Your sig makes an excellent addition to this post.
Restoring save file... You return to level 8 in Black Mesa.--More--
Hello Gordon, welcome back to NetHack! You are a lawful male quantum physicist.
Weapons
a - a +0 9mm pistol (weapon in hand)
b - 24 +0 bullets (in quiver)
Armor
c - a +1 H.E.V. suit (being worn)
j - a cursed +0 pair of jumping boots (being worn)
Tools
d - a blessed +2 crowbar (alternate weapon; not wielded)
e - a large box
f - an uncursed pair of lenses (being worn)
t - a blessed bag of holding
(end)
You miss the headcrab.
You miss the headcrab. The headcrab hits!
You just miss the headcrab. Your pet security guard hits the headcrab.
You miss the headcrab. The headcrab hits!
d - a blessed +2 crowbar (weapon in hand)
You begin bashing monsters with your crowbar. The headcrab is killed!--More--
Your pet security guard picks up a headcrab corpse. "That'll look nice in my trophy room."
more liek BSOD am i rite??
P.S. a/s/l?
lol its funney becase u said lunix lol
Funny, I learned a different three "good neighbor" Rules:
Sorry buddy, but as an American I enjoy exercising my right to share my opinion about whatever the hell I want.
{Thanks for offering so many great alternatives. Reading your post was time well spent.}
{This sentence is not enclosed by sarcasm brackets.}
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: Pop-Under Ads are not dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered community of internet users when recently Exit Exchange confirmed that they are in the process of patenting Pop-Under ads. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Pop-Under advertisement has gained more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Pop-Under advertisement is exploding in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin poll of "Favorite Things Ever".
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Pop-Under ads' future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Web faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for some web pages because Pop-Under ads have nearly consumed them entirely. Things are looking very good for the Online Advertisement Industry. As many of us are already aware, Pop-Ups and idiotic flashing banners continue to gain market share. Browser windows reproduce like the heads of the Hydra. Pop-Under Ads are the most endangering of them all, being patented by its supposed core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Exit Exchange tour guide Jenny states that there are 40000 members of the ExitExchange Network. How many users of Pop-Under Ads are there? Let's see. The number of Pop-Under Ads versus Exit Exchange posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1, because of course Usenet is a statistically reliable and significant measure of anything. Therefore there are about 40000*5 = 200,000 Pop-Under advertisers. X-10 camera posts on Usenet are about twice the volume of Pop-Under posts. Therefore there are about 400,000 users of crappy X-10 cams. Personal experience put porn sites at about 80 percent of the Pop-Under market. Therefore there are... [raises pinky to corner of mouth] ONE HUNDRED BILLION DAMN POP-UPS. This is consistent with the number of pornographic Usenet posts.
Due to a recent change in patent law, extreme greed, and so on, Exit Exchange decided to patent Pop-Under "technology" and is seeking royalties from Yahoo!, DoubleClick, and Microsoft ["who sell another troubled OS," reads the original here]
All major surveys show that Pop-Under Ads have steadily increased in market share. Pop-Under Advertisement is very sick and long-term elimination prospects look very dim. If sane Web browsing is to survive at all it will be among alternative browser dabblers. Pop-Under Ads continue to multiply. Nothing short of a miracle could save us at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Pop-Under Ads are not dead.
Fact: Pop-Under Ads are not dead.