Agreed. Terry Pratchett is the only man who could conceivably do a decent job of it. Hopefully he has enough good sense not to desecrate a dead man's work, though.
I remember reading an interview where the makers of the movie claimed they had to cut the lines because they didn't "flow as well when spoken". This is, of course, utterly ridiculous as the lines were even funnier when spoken in the original radio version.
The idiots who made that film had no sense whatsoever of comedy.
In terms of deficit, which economists tend to care about, the Republicans pretty much have been a complete disaster for the last thirty years. I think the last Republican president who didn't increase the deficit over his predecessor was Ford.
Unfortunately they really seem to have lost their way from the fiscally responsible party they were decades ago.
Probably the best take away from this is that while the campaigns scream "Obama would be a DISASTER" or "McCain would be a DISASTER", in truth, both have advantages and faults. It's not a black and white choice, but one of grays. One, of course, may be better, but it isn't so clearcut as man claim.
Well, we turn to cartoonists for actual unbiased information when the press falls down on its job to do the same. This is the same reason that the most trusted face in news these days belongs to a comedian.
What makes me more confident in this than anything I might see on CNN is that a) he plainly states his personal bias and b) he shows his work. Neither happens in the mainstream media.
You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
My understanding is that Amazon's store is doing fairly well. Better than all those other failures at least. Obviously part of that is that they also sell tracks that work on the iPod.
1) Evaluate the left hand side (other than the postincrement.) (It evaluates to 0.) 2) Increment i (This sets i to 1.) 3) Perform the assignment using the value obtained in (1). (This assigns 0 to i.)
The above is compliant to the standard because the standard merely states that the increment has to happen after the rest of the right hand side is evaluated. The above may very well be faster/smaller for statements that aren't undefined, so it is perfectly possible that a compiler vendor will use it. Basically, the standard says that both (2) and (3) must happen after (1) but leaves the order of (2) and (3) undefined.
If you really believe this, the way to get back at them is to take the test, and when you get the offer, say "no thanks, I don't work for people who test".
The standard says nothing about the order of operations of a post increment and other uses of the same variable. In other words, this could:
Assign 0 to i, and then increment it to 1.
Or it could:
Evaluate the right hand side of the assignment, increment i to 1, then performing the assignment, setting i to 0 again.
The reason that both are potentially valid is that ++ cannot be used on the left side of an assignment. The standard explicitly does not say whether the ++ occurs after the entire statement, or merely the right hand side of the assignhment takes place. Both meet the standard and thus some compilers take one or the other path depending on which makes faster code. This is why you NEVER reference a variable that you are using post or pre increment more than once in a statement.
This is the sort of thing that lulls coders into thinking that it works a certain way because the compiler always does something "reasonable".
Yeah really. Given that both Microsoft and Sony have completely failed to produce an iTunes killer, I find it hard to think that Apple is worried about Best Buy.
More specifically, I believe it is the order of operations that is implementation defined. So this line could increment i by one, or could increment it by one and then return it to the original value. The code could just as well set i to 0 or 1.
If the XBox 360 was an attempt at dumping, then it was a completely failed attempt. But given that in the console market, selling the console below cost and making the money up on sales is the historically common way to do things, it's more reasonable to believe that they were selling it as a loss leader like everyone else. This is certainly the way the PS2 was sold. It was a monster hit, and yet hardly drove either Nintendo or Microsoft out of the console market.
The remarkable thing about the current generation was that Nintendo was able to sell a console at a profit.
Beside, nothing shady is going on. Both Microsoft and Sony have been very clear about when they are selling at a loss.
Why is it that people never use this argument when talking about BMWs? I don't get it. Pay $20k extra for a BMW, and no one says anything. Pay $5000 more for a Prius and you can't go a week without people telling that you aren't saving money. Are you saying that we should all by buying Hyundais?
I didn't buy mine to save money. I bought it because it is a damn reliable car that puts less crap in the atmosphere than the average.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Terry Pratchett is the only man who could conceivably do a decent job of it. Hopefully he has enough good sense not to desecrate a dead man's work, though.
Bah. Those asides, descriptions, etc. worked wonderfully in the radio play.
I remember reading an interview where the makers of the movie claimed they had to cut the lines because they didn't "flow as well when spoken". This is, of course, utterly ridiculous as the lines were even funnier when spoken in the original radio version.
The idiots who made that film had no sense whatsoever of comedy.
In terms of deficit, which economists tend to care about, the Republicans pretty much have been a complete disaster for the last thirty years. I think the last Republican president who didn't increase the deficit over his predecessor was Ford.
Unfortunately they really seem to have lost their way from the fiscally responsible party they were decades ago.
Probably the best take away from this is that while the campaigns scream "Obama would be a DISASTER" or "McCain would be a DISASTER", in truth, both have advantages and faults. It's not a black and white choice, but one of grays. One, of course, may be better, but it isn't so clearcut as man claim.
Well, we turn to cartoonists for actual unbiased information when the press falls down on its job to do the same. This is the same reason that the most trusted face in news these days belongs to a comedian.
What makes me more confident in this than anything I might see on CNN is that a) he plainly states his personal bias and b) he shows his work. Neither happens in the mainstream media.
You get much better information from someone you know is biased than when their bias is hidden, even if your own biases don't match.
My understanding is that Amazon's store is doing fairly well. Better than all those other failures at least. Obviously part of that is that they also sell tracks that work on the iPod.
Sure there is. This is what some compilers do:
1) Evaluate the left hand side (other than the postincrement.) (It evaluates to 0.)
2) Increment i (This sets i to 1.)
3) Perform the assignment using the value obtained in (1). (This assigns 0 to i.)
The above is compliant to the standard because the standard merely states that the increment has to happen after the rest of the right hand side is evaluated. The above may very well be faster/smaller for statements that aren't undefined, so it is perfectly possible that a compiler vendor will use it. Basically, the standard says that both (2) and (3) must happen after (1) but leaves the order of (2) and (3) undefined.
From an interview I did:
So, do you have experience with the STL?
Yes!
On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate your STL knowledge?
I'd say a "7".
What container would you use to store a sorted list of strings?
Uh...er...CArray?
If you really believe this, the way to get back at them is to take the test, and when you get the offer, say "no thanks, I don't work for people who test".
The standard says nothing about the order of operations of a post increment and other uses of the same variable. In other words, this could:
Assign 0 to i, and then increment it to 1.
Or it could:
Evaluate the right hand side of the assignment, increment i to 1, then performing the assignment, setting i to 0 again.
The reason that both are potentially valid is that ++ cannot be used on the left side of an assignment. The standard explicitly does not say whether the ++ occurs after the entire statement, or merely the right hand side of the assignhment takes place. Both meet the standard and thus some compilers take one or the other path depending on which makes faster code. This is why you NEVER reference a variable that you are using post or pre increment more than once in a statement.
This is the sort of thing that lulls coders into thinking that it works a certain way because the compiler always does something "reasonable".
Please turn in your Dork card. Star Destroyers don't have warp engines.
Yeah really. Given that both Microsoft and Sony have completely failed to produce an iTunes killer, I find it hard to think that Apple is worried about Best Buy.
Reminds me of the moron QA manager I once worked with who insisted on changing all the documents to list the "Side Affects" of each change.
More specifically, I believe it is the order of operations that is implementation defined. So this line could increment i by one, or could increment it by one and then return it to the original value. The code could just as well set i to 0 or 1.
Heh. A walk through San Francisco disproves that.
This is a myth. For instance, Shakespeare was by most accounts a gregarious, sane and happy fellow.
If Loki Games can still have a patch page up, I'm sure Valve can manage.
No, they didn't have welfare...they just gave free bread to all of their poor citizens. Totally different...
Note that many credit cards have "limits", yet let you charge well over them without halting payments, instead just charging "over limit fees".
If the XBox 360 was an attempt at dumping, then it was a completely failed attempt. But given that in the console market, selling the console below cost and making the money up on sales is the historically common way to do things, it's more reasonable to believe that they were selling it as a loss leader like everyone else. This is certainly the way the PS2 was sold. It was a monster hit, and yet hardly drove either Nintendo or Microsoft out of the console market.
The remarkable thing about the current generation was that Nintendo was able to sell a console at a profit.
Beside, nothing shady is going on. Both Microsoft and Sony have been very clear about when they are selling at a loss.
People don't buy Priuses to save money either.
Why is it that people never use this argument when talking about BMWs? I don't get it. Pay $20k extra for a BMW, and no one says anything. Pay $5000 more for a Prius and you can't go a week without people telling that you aren't saving money. Are you saying that we should all by buying Hyundais?
I didn't buy mine to save money. I bought it because it is a damn reliable car that puts less crap in the atmosphere than the average.
Seems doubtful, given that the biggest risk factor for downs syndrome is giving birth in your late thirties, early forties.
This kind of bullshit will only hurt Obama. Please stop.
Down's Syndrome is caused by bad eggs, and thus happens at conception. Whether she traveled late in her pregnancy would have no bearing on the matter.
Don't get me wrong...I'd never vote for a creationist loon, but please don't sling mud that is easily discounted. It just looks your side look bad.