Yes, I'm aware of that (I actually studied Latin and Ancient Greek in university). I think my response was a joke about "person" containing "son" (which are clearly not related, like "history"="his story" and other nonsense).
"taken advantage of" means that the boss thinks that your time is less important than someone else's just because you don't have kids. That means that if two people can work on a project and there's a tight deadline, the one with the kids gets the weekend off because the other's weekend is "not as important". That's "taken advantage of".
This has nothing to do with people who voluntarily make sacrifices in order to gain something later.
By the way, just because someone isn't at work doesn't mean that s/he isn't making any sacrifices (for example, some people study in order to change their careers - that's a sacrifice which doesn't involve 60 hour weeks at work).
I'm also not sure about "getting ahead" - what does it mean? Making more money? Having more free time? Having a better / deeper relationship? Being happier? Making a more significant (and positive) change in other people's lives? There are many definitions of "getting ahead in life", not all of them require insane working hours.
Well, maybe we *are* still at the evolutionary stage of a bird: we can only "feel" numbers up to 5, but we can learn to "sing" any number of digits. We don't actually have any understanding of the number, just aural memory (unfortunately, unlike with birds, it's useless for attracting females).
And the next digit is zero. Memorised when I was 14 (25 years ago), I still remember quite a bit (and no, I don't recall it every day just to refresh my RAM).
I didn't use any method, just sheer determination (although I do remember it by sound more than anything, and I can't recall it in other languages without having to hum it to myself in my native language).
The brain is a strange thing... and I'm definitely not going to bother learning Tau by heart...
Yes, I completely agree, of course. Having "17" in the code requires some explanation. In this case, I'd probably have something like: enum { OBJECT_INFO_SIZE = 17 };
(my assumption here is that I need to skip a certain size in bytes in some byte stream that needs to be parsed - of course if sizeof(struct objectInfo) works then that's even better).
But even so, someone might say "I understand that you are skipping objectInfo, but *why*?" where a comment could really help: /* Skipping the objectInfo strucutre, as it is optional [section 4.2.2] */ offset += OBJECT_INFO_SIZE;
There's also a risk that someone would introduce a bug while keeping the documentation correct. So what? We live in a dangerous world.
Comments can be useful, and there is no need to avoid them just because they could be wrong. If the code is wrong, you need to know what it's supposed to do (and why) before you can decide that it's wrong. That's where comments can make your life easier.
I'm always annoyed when I watch a film, find it boring / stupid, and then get told by fans that the film doesn't make sense unless I read the book first. If I wanted to read the book, I would have read the book, but I actually wanted to watch a film. If the director can't do his job, that's not my problem (even though I get to pay for the ticket, the popcorn, and the time).
But then I realise that most of the films-from-books I've watched, having read the books first, were over-simplified, shortened, shallow versions of the book, and would probably be boring / stupid / full of obscure references that wouldn't make sense to anyone who hasn't read the book first.
The fact is, it's a huge challenge to convert thought provoking prose which takes you days or weeks to read into 2 hours of action. Even films that are based on short, simple stories have serious issues in most cases. That is, unless the books themselves are nothing but action and read like a script...
I didn't get the impression that he was saying "everybody's buying other people stuff that they secretly want". He only said "don't buy other people stuff they have no interest in, just because you do".
How do I know the write is a "he"? Educated guess.
Not everybody believes in "spend money to make money". There are other business models as well. And there are many lemons in the market, as you probably already know.
Well, according to Wikipedia, you can legally pay less than that in Arkansas and Wyoming.
Not to mention the states that have no minimum wage (I'm sure there's some justification for that: "It keeps me in a job if I earn $0.2 an hour"). To name and shame: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. And I thought that slavery was abolished in those states some time ago.
Yes, but have Apple actually patented a shape? I don't understand this story.
"Your honour, an 'oblong' appears in Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 22:
Of quadrilateral figures, a square is that which is both equilateral and right-angled; an oblong that which is right-angled but not equilateral; a rhombus that which is equilateral but not right-angled; and a rhomboid that which has its opposite sides and angles equal to one another but is neither equilateral nor right-angled. And let quadrilaterals other than these be called trapezia.
(c) Copyright 300 BC, Euclid"
I can hold a book and an iPad and the judge wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a distance. So have Apple copied a book? (answer: yes. That's whole point of a tablet). What did the judge actually prove? That objects with similar functionality are likely to look similar?
If Apple can patent a shape then I'll have the "heart shape" please, and Valentine's day will make me a very rich person indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like the pictures of drunks you see on beer and wine bottles.
All those cherries ended up in the CherryPy.
Here's the thing: would you like to do things once and finish them, or keep fixing the mistakes you've made while being distracted?
Yes, I'm aware of that (I actually studied Latin and Ancient Greek in university).
I think my response was a joke about "person" containing "son" (which are clearly not related, like "history"="his story" and other nonsense).
Hang on, the word "female" has the word "male" in it. Now I'm confused...
Boo.... lean!
"taken advantage of" means that the boss thinks that your time is less important than someone else's just because you don't have kids. That means that if two people can work on a project and there's a tight deadline, the one with the kids gets the weekend off because the other's weekend is "not as important". That's "taken advantage of".
This has nothing to do with people who voluntarily make sacrifices in order to gain something later.
By the way, just because someone isn't at work doesn't mean that s/he isn't making any sacrifices (for example, some people study in order to change their careers - that's a sacrifice which doesn't involve 60 hour weeks at work).
I'm also not sure about "getting ahead" - what does it mean? Making more money? Having more free time? Having a better / deeper relationship? Being happier? Making a more significant (and positive) change in other people's lives? There are many definitions of "getting ahead in life", not all of them require insane working hours.
Well, maybe we *are* still at the evolutionary stage of a bird: we can only "feel" numbers up to 5, but we can learn to "sing" any number of digits. We don't actually have any understanding of the number, just aural memory (unfortunately, unlike with birds, it's useless for attracting females).
And the next digit is zero. Memorised when I was 14 (25 years ago), I still remember quite a bit (and no, I don't recall it every day just to refresh my RAM).
I didn't use any method, just sheer determination (although I do remember it by sound more than anything, and I can't recall it in other languages without having to hum it to myself in my native language).
The brain is a strange thing... and I'm definitely not going to bother learning Tau by heart...
Yes, I completely agree, of course. Having "17" in the code requires some explanation.
In this case, I'd probably have something like:
enum { OBJECT_INFO_SIZE = 17 };
(my assumption here is that I need to skip a certain size in bytes in some byte stream that needs to be parsed - of course if sizeof(struct objectInfo) works then that's even better).
But even so, someone might say "I understand that you are skipping objectInfo, but *why*?" where a comment could really help:
/* Skipping the objectInfo strucutre, as it is optional [section 4.2.2] */
offset += OBJECT_INFO_SIZE;
Well, I've also seen comments like this:
byteCount -= 17;
But the comment can become useful if you only change it slightly:
offset += 17;
Then you don't have to search in the code where objectInfo is stored - it's clear that it isn't.
Sometimes I find myself reading the code, explaining it to someone, and then I say "actually, that's exactly what the comment is saying..."
There's also a risk that someone would introduce a bug while keeping the documentation correct. So what? We live in a dangerous world.
Comments can be useful, and there is no need to avoid them just because they could be wrong. If the code is wrong, you need to know what it's supposed to do (and why) before you can decide that it's wrong. That's where comments can make your life easier.
I'm always annoyed when I watch a film, find it boring / stupid, and then get told by fans that the film doesn't make sense unless I read the book first. If I wanted to read the book, I would have read the book, but I actually wanted to watch a film. If the director can't do his job, that's not my problem (even though I get to pay for the ticket, the popcorn, and the time).
But then I realise that most of the films-from-books I've watched, having read the books first, were over-simplified, shortened, shallow versions of the book, and would probably be boring / stupid / full of obscure references that wouldn't make sense to anyone who hasn't read the book first.
The fact is, it's a huge challenge to convert thought provoking prose which takes you days or weeks to read into 2 hours of action. Even films that are based on short, simple stories have serious issues in most cases. That is, unless the books themselves are nothing but action and read like a script...
I heard that lioness milk is the stuff, but vegans seem to disagree.
Must be the goodness of their hearts then.
No, I have no excuse this time, just blindness and stupidity...
Never mind, better luck next time guessing the obvious ;-)
Reminds you of the usual Christmas questions on Slashdot: "This year I've decided to give my family a Linux distro on a USB stick. Any suggestions?"
I didn't get the impression that he was saying "everybody's buying other people stuff that they secretly want".
He only said "don't buy other people stuff they have no interest in, just because you do".
How do I know the write is a "he"? Educated guess.
Not everybody believes in "spend money to make money". There are other business models as well. And there are many lemons in the market, as you probably already know.
Same here. The oldest non-mistake in the book.
I used to think like that, but now I'm using Window ME and let me tell you, I've seen the light!
Well, according to Wikipedia, you can legally pay less than that in Arkansas and Wyoming.
Not to mention the states that have no minimum wage (I'm sure there's some justification for that: "It keeps me in a job if I earn $0.2 an hour"). To name and shame: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee. And I thought that slavery was abolished in those states some time ago.
Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
Joking, joking...
Maybe he still likes Anna Kournikova...
Yes, but have Apple actually patented a shape? I don't understand this story.
"Your honour, an 'oblong' appears in Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 22:
Of quadrilateral figures, a square is that which is both equilateral and right-angled; an oblong that which is right-angled but not equilateral; a rhombus that which is equilateral but not right-angled; and a rhomboid that which has its opposite sides and angles equal to one another but is neither equilateral nor right-angled. And let quadrilaterals other than these be called trapezia.
(c) Copyright 300 BC, Euclid"
I can hold a book and an iPad and the judge wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a distance. So have Apple copied a book? (answer: yes. That's whole point of a tablet). What did the judge actually prove? That objects with similar functionality are likely to look similar?
If Apple can patent a shape then I'll have the "heart shape" please, and Valentine's day will make me a very rich person indeed.