Hmm. While intuitively I'd assume that ants are affected by a CoP: Green, they do cause damage to artifacts, which would make a CoP: Red look sensible. However, it is reported that the ants are resistant to common insecitides, which would befit a black creature.
I'd suggest a multicolor creature, but I'm not sure whether a single CoP would suffice in that case. It's been a long time since I worked with that stuff.
As a German, I still wonder why we were given permission to export Tokio Hotel. Then again that means that someone else has to suffer through them, so I'm fine with it.
Unless of course you turn it to the untested highest setting, which releases a bouncing sonic blast that destroys one building and causes another to partially collapse on top of a marine whose legs are smashed, causing her to team up with another marine who likes to wear a goofy selfmade iron suit and wave around a big hammer. The two of them will then operate out of a junkyard to foil your sceme of selling the sonic weapon to some Nazis nd Ché Guevara.
That's really what happens. I recently saw a documentary about this on TV.
Until you buy a Mac and find it's time to settle down... depending on whether you like OS X either with your Mac or in a remote cave with no semblance of an OS for the next 50 miles.
Not entirely unlikely. What we are seeing today might ery well be the first signs of Microsoft collapsing under their own weight. When that happens they will have to change the way they do business or perish. Microsoft is too big to just disappear, so I think they will shed some of their side businesses and find some niche to fill.
As to who will succeed them as the Evil Empire... Google is a possibility. They don't have to, but it's not unthinkable. And they are the next big superstar in IT.
Actually, a prototype car/submarine hybrid (for use in shallow water) has been tested already and, as far as I know, there already are a few commercial cars that can swim.
Of course it all depends on what you want. The subcar, for example, is based on a convertible and doesn't attempt to contain breathable air. It's merely a car that can swim and dive.
Ah. Didn't run across that before, not even in the introductory courses that were supposed to teach me stuff like that. The ternary operator would have sufficed in our case, though, as parts of our software stack* assume a Unix-compatible environment and Windows support is just there so our Win-bound developers can work with most of the code. The OS X users (of which I am one) don't mind using ~/.foo.properties.
I will replace the current initialization routine with a static block, though. Much cleaner than what we currently have.
* It involves no less than four different languages (Java 1.5, Ruby, lex, C) for the core functionality. Ouch. On the other hand, the external Ruby preprocessing tool saved a lot of development time and lex/C is faster than comparable functionality implemented in Java.
Luckily this time I have the backing of other students to push for a more liberal interpretation of the warnings - for example we ignore metrics like "too many method calls" in shorter methods. Of course some warnings are to be heeded (a method with a cyclomatic complexity of 18 is most likely suboptimal), but I'll make sure we don't blindly follow a "not everything is perfect accrding to this tool, so change it" approach again.
By the way, I configured EclipseMetrics (the metrics tool we use) to ignore comments, empty lines and JavaDoc as soon as the installation was finished. Getting told that a function is too long because it's properly documented and readable is annoying.
Ugh, yeah. Because the phase leader for my project* insisted on "zero CheckStyle warnings" I ended up writing a Java class that has a non-final constant. (For non-Java developers: What was supposed t be a constant was turned into an ordinary variable.)
The class has a member variable that is supposed to be constant. It's a path to a per-user config file; depending on whether or not the app runs on Windows, the filename is either prefixed with a dot or not.** Defining a constant like that works if you use the ternary operator and the code, while not the prettiest, is quite readable if you don't screw up.
Enter CheckStyle. CheckStyle immediately issues a warning because the ternary operator is evil and always has to be replaced with an if. Period. Of course that means that the constant (which everyone expects to be there so I can't easily get rid of it) is initialized after declaration, which means it can't be final. Incredibly ugly, but it's better(TM) because CheckStyle Said So.
Oh, and did I mention that CkeckStyle caused another student to rewrite part of the class for "readability"? One function parses strings like "1 to 5 step 0.2" into sequences of numbers. For some reason the team decided against regular expressions, so it involves crawling through the line using offsets to skip the " to " and the " step " - yup, magic numbers. They're documented. It's not hard to see why we modify the offset by 4 after encountering " to ".
CheckStyle, however, insists that the magic numbers be turned into constants to make the code more readable. Okay, well-chosen constant names might make the code more intuitive. No problem there. So my colleague chooses the names... STRINGLENGTH1 and STRINGLENGTH2, which tell even less about their use than the raw numbers. Brillant.
Of course we dropped CheckStyle two weeks later. I'll have to refactor that class when I have the time... But I won't get it because the same person who insisted on "zero CheckStyle warnings" now discovered a tool that applies wonderful metrics to our code. Things like "this method, including the (project-)mandatory JavaDoc comment, is longer than 15 lines, which is bad". Guess which conclusions were drawn.
Automated code checkers can be wonderful tools, as long as you know when not to listen to them.
* My university's CS course contains a compulsory two-year group project.
** The Java class library does a lot, but it really could use a class that handles per-OS stuff like where config files should go and how they should be called.
I also remember some games being broken because you could save, and if the battle didn't go how you wanted it to, you could reload and try again. Nowadays, games tend to save the generator's seed so that things go the same way.
Actually, that opens new venues of attack: If a certain attack will fail you can try another one. Determinism allows you to generate a very specific plan through trial and error; with enough patience you can abuse this to always achieve perfect results.
Actually, space lawyers are very important. Only them can achieve space settlements in space cases, not to mention correctly apply principles like habeas space corpus.
I believe this is a very important step towards building a space society that ensures the space freedom of the whole space people. I also believe that everything will be so different in space that we will need to prefix it with "space" to form a new space language.
Has been tried. The end result was that Mazda had to blow up ca. 4700 new cars. (In short, something went wrong during the dumping process and the ship laid motionless, listing at sixty degrees, for weeks. Mazda had no idea what that would do to their cars so they destroyed them all to be safe.)
It reduces biodiversity (ideological argument when taken on its own), which sometimes can lead to certain areas developing unwanted characteristics, such as lack of fish (economical argument) - and with science finding unexpected uses for species, each species we drive to extinction is one species we can't use in that way (another economical one).
The zebra mussel thing would be an example for argument 2 - as I understand, it causes problems for the US inland fishing business.
Look, if some dictator killing one million people precludes having any kind of fun to you, here's a simple idea: Get the necessary material, build a cobalt bomb and set it off in Myanmar. The dictator will almost immediately stop being much of a concern to the area.
Which means that we're comparing something that generates jobs and taxes to something that generates money and taxes. Keeping the money on the bank as opposed to starting up a company is at best just as good for the people as the alternative. My argument against the GGP still holds - this is by far not just rich people giving each other money.
Very true. A movie is the one thing where BioShock would be better than System Shock - Hollywood wouldn't be able to get SHODAN right; also, much of what draws you into SS comes from the fact that the whole mess is actually your fault. Someone once said that the relationship between the player and SHODAN is very personal. It's true. And that can't be captured on the silk screen.
Re:More Annoying Money Wasters for Rich People
on
Zeppelins Over California
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The money goes from rich person R1 to rich person R2. Some of it goes to the state as taxes. R2 then has to spend some money on wages for workers W1 to Wn who operate and maintain the zeppelin (again, some of that money goes to the state via taxes at various points). He also has to spend money on material and parts required to maintain the zeppelin, which goes to suppliers S1 to Sn. Again, taxes apply and if the zeppelin business runs well enough the material suppliers might be able to expand their businesses, thus creating more jobs.
I don't know how much taxes this generates as opposed to taxes on money that lies around on the bank, but it does also generate jobs, which helps society because (at least in theory) it reduces welfare spending, among other things.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. While intuitively I'd assume that ants are affected by a CoP: Green, they do cause damage to artifacts, which would make a CoP: Red look sensible. However, it is reported that the ants are resistant to common insecitides, which would befit a black creature.
I'd suggest a multicolor creature, but I'm not sure whether a single CoP would suffice in that case. It's been a long time since I worked with that stuff.
Glass Texas before the ants can spread.
As a German, I still wonder why we were given permission to export Tokio Hotel. Then again that means that someone else has to suffer through them, so I'm fine with it.
Stun damage guaranteed nonlethal? Give someone two or three doses of gamma and tell me that again.
Unless of course you turn it to the untested highest setting, which releases a bouncing sonic blast that destroys one building and causes another to partially collapse on top of a marine whose legs are smashed, causing her to team up with another marine who likes to wear a goofy selfmade iron suit and wave around a big hammer. The two of them will then operate out of a junkyard to foil your sceme of selling the sonic weapon to some Nazis nd Ché Guevara.
That's really what happens. I recently saw a documentary about this on TV.
Until you buy a Mac and find it's time to settle down... depending on whether you like OS X either with your Mac or in a remote cave with no semblance of an OS for the next 50 miles.
They used a very fast telescope.
Not entirely unlikely. What we are seeing today might ery well be the first signs of Microsoft collapsing under their own weight. When that happens they will have to change the way they do business or perish. Microsoft is too big to just disappear, so I think they will shed some of their side businesses and find some niche to fill.
As to who will succeed them as the Evil Empire... Google is a possibility. They don't have to, but it's not unthinkable. And they are the next big superstar in IT.
Actually, a prototype car/submarine hybrid (for use in shallow water) has been tested already and, as far as I know, there already are a few commercial cars that can swim.
Of course it all depends on what you want. The subcar, for example, is based on a convertible and doesn't attempt to contain breathable air. It's merely a car that can swim and dive.
Microsoft is the new IBM. It took IBM forever to get rid of the "evil empire" image and some still consider it to apply.
Ah. Didn't run across that before, not even in the introductory courses that were supposed to teach me stuff like that. The ternary operator would have sufficed in our case, though, as parts of our software stack* assume a Unix-compatible environment and Windows support is just there so our Win-bound developers can work with most of the code. The OS X users (of which I am one) don't mind using ~/.foo.properties.
I will replace the current initialization routine with a static block, though. Much cleaner than what we currently have.
* It involves no less than four different languages (Java 1.5, Ruby, lex, C) for the core functionality. Ouch. On the other hand, the external Ruby preprocessing tool saved a lot of development time and lex/C is faster than comparable functionality implemented in Java.
Luckily this time I have the backing of other students to push for a more liberal interpretation of the warnings - for example we ignore metrics like "too many method calls" in shorter methods. Of course some warnings are to be heeded (a method with a cyclomatic complexity of 18 is most likely suboptimal), but I'll make sure we don't blindly follow a "not everything is perfect accrding to this tool, so change it" approach again.
By the way, I configured EclipseMetrics (the metrics tool we use) to ignore comments, empty lines and JavaDoc as soon as the installation was finished. Getting told that a function is too long because it's properly documented and readable is annoying.
Ugh, yeah. Because the phase leader for my project* insisted on "zero CheckStyle warnings" I ended up writing a Java class that has a non-final constant. (For non-Java developers: What was supposed t be a constant was turned into an ordinary variable.)
The class has a member variable that is supposed to be constant. It's a path to a per-user config file; depending on whether or not the app runs on Windows, the filename is either prefixed with a dot or not.** Defining a constant like that works if you use the ternary operator and the code, while not the prettiest, is quite readable if you don't screw up.
Enter CheckStyle. CheckStyle immediately issues a warning because the ternary operator is evil and always has to be replaced with an if. Period. Of course that means that the constant (which everyone expects to be there so I can't easily get rid of it) is initialized after declaration, which means it can't be final. Incredibly ugly, but it's better(TM) because CheckStyle Said So.
Oh, and did I mention that CkeckStyle caused another student to rewrite part of the class for "readability"? One function parses strings like "1 to 5 step 0.2" into sequences of numbers. For some reason the team decided against regular expressions, so it involves crawling through the line using offsets to skip the " to " and the " step " - yup, magic numbers. They're documented. It's not hard to see why we modify the offset by 4 after encountering " to ".
CheckStyle, however, insists that the magic numbers be turned into constants to make the code more readable. Okay, well-chosen constant names might make the code more intuitive. No problem there. So my colleague chooses the names... STRINGLENGTH1 and STRINGLENGTH2, which tell even less about their use than the raw numbers. Brillant.
Of course we dropped CheckStyle two weeks later. I'll have to refactor that class when I have the time... But I won't get it because the same person who insisted on "zero CheckStyle warnings" now discovered a tool that applies wonderful metrics to our code. Things like "this method, including the (project-)mandatory JavaDoc comment, is longer than 15 lines, which is bad". Guess which conclusions were drawn.
Automated code checkers can be wonderful tools, as long as you know when not to listen to them.
* My university's CS course contains a compulsory two-year group project.
** The Java class library does a lot, but it really could use a class that handles per-OS stuff like where config files should go and how they should be called.
Debian should make a new policy: Don't let someone who doesn't exactly know what he's doing muck about in crypto code.
Actually, space lawyers are very important. Only them can achieve space settlements in space cases, not to mention correctly apply principles like habeas space corpus.
I believe this is a very important step towards building a space society that ensures the space freedom of the whole space people. I also believe that everything will be so different in space that we will need to prefix it with "space" to form a new space language.
Has been tried. The end result was that Mazda had to blow up ca. 4700 new cars. (In short, something went wrong during the dumping process and the ship laid motionless, listing at sixty degrees, for weeks. Mazda had no idea what that would do to their cars so they destroyed them all to be safe.)
It reduces biodiversity (ideological argument when taken on its own), which sometimes can lead to certain areas developing unwanted characteristics, such as lack of fish (economical argument) - and with science finding unexpected uses for species, each species we drive to extinction is one species we can't use in that way (another economical one).
The zebra mussel thing would be an example for argument 2 - as I understand, it causes problems for the US inland fishing business.
Look, if some dictator killing one million people precludes having any kind of fun to you, here's a simple idea: Get the necessary material, build a cobalt bomb and set it off in Myanmar. The dictator will almost immediately stop being much of a concern to the area.
Which means that we're comparing something that generates jobs and taxes to something that generates money and taxes. Keeping the money on the bank as opposed to starting up a company is at best just as good for the people as the alternative. My argument against the GGP still holds - this is by far not just rich people giving each other money.
Of course if you - at any point - pick (1), you will inevitably end up attacking the free world with nuclear weapons.
Very true. A movie is the one thing where BioShock would be better than System Shock - Hollywood wouldn't be able to get SHODAN right; also, much of what draws you into SS comes from the fact that the whole mess is actually your fault. Someone once said that the relationship between the player and SHODAN is very personal. It's true. And that can't be captured on the silk screen.
The money goes from rich person R1 to rich person R2. Some of it goes to the state as taxes. R2 then has to spend some money on wages for workers W1 to Wn who operate and maintain the zeppelin (again, some of that money goes to the state via taxes at various points). He also has to spend money on material and parts required to maintain the zeppelin, which goes to suppliers S1 to Sn. Again, taxes apply and if the zeppelin business runs well enough the material suppliers might be able to expand their businesses, thus creating more jobs.
I don't know how much taxes this generates as opposed to taxes on money that lies around on the bank, but it does also generate jobs, which helps society because (at least in theory) it reduces welfare spending, among other things.