While some tool on Wikipedia is thumping his chest about cataloguing information, it is in incredibly poor taste. A tradition has evolved around both not revealing the murderer and informing the audience of Agatha's wishes to keep the murderer secret.
Wikipedia is at least consistent with its approach to fiction: they do this with everything. I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing, it isn't a review, it is a plot summary in an encyclopedia. As long as you know they do this, you know not to read any article on a piece of fiction unless you have already read/seen it, or you don't care about spoilers.
While you can certainly make an argument that they should either not include spoilers, or put spoiler warnings, they have decided not to for whatever reason. Their site, they can do what they like.
Except that if you ever went to the Mousetrap, you would know that it's an incredibly well written, tight play. Without the spoiler, I would venture to guess that despite being given all the clues, around 80% of the audience would fall to one of the many misdirections and identify the wrong actor as the killer.
I've never seen it, maybe I should. I kind of pride myself that I can nearly always guess the murderer in an Agatha Christie after the first murder (occasionally before it:) ). In most of them there is one character who is very central (although not the detective), but is under no suspicion whatever. It is essentially impossible for them to have committed it, and they have no motive whatsoever. If they are also the sole source for certain key pieces of information then you can be certain they are the guilty party.
You'd have to be a moron not to assume that a commercial product including the word Jedi, especially one in the area of mind control FFS, was not connected to Star Wars.
You'd have to be a moron (and I speak as someone who has done something similar with a mark owned by an 800lb gorilla, so this is the voice of experience) to launch a product (in the area of mind control FFS) using the name Jedi without getting permission.
Skimming the translated article, it does seem to be talking about covert surveillance. I don't think anyone would disagree (well except on slashdot..) that some employers need to keep tabs on their employees, but it does seem reasonable that such things should be known to the employees in question.
That's a fair point. Although I don't think I (in the basic scripts I sometimes hack out) have ever needed the result of a function that I've used as the test for a loop...
So I'd just do:
while(func_true_if_more_work()) {
...
}
I can definitely see that it could be useful and more readable though.
You can eliminate a lot of == vs = bugs simply by putting the error constant on the left since assigning anything to a constant is a syntax error.
Thinking about it, that's a really good tip! Forcing myself to do this will not only throw an error when there is a constant in the comparison, it will make me think about this issue whenever I'm writing a comparison, which should make me less prone to making the typo in the first place. Thanks, I'll definitely try that.
I want to specify what I want by using explicit operators, strongly-typed variables, and so forth. And let the parser find my subtle bugs (that fails syntax rules) and highlight them to me.
I'm completely with you on that. I loved Pascal when I was at school for exactly this reason. When I made a typo, nine times out of ten the compiler would catch it. This is specifically why I hate this issue. Because it doesn't cause a syntax error, I've got a random problem that I'll spot at some later point and have to trace back. If I notice it at all.
I do appreciate your point about ambiguity though. I'm starting to think that those people above suggesting that assignment could be:= have a point. It isn't that I necessarily don't want comparison to be == , it is just that having the typo I most commonly make be syntacticaly correct is really really annoying:)
I'm sure you are right, although I can't claim to really understand. Are there really uses which couldn't be achieved just by using an extra line of code - which also normally has the advantage of being easier to read? ,br>
No doubt there are... but I'm unable to break my early habits of using = for comparison, and it drives me up the wall any time I try to code something:)
foo=unknown_result();
if (foo) {print "unknown_result returned a True value which is now in foo";}
And damn it I think everyone else should to!
I sure I'm wrong and it isn't just a thing people use to make their code harder to read, but I have a real blind spot for == vs = and even though I do little coding, the amount of time I've wasted on it annoys me:)
Ok I'm going to display my ignorance here and ask why isn't = on its own good enough for a comparison?
I used various forms of BASIC as a kid, and = was fine there. I had some formal education in Pascal, = was fine there.
Now when I occasionally do a little scripting in a modern language, I spend most of my time tearing my hair out at bugs which turn out to be the result of me using = when I should have put ==.
I'm sure there are good reasons for it that make sense to proper programmers, but personally I'd like to give whoever came up with this syntax a kick in the bollocks. Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement or a loop condition check anyway?
BTW, does/. have a neutral sort yet (a sort that only reflect moderation changes not the starting value?
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but set your options to add +1 to AC posts, remove karma bonus and remove the insightful bonus. All posts start at 1 and all mods are either +1 or -1.
Probably not many. Since they also probably won't have an internet connection or a PC in the first place. Think about it.
China has more internet users than the United States. Whether these people are downloading pirated computer games or not, I don't know, but the developing world is developing pretty fast.
A lot seperates us between now and then. Countless dead, every family across the planet touched by it. Nobody on this planet has a family that was untouched by that war. Absolutely Everyone lost someone in that war.
Really I think all that separates us is nuclear weapons. Without them there would have been (at least) 3 world wars in the last century.
Twice in the first half of the twentieth century, people very much like us turned their entire effort into waging industrial war against each other. We came extremely close to doing it again on a number of occasions during the cold war, despite the fact that nuclear destruction was mutually assured.
What separates us from them? Luck mainly I think, and possibly now and going forward the growing globalisation and interlinking of the major nations.
Which quite neatly, takes us back to my original point about how these various crimes (or whatever you want to call them) of virtual property can quite correctly be called stealing in common usage, even if they do not fall under the legal definition of theft.
I'm sure you are right about copying a CD from a friend. But someone who's entire iPod is full of pirated music? Or has a massive collection of pirated DVDs? Or who bypasses a paywall costing several hundred quid to get access to a conference?
On slashdot no, maybe most people wouldn't call that stealing. But out in the real world people very often would - this is the thing that I think many of the "information wants to be free" types don't quite get. Apart from student age groups and below, they are a minority, and not a large one.
steal
v. stole (stl), stolen (stln), stealing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.
4. To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.
5. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
6. Baseball To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
v.intr.
1. To commit theft.
2. To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.
3. Baseball To steal a base.
n.
1. The act of stealing.
2. Slang A bargain.
3. Baseball A stolen base.
4. Basketball An act of gaining possession of the ball from an opponent.
Well that makes sense, apart from the fact that it doesn't.
If the RIAA were involved in something that was something that was generally regarded to be pedophilia, but was not actually illegal but required the victim to sue, then I'm sure people would do so.
Bit like the way people call them bastards when most of them are probably legitimate.
Can we please stop obsessing about this meaningless piece of sophistry? Stealing is a word, not a reference to the criminal law code in your particular jurisdiction. The usage is fine.
CPUs have stopped being the bottleneck for games ages ago, though, so hardly anyone would notice. Any 6-core rig on sale today has enough juice to run any game smoothly, so long as you have the graphics card to satisfy its demands.
Depends on the games you play. This is true for most 'twitch' type of games, or anything really where all the important stuff is what is going on in front of you. A strategy game or economic sim, or a game with a large complex, open world on the other hand...
Pretty much all the games I play regularly are CPU bound assuming you meet the basic graphics card requirements: games like Civ and Paradox's various strategy games. X3 from Egosoft (open world space game with a massive universe running in the background). Or a sports management game like Football Manager 2010, where you can add as many worldwide leagues as your rig can handle.
Probably because people trolling what appears to be a legitimate attempt by an oppressive government to actually be, you know, less oppressive, really isn't funny to begin with.
That's cute. My own interpretation would be: attempt to grab a few headlines and sound like we're listening while continuing to do what we would have done anyway. We've had this kind of shit for 13 years (No 10 petitions anyone?) and if the new government seriously thinks people are going to fall for it just because it's a different party doing it, they deserve to have people taking the piss.
Slashdot Mirror
Crap. He may have the right under the US constitution, but no one else has any responsibility to aid this lunatic in the slightest.
Wikipedia is at least consistent with its approach to fiction: they do this with everything. I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing, it isn't a review, it is a plot summary in an encyclopedia. As long as you know they do this, you know not to read any article on a piece of fiction unless you have already read/seen it, or you don't care about spoilers.
While you can certainly make an argument that they should either not include spoilers, or put spoiler warnings, they have decided not to for whatever reason. Their site, they can do what they like.
I've never seen it, maybe I should. I kind of pride myself that I can nearly always guess the murderer in an Agatha Christie after the first murder (occasionally before it :) ). In most of them there is one character who is very central (although not the detective), but is under no suspicion whatever. It is essentially impossible for them to have committed it, and they have no motive whatsoever. If they are also the sole source for certain key pieces of information then you can be certain they are the guilty party.
You'd have to be a moron not to assume that a commercial product including the word Jedi, especially one in the area of mind control FFS, was not connected to Star Wars.
You'd have to be a moron (and I speak as someone who has done something similar with a mark owned by an 800lb gorilla, so this is the voice of experience) to launch a product (in the area of mind control FFS) using the name Jedi without getting permission.
While that may be true, it just so happens that in this case both the law and common sense agrees with the 800lb gorilla.
This is not the abuse of power controversy you are looking for.
Skimming the translated article, it does seem to be talking about covert surveillance. I don't think anyone would disagree (well except on slashdot..) that some employers need to keep tabs on their employees, but it does seem reasonable that such things should be known to the employees in question.
That's a fair point. Although I don't think I (in the basic scripts I sometimes hack out) have ever needed the result of a function that I've used as the test for a loop...
...
So I'd just do:
while(func_true_if_more_work()) {
}
I can definitely see that it could be useful and more readable though.
Thinking about it, that's a really good tip! Forcing myself to do this will not only throw an error when there is a constant in the comparison, it will make me think about this issue whenever I'm writing a comparison, which should make me less prone to making the typo in the first place. Thanks, I'll definitely try that.
I'm completely with you on that. I loved Pascal when I was at school for exactly this reason. When I made a typo, nine times out of ten the compiler would catch it. This is specifically why I hate this issue. Because it doesn't cause a syntax error, I've got a random problem that I'll spot at some later point and have to trace back. If I notice it at all.
:= have a point. It isn't that I necessarily don't want comparison to be == , it is just that having the typo I most commonly make be syntacticaly correct is really really annoying :)
I do appreciate your point about ambiguity though. I'm starting to think that those people above suggesting that assignment could be
I'm sure you are right, although I can't claim to really understand. Are there really uses which couldn't be achieved just by using an extra line of code - which also normally has the advantage of being easier to read? :)
,br> No doubt there are... but I'm unable to break my early habits of using = for comparison, and it drives me up the wall any time I try to code something
I'd do:
:)
foo=unknown_result();
if (foo) {print "unknown_result returned a True value which is now in foo";}
And damn it I think everyone else should to!
I sure I'm wrong and it isn't just a thing people use to make their code harder to read, but I have a real blind spot for == vs = and even though I do little coding, the amount of time I've wasted on it annoys me
Ah, about 15 years since I used Pascal, I must have forgotten...
Ok I'm going to display my ignorance here and ask why isn't = on its own good enough for a comparison?
.
I used various forms of BASIC as a kid, and = was fine there. I had some formal education in Pascal, = was fine there.
Now when I occasionally do a little scripting in a modern language, I spend most of my time tearing my hair out at bugs which turn out to be the result of me using = when I should have put ==
I'm sure there are good reasons for it that make sense to proper programmers, but personally I'd like to give whoever came up with this syntax a kick in the bollocks. Why would I want to do an assignment in an if statement or a loop condition check anyway?
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but set your options to add +1 to AC posts, remove karma bonus and remove the insightful bonus. All posts start at 1 and all mods are either +1 or -1.
A lot of people speak English to a level good enough to play a computer game.
China has more internet users than the United States. Whether these people are downloading pirated computer games or not, I don't know, but the developing world is developing pretty fast.
Really I think all that separates us is nuclear weapons. Without them there would have been (at least) 3 world wars in the last century.
Twice in the first half of the twentieth century, people very much like us turned their entire effort into waging industrial war against each other. We came extremely close to doing it again on a number of occasions during the cold war, despite the fact that nuclear destruction was mutually assured.
What separates us from them? Luck mainly I think, and possibly now and going forward the growing globalisation and interlinking of the major nations.
Which quite neatly, takes us back to my original point about how these various crimes (or whatever you want to call them) of virtual property can quite correctly be called stealing in common usage, even if they do not fall under the legal definition of theft.
I'm sure you are right about copying a CD from a friend. But someone who's entire iPod is full of pirated music? Or has a massive collection of pirated DVDs? Or who bypasses a paywall costing several hundred quid to get access to a conference?
On slashdot no, maybe most people wouldn't call that stealing. But out in the real world people very often would - this is the thing that I think many of the "information wants to be free" types don't quite get. Apart from student age groups and below, they are a minority, and not a large one.
Long answer: NOOOoooooooooooooooo!!!!!
steal
v. stole (stl), stolen (stln), stealing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.
4. To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed.
5. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
6. Baseball To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
v.intr.
1. To commit theft.
2. To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.
3. Baseball To steal a base.
n.
1. The act of stealing.
2. Slang A bargain.
3. Baseball A stolen base.
4. Basketball An act of gaining possession of the ball from an opponent.
Well that makes sense, apart from the fact that it doesn't.
If the RIAA were involved in something that was something that was generally regarded to be pedophilia, but was not actually illegal but required the victim to sue, then I'm sure people would do so.
Bit like the way people call them bastards when most of them are probably legitimate.
Can we please stop obsessing about this meaningless piece of sophistry? Stealing is a word, not a reference to the criminal law code in your particular jurisdiction. The usage is fine.
It's a little bit more complicated than that...
There is now a Scottish parliament with considerable powers. And the legal systems of Scotland and England are and always have been separate.
In short that means you should blame the Scots for this one.
Depends on the games you play. This is true for most 'twitch' type of games, or anything really where all the important stuff is what is going on in front of you. A strategy game or economic sim, or a game with a large complex, open world on the other hand...
Pretty much all the games I play regularly are CPU bound assuming you meet the basic graphics card requirements: games like Civ and Paradox's various strategy games. X3 from Egosoft (open world space game with a massive universe running in the background). Or a sports management game like Football Manager 2010, where you can add as many worldwide leagues as your rig can handle.
That's cute. My own interpretation would be: attempt to grab a few headlines and sound like we're listening while continuing to do what we would have done anyway. We've had this kind of shit for 13 years (No 10 petitions anyone?) and if the new government seriously thinks people are going to fall for it just because it's a different party doing it, they deserve to have people taking the piss.