The "not worth the cost and work" was the cost and work of a third bank account. I was willing at the start of our marriage to have a single joint account, and indeed expected it - my dear wife was not, due to various things in her past.
Now that I'm a number of years in, I can tell you there's no way I'm having a joint account with her. We manage money very differently and don't need the stress of it.
I don't have any idea what model it was, but a co-worker used to have a very small HP laptop with a mouse on a little arm that came out the right side of it.
#6..... My wife and I also have separate money, and I pay most of the bills, then she pays me her half. It isn't practical to divvy the bills up because one bill (mortgage) is a huge chunk.
(We make roughly the same amount of money, so half is what we do.)
Even that is having its stresses as she forgets to pay me then I have to pay bill collector, because I can't float more than two months of bills before my checking account starts to be sad.
I balance my check book. Every month. The day the statement comes out. Everything is in Quicken. I can tell you what I spent on groceries in 2002.
My wife checks the bank web site to see if she still has money.
So I pay almost all our "joint" bills, and (because we make roughly the same amount of money) she writes me a check for half of them each month after deducting my half of the few she pays.
We had a joint bank account for a while but it wasn't worth the cost and work.
She has a few of my credit cards but they never get used. In general, all our finances are separate except for that monthly check.
It's a real commitment instead of a shared house key.
It's "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" instead of "let's live together and screw."
Plus, at least in the US, there are quite a lot of economic and legal benefits. Best place to find that list if you don't know it may be one of the "gay marriage" sites, because they probably tend to list those out as reasons why it should be allowed.
The average IQ of the overall population is defined to be 100.
The average IQ of any subgroup of that population (such as current university students) is probably not exactly 100.
It may be close to 100 if the population is fairly representative of the overall population.
It may be well over 100, for example, if the population is members of Mensa. (I don't personally have a lot of regard for Mensa, but that is the claimed purpose of their organization afaik.)
It may be well below 100 for a variety of reasons for which I don't know the current PC terms.
I can't really tell if the thing you think is "haywire" is that your grandfather's best friend got paid very little to play pro ball or that today's players get paid so much.
That hasn't changed too much. A modern minor league player can make as little as $850 per month ("Class A, short-season.")
A lot of doctors (and IT folks, and volunteer firemen, and others) carried those before cell phones were so common-place.
Some people still carry pagers instead of cell phones, because they want time to piss and get a drink before they have to talk to someone in the middle of the night.
I was on support until a year or two ago. Every year or so a manager would ask if we wouldn't rather have a cell phone......
I"m 40 years old. I graduated from a small-town high school in 1986.
We had rules, and we had to follow them, or things happened.
Calculators were allowed for some things, not for others.
Notes were allowed for some things, not for others.
Specific attire was required - long pants, shirts without obscene, drug, or alcohol related imagery or phrases.
If you acted up, you got detention at school and most likely punished at home as well.
If you had stuff you weren't supposed to have - like hand-held electronic games during class - those things got taken away. (Yes, such things did exist. They were primitive, but they existed.)
But, apparently, those methods of child management no longer work.
Wouldn't a school policy of phone confiscation handle this? For example:
"Cell phones may not be powered on between 8:00 and 3:00, except during scheduled lunch or study hall. If they are seen in use or observed to be powered on, they will be confiscated until a parent comes in to the office to retrieve them."
I get paid WAY too much to just shut up and do stupid stuff. If they wanted someone who would just shut up they could find someone much cheaper.
So if my boss (or her boss, or her boss's boss) tells me to do something I think is stupid, I do my best to explain to them exactly what is wrong with that plan.
So I'll argue about it. I'll disagree with them. I'll be difficult. But the whole time I'm telling them I'm just being difficult because I think it's a bad plan, not because it's personal.
And there may be some reason I don't see that it's actually the right answer.
In any case, once I'm sure they've gotten the concept I'm trying to express, I let them decide - them being the boss - and I go do what they said. Sometimes they change their mind. Sometimes they tell me the reason it's the right answer. Occasionally they tell me that they agree, but their boss says do it.
Always fight the stupidity. Don't take the fight personally - but if you're in technology, the fight is part of your job.
He's at the meeting to do one or more of the following: 1) run the meeting 2) generate meeting minutes 3) generate requirements document(s) based on the meeting 4) generate other documents based on or related to the meeting.
His documents are like a train wreck. To people who understand the topic, there's way too many words used in inappropriate fashions, fashions which sometimes seem intended to mask his lack of understanding by making the document generally unintelligible.
Fortunately for me, I'm in these meetings as a "SME" (Subject Matter Expert) and am not actually working directly on what the team he is associated with is working on - I'm just there to provide information based on a prior generation product.
The most important thing for a good meeting, in my experience, is to have someone actually firmly running the meeting.
There are precious few people (in my experience) who can do that.
But if you have an agenda and someone keeping the meeting on track, you can get a lot of meeting-work (communication, decision making, brainstorming, whatever the purpose is) done very quickly.
Unfortunately, the people calling and running meetings aren't usually competent to do this. So they flail around and let the meeting get totally off topic.
I left out (because not relevant) that I owned and ran the shop in question. Rick did most of the custom hand-bent work that was done in that shop, but there was no grace to it.
I'm 40. I have basically no large motor skills (I mean, I can walk around successfully, but forget things like sports or even billiards - not happening.) But my fine motor skills are pretty good. If something needs to be sewed up or glued back together in our house, it's me doing it.
My stepson is 19. He has no fine motor skills except when it comes to his PlayStation controller. I can't imagine him putting a model together - certainly not one that requires glue. His idea of a model was a Lego set.
And his handwriting looks like (to me) a small child wrote it.
Dunno if it's related or just a correlation but it's a data point....
I've been wrong a lot on this one . . . but this seems really quite a lot like a question of implementation by the compiler and perhaps the OS.
There's no reason I can see to do a read of *((int*)b) to get b->two.
I've honestly kind of lost track of the point here, but I think a read of address 0x0 was really the point, so perhaps we shouldn't muddy the waters with the word "dereference."
I do understand things, actually, and if goddamn Slashdot would let you edit a freaking post I probably would have pulled it back, not because I thought it was inherently wrong but because it wasn't especially relevant.
I honestly thought that NULL as part of the language standard was strictly C++, not C. When I learned C and C++ I'm pretty sure that was true.
Keep in mind, there is a DIFFERENCE between "standard usage" or "in the standard Unix include files" and "the C language." So showing me some old source code for "cat" or something out of/usr/include in the AT&T code base isn't that interesting to me.
Not knowing the "older than dirt" C89 standard is probably due to having learned C in 1988.
Personally, I almost never use NULL, because the crufty code bases I deal with have everything defined multiple times - even stupid things like TRUE, FALSE, NULL, ERROR, etc. So there's compile time warnings everywhere due to redefinition, the values vary based on #include order, and it just isn't worth the pain to make sure that some numb skull didn't define NULL as (-1) ten years ago in some obscure application header when you can just use zero.
PS. Fuck you. At worst, I screwed up - an honest mistake. You were intentionally rude. There are humans behind these letters on the screen, and you need to learn that.
I've re-read these two posts multiple times now and I finally get the subtle distinction being made.
Suppose the following:
struct t { int one; int two; int three; }; struct t* b = 0;
"b->two" is not a dereference of 0. It is a dereference of "0 + the offset of two within the structure t." (Likely of the address 0x4.)
However, "b->one" is a dereference of 0.
So if the element of the structure being dereferenced is the first in the structure, this may be a valid optimization, although the efficiency gained by a jump-if-not-zero being eliminated seems negligible to me, and such an optimization should be explicitly called out in some fashion.
If the element of the structure isn't the first, this isn't a valid optimization to make.
Slashdot Mirror
The "not worth the cost and work" was the cost and work of a third bank account. I was willing at the start of our marriage to have a single joint account, and indeed expected it - my dear wife was not, due to various things in her past.
Now that I'm a number of years in, I can tell you there's no way I'm having a joint account with her. We manage money very differently and don't need the stress of it.
I don't have any idea what model it was, but a co-worker used to have a very small HP laptop with a mouse on a little arm that came out the right side of it.
#6..... My wife and I also have separate money, and I pay most of the bills, then she pays me her half. It isn't practical to divvy the bills up because one bill (mortgage) is a huge chunk.
(We make roughly the same amount of money, so half is what we do.)
Even that is having its stresses as she forgets to pay me then I have to pay bill collector, because I can't float more than two months of bills before my checking account starts to be sad.
I never get the whole toilet seat thing. If there's a lid, why wouldn't you put it down?
Plus, it keeps the cat/dog from drinking the toilet water.
Or dropping your sneakers in. Kitty did that to my wife once.
The separate bank accounts is important.
I balance my check book. Every month. The day the statement comes out. Everything is in Quicken. I can tell you what I spent on groceries in 2002.
My wife checks the bank web site to see if she still has money.
So I pay almost all our "joint" bills, and (because we make roughly the same amount of money) she writes me a check for half of them each month after deducting my half of the few she pays.
We had a joint bank account for a while but it wasn't worth the cost and work.
She has a few of my credit cards but they never get used. In general, all our finances are separate except for that monthly check.
It's a real commitment instead of a shared house key.
It's "I want to spend the rest of my life with you" instead of "let's live together and screw."
Plus, at least in the US, there are quite a lot of economic and legal benefits. Best place to find that list if you don't know it may be one of the "gay marriage" sites, because they probably tend to list those out as reasons why it should be allowed.
The average IQ of the overall population is defined to be 100.
The average IQ of any subgroup of that population (such as current university students) is probably not exactly 100.
It may be close to 100 if the population is fairly representative of the overall population.
It may be well over 100, for example, if the population is members of Mensa. (I don't personally have a lot of regard for Mensa, but that is the claimed purpose of their organization afaik.)
It may be well below 100 for a variety of reasons for which I don't know the current PC terms.
I can't really tell if the thing you think is "haywire" is that your grandfather's best friend got paid very little to play pro ball or that today's players get paid so much.
That hasn't changed too much. A modern minor league player can make as little as $850 per month ("Class A, short-season.")
In reading other posts I'm picking up on that.
I hope I'm never one of those parents.
Remember pagers?
A lot of doctors (and IT folks, and volunteer firemen, and others) carried those before cell phones were so common-place.
Some people still carry pagers instead of cell phones, because they want time to piss and get a drink before they have to talk to someone in the middle of the night.
I was on support until a year or two ago. Every year or so a manager would ask if we wouldn't rather have a cell phone......
First period of the day, every teacher should just say "OK, everyone, turn off your cell phones."
I'm seriously tired of technological problems to non-technical problems.
Sounds good, but it's too complicated. The school office has better things to do than track how many times they've confiscated Johnny's iPod.
Every time it is confiscated, the parent has to come in, to the office, and retrieve the item.
I"m 40 years old. I graduated from a small-town high school in 1986.
We had rules, and we had to follow them, or things happened.
Calculators were allowed for some things, not for others.
Notes were allowed for some things, not for others.
Specific attire was required - long pants, shirts without obscene, drug, or alcohol related imagery or phrases.
If you acted up, you got detention at school and most likely punished at home as well.
If you had stuff you weren't supposed to have - like hand-held electronic games during class - those things got taken away. (Yes, such things did exist. They were primitive, but they existed.)
But, apparently, those methods of child management no longer work.
Wouldn't a school policy of phone confiscation handle this? For example:
"Cell phones may not be powered on between 8:00 and 3:00, except during scheduled lunch or study hall. If they are seen in use or observed to be powered on, they will be confiscated until a parent comes in to the office to retrieve them."
Here's my theory....
I get paid WAY too much to just shut up and do stupid stuff. If they wanted someone who would just shut up they could find someone much cheaper.
So if my boss (or her boss, or her boss's boss) tells me to do something I think is stupid, I do my best to explain to them exactly what is wrong with that plan.
So I'll argue about it. I'll disagree with them. I'll be difficult. But the whole time I'm telling them I'm just being difficult because I think it's a bad plan, not because it's personal.
And there may be some reason I don't see that it's actually the right answer.
In any case, once I'm sure they've gotten the concept I'm trying to express, I let them decide - them being the boss - and I go do what they said. Sometimes they change their mind. Sometimes they tell me the reason it's the right answer. Occasionally they tell me that they agree, but their boss says do it.
Always fight the stupidity. Don't take the fight personally - but if you're in technology, the fight is part of your job.
As with all things mechanical there can be an aesthetic beauty to exhaust pipe if done well.
He's at the meeting to do one or more of the following: 1) run the meeting 2) generate meeting minutes 3) generate requirements document(s) based on the meeting 4) generate other documents based on or related to the meeting.
His documents are like a train wreck. To people who understand the topic, there's way too many words used in inappropriate fashions, fashions which sometimes seem intended to mask his lack of understanding by making the document generally unintelligible.
Fortunately for me, I'm in these meetings as a "SME" (Subject Matter Expert) and am not actually working directly on what the team he is associated with is working on - I'm just there to provide information based on a prior generation product.
d.1. Minutes need to be taken by someone who understands the subject well enough to accurately reproduce the discussion on paper.
There's this guy at my job, a BA, who usually cranks out meeting minutes within a half hour of the meeting ending.
Unfortunately, due to his lack of understanding of many of the issues, it's like he was at a different meeting.
The most important thing for a good meeting, in my experience, is to have someone actually firmly running the meeting.
There are precious few people (in my experience) who can do that.
But if you have an agenda and someone keeping the meeting on track, you can get a lot of meeting-work (communication, decision making, brainstorming, whatever the purpose is) done very quickly.
Unfortunately, the people calling and running meetings aren't usually competent to do this. So they flail around and let the meeting get totally off topic.
No, he was merely adequate.
I left out (because not relevant) that I owned and ran the shop in question. Rick did most of the custom hand-bent work that was done in that shop, but there was no grace to it.
We all teased him that he wrote like a girl.
I'm 40. I have basically no large motor skills (I mean, I can walk around successfully, but forget things like sports or even billiards - not happening.) But my fine motor skills are pretty good. If something needs to be sewed up or glued back together in our house, it's me doing it.
My stepson is 19. He has no fine motor skills except when it comes to his PlayStation controller. I can't imagine him putting a model together - certainly not one that requires glue. His idea of a model was a Lego set.
And his handwriting looks like (to me) a small child wrote it.
Dunno if it's related or just a correlation but it's a data point....
The prettiest cursive I ever saw in the real world was by an auto mechanic at a muffler shop. Looked just like they taught me in third grade.
Seriously. He apparently learned it and took it to heart, and it was textbook beautiful.
LMAO
The reason the "fuck you" came out was my inlaws were just here for 7 hours. I thought they were going to be here maybe 3, 4 max.
I've been wrong a lot on this one . . . but this seems really quite a lot like a question of implementation by the compiler and perhaps the OS.
There's no reason I can see to do a read of *((int*)b) to get b->two.
I've honestly kind of lost track of the point here, but I think a read of address 0x0 was really the point, so perhaps we shouldn't muddy the waters with the word "dereference."
I do understand things, actually, and if goddamn Slashdot would let you edit a freaking post I probably would have pulled it back, not because I thought it was inherently wrong but because it wasn't especially relevant.
I honestly thought that NULL as part of the language standard was strictly C++, not C. When I learned C and C++ I'm pretty sure that was true.
Keep in mind, there is a DIFFERENCE between "standard usage" or "in the standard Unix include files" and "the C language." So showing me some old source code for "cat" or something out of /usr/include in the AT&T code base isn't that interesting to me.
Not knowing the "older than dirt" C89 standard is probably due to having learned C in 1988.
Personally, I almost never use NULL, because the crufty code bases I deal with have everything defined multiple times - even stupid things like TRUE, FALSE, NULL, ERROR, etc. So there's compile time warnings everywhere due to redefinition, the values vary based on #include order, and it just isn't worth the pain to make sure that some numb skull didn't define NULL as (-1) ten years ago in some obscure application header when you can just use zero.
PS. Fuck you. At worst, I screwed up - an honest mistake. You were intentionally rude. There are humans behind these letters on the screen, and you need to learn that.
I've re-read these two posts multiple times now and I finally get the subtle distinction being made.
Suppose the following:
struct t { int one; int two; int three; };
struct t* b = 0;
"b->two" is not a dereference of 0. It is a dereference of "0 + the offset of two within the structure t." (Likely of the address 0x4.)
However, "b->one" is a dereference of 0.
So if the element of the structure being dereferenced is the first in the structure, this may be a valid optimization, although the efficiency gained by a jump-if-not-zero being eliminated seems negligible to me, and such an optimization should be explicitly called out in some fashion.
If the element of the structure isn't the first, this isn't a valid optimization to make.