I parsed it as "He's not really my friend, he's me, but I'm too embarrassed to own up to it." But, I agree with you, it probably shouldn't have been there.
Then it's another one of those laws "everyone breaks". I hope that such laws are not enforceable otherwise you'd have a law system where "everyone" can be convicted for something. [emphasis added]
Call me cynical, but I believe that's the whole point of laws like this.
I just picked up "The Code Book" recently and really enjoyed it. Another one I think would be pretty cool for high school math students is "Professor Stewart's Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities", by Ian Stewart. It's written in a very light style, and would probably make learning about math seem like more fun to those that have an aversion.
Its current most common usage is as an uncountable quantity just like "water".
I wondered for a long time if there was a term for this sort of noun. I don't remember how I discovered it, but the type of noun you're describing is called a mass noun. Its opposite is called a count noun. I'm not correcting you or anything, just passing along some info.
Magic stuff like this is not working:/\([FB][ot]o\).*\1/ although that seems to be the closest description of what we wanted.
In perl, I did/([FB][ot][o]).*\1/ and it seemed to work as you wanted. Also, if you're using a regex engine that supports lazy (non-greedy) quantifiers like perl does, I would use them in this case. It reduces backtracking. In perl, put a ? after the *.
(hiroshimas is just energy; libraries of congress and football fields obviously don't apply). Anyone know what the standard made-up unit is for energy/time?
I think it looks rather nice. Obviously, aesthetics is a personal issue, but the text is easy to read and all of the functionality is clearly marked, which makes it easy on my eyes.
Certain languages have features that eliminate large classes of errors. Whilst its possible that programmers will find other ways to screw up, I'd have though that reducing the set of errors that are actually possible would go some way to improving reliability.
With a general purpose programming language, the number of ways to screw up is effectively infinite. If you take another infinite set, say, the integers, and eliminate a large subset, say the even integers, you still have an infinite set left over. The GP is simply pointing out that there will always be programmers who screw up in ways that haven't been eliminated.
There's LyX. It's certainly different from your standard word processor, so that might be a bit off-putting for "typical" users. But it'd be a heck of a lot friendlier for them than vi/emacs + make. It comes with lots of tutorials that explain in detail why it's different from most word processors, and why that's better. If you haven't yet seen it, I'd say it's worth a look.
four quadrillion three hundred fifty-two trillion one hundred twelve billion five hundred forty-two million six hundred ninety-five thousand and one And what's the three digit security code?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if they can make D12, D10, D8, D6, and D4 robots, I'll never fail another critical roll again!
make: *** No rule to make target `it'. Stop.
I parsed it as "He's not really my friend, he's me, but I'm too embarrassed to own up to it." But, I agree with you, it probably shouldn't have been there.
Er, Geohashing ?
Myth turns out to come from a kernal of reality
Apparently posted from a Commodore 64 :-)
Did anyone notice that the "web browser" windows in the screenshots said xv in the title bar?
Travelling 1 um through paper doesn't get you to the other side. It will get you through several bit sites in modern RAM.
Well, obviously then the solution is to wrap your RAM in paper at least 2 microns thick.
Then it's another one of those laws "everyone breaks". I hope that such laws are not enforceable otherwise you'd have a law system where "everyone" can be convicted for something. [emphasis added]
Call me cynical, but I believe that's the whole point of laws like this.
I just picked up "The Code Book" recently and really enjoyed it. Another one I think would be pretty cool for high school math students is "Professor Stewart's Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities", by Ian Stewart. It's written in a very light style, and would probably make learning about math seem like more fun to those that have an aversion.
although one hosted in the Czech Republic would :)
.ch is Switzerland's TLD.
</nitpick>
Its current most common usage is as an uncountable quantity just like "water".
I wondered for a long time if there was a term for this sort of noun. I don't remember how I discovered it, but the type of noun you're describing is called a mass noun. Its opposite is called a count noun. I'm not correcting you or anything, just passing along some info.
Maybe my math is wrong, but wouldn't that be 1 / (50 Hz) = 20ms?
Can't stop the signal, Mal.
Magic stuff like this is not working: /\([FB][ot]o\).*\1/ although that seems to be the closest description of what we wanted.
In perl, I did /([FB][ot][o]).*\1/ and it seemed to work as you wanted. Also, if you're using a regex engine that supports lazy (non-greedy) quantifiers like perl does, I would use them in this case. It reduces backtracking. In perl, put a ? after the *.
(hiroshimas is just energy; libraries of congress and football fields obviously don't apply). Anyone know what the standard made-up unit is for energy/time?
Hiroshimas/fortnight ?
Two rings of rocks, and one of ice.
In the Land of Eridani where the Shadows lie.
I think it looks rather nice. Obviously, aesthetics is a personal issue, but the text is easy to read and all of the functionality is clearly marked, which makes it easy on my eyes.
Well, 709 did say that Earth is a Type 13 planet.
Certain languages have features that eliminate large classes of errors. Whilst its possible that programmers will find other ways to screw up, I'd have though that reducing the set of errors that are actually possible would go some way to improving reliability.
With a general purpose programming language, the number of ways to screw up is effectively infinite. If you take another infinite set, say, the integers, and eliminate a large subset, say the even integers, you still have an infinite set left over. The GP is simply pointing out that there will always be programmers who screw up in ways that haven't been eliminated.
Allow me to roll two D10's to see what the chance of that is... wow! Double zero!
Actually, a double zero percentile roll counts as 100%, not the 0% you apparently intended.
There's LyX. It's certainly different from your standard word processor, so that might be a bit off-putting for "typical" users. But it'd be a heck of a lot friendlier for them than vi/emacs + make. It comes with lots of tutorials that explain in detail why it's different from most word processors, and why that's better. If you haven't yet seen it, I'd say it's worth a look.
That'll teach me to post regexes before testing them. Make that:
$ echo "Can anyone comment about the possible risk to non Windows machines?" | grep -i 'linux\|unix\|os\s*x'
$
$ echo "Can anyone comment about the possible risk to non Windows machines?" | grep -i 'linux\|unix\|os\s*x\|mac'
$
Attoboy!