In case you weren't being sarcastic: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. "
donniel1
@donniel1
Best posts made by donniel1
Latest posts made by donniel1
-
RE: Nice Start Wolfram!!! :)
-
RE: Well, that first one looks kind of random, but...
@vt_mruhlin said:
I don't get it. They got 5 random numbers.
If you think the same number 5 times consecutively somehow indicates non-randomess, you're gravely mistaken. There was just as much probability of that result as any other arbitrary set of 5 numbers.
Pedant FAIL.
-
RE: Infinite loop IRL?
@digitalpacman said:
class ServerAdminL1 {
public void ContactSomeoneElse() {
ITDirector newContact = new ITDirector();
newContact.ContactSomeoneElse();
}
}The story itself wasn't all that great, but the code made up for it :)
-
RE: Too bad if you're born in 1961...
@jnz said:
@belgariontheking said:
I would like to see the ticket that goes "The Spanish Inquisition arrived. I didn't expect them. Please fix this now."
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
------- Comment #1 -------
The Spanish Inquistiion is working as intended.
LOL! Extremely funny!
-
RE: World's most pointless dynamic SQL
@havokk said:
I'm still not sure whether or not it's a WTF. It is silly to return the same thing you are searching for but if the code is simply trying to work out if an id exists then it could be much worse. “Select *” for instance. That "LIMIT 1" seems like a bad idea, though.
Personally, I'd use something like
"select count(*) from table where id="...
and check the number returned. If the query returns 0 then the id does not exist. If the query returns 1 then it does exist. If the query returns >1 then something hinky is going on and the program should raise some sort of error.
BWhile in this situation that's fine, isn't it considered extremely bad form to use count(*) to check for the existance of a record/set of records? That's what EXISTS is there for. In some other cases, count(*) will cause a complete table scan.
-
RE: So THAT's how you get a file extension
@morbiuswilters said:
How anyone can bitch about Windows file extensions while using Linux is beyond me.
The one thing I hate about UNIX based filesystems is case sensitivity. It really pisses me off when teSt.txt is considered different from test.txt, and both can exist in the same directory! I can tolerate case sensitivity in a programming language, but it's ridiculous when imposed on files!
-
RE: How do you sell software? By fucking your legitimate buyers...
@shakin said:
I think what's important is that game publishers should make sure that the purchased version of the game is at least as good as the pirated copy. This often means poorer online support in the pirated version. With Spore, EA seems to have done the opposite and made the purchased version inferior to the pirated version. That can only increase piracy, so they'd have been better off not including any piracy protection at all.
Or to look at it another way, think of the pirates as your competition. They're competing on price. You compete on quality(no worrying about bugs - auto patches, etc.); better packaging; 'offline' freebies like discounts on merchandise, access to customer service, special promotions (buy HL2 and get invited to SuperPopularGameCon!), etc.
I think the key is in rewarding people who buy the game, rather than trying to punish or restrict those who don't. Like it's been proven time and time again, restrictions ONLY hinder legitemate users. If I've downloaded a cracked copy, I'll never know what these restrictions even are!
-
RE: How do you sell software? By fucking your legitimate buyers...
@bstorer said:
I'm not in love with DRM by any means, but I think people are going way too far here. So you can only install 3 times without calling EA support? Most people aren't going to be inconvenienced by it. Who really gives a shit?
You're right. Most people won't be inconvenienced by it - if they're using a pirated copy :)
That's something I don't get - don't these companies realize that it's impossible for a pirated copy to have any of their restrictions? Don't they see the flaw in their 'security'?
-
RE: Chrome - TODO: figure out a way to embed a real image
@dhromed said:
@Juifeng said:
inspector.html is unmodified webkit source, I guess.
That would explain why it seems a total copy of Safari's inspector.
-
RE: Ten Web Design Trends to Avoid
@cablecar said:
...
Also, I hate rounded corners. They usually add nothing to the design and are more often than not poorly executed and/or heavily pixelated. All the sites I visit regularly are simple, straightforward jobbies that are sooo much easier on the eye. I wish Web 2.0 would die the horrible burning death that it has coming to it already.
<pedant>
You are probably aware of this, but Web 2.0
isn't just the use of AJAX or funky styles like rounded corners and grunge - it's the evolution of
sites into platforms for social collaboration. The proliferation of these cool styles and themes that weren't previously used was just a co-event, not a result of this trend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
</pedant>