@dhromed said:
@nat42 said:
PRINT NOT(1)
-2
What happens with NOT(-2) ?
What a stupid question. If you didn't just post that to be a dick then you should drink a shit-tonne of coffee before being allowed near a keyboard again.
@dhromed said:
@nat42 said:
PRINT NOT(1)
-2
What happens with NOT(-2) ?
What a stupid question. If you didn't just post that to be a dick then you should drink a shit-tonne of coffee before being allowed near a keyboard again.
@beginner_ said:
Exactly and AFAIK this still is the case for VBA, speak MS Access. So the WTF is VB(A) and Access and not the developer.
Sorry, why do you think this a WTF? Did you read the posts above?
As far as I am aware, oldschool BASIC (from which VBA is obviously derived) never had true/false constants, nor boolean variables, and if you used AND, OR or NOT outside of a condition they behaved as bitwise operators; so it followed that if you wanted to pretend that AND, OR and NOT were logical operators then using -1 as true was the best/sanest choice a BASIC programmer had...
PRINT NOT(0)
-1
PRINT NOT(-1)
0
PRINT NOT(1)
-2
@blakeyrat said:
Well, Google might have weird errors, but at least it knows who Michael Dorn is!... oh.
What are you complaining about? That picture is clearly the deceased Michael Dorn, an actor from the German soap "Gute Zeiten, schlechte Zeiten".
@blakeyrat said:
This thread on StraightDope.Grumble, grumble. It's like a thread full of Cassidys. (Thought thankfully, no Bridget99s.)
Is the WTF the conclusion of the Coding Horror article (as was referenced in the first Straight Dope post) ie. that programming concepts as simple what a variable is and assignment are "literally unteachable to a sizable subset of incoming computer science students" ? (based on an "acedemic paper" that "reads like a blog entry" and suggests that half a class failing a very basic test on variables and assignment 3 weeks into an introduction to programming course is due to the half of the class that failed being "unteachable").
Hmm could the issue be explained by:
Except, as a concept it's hardly a challenge...
A waitress asks what you and your friend will be drinking, you order a beer and your friend orders a double scotch on the rocks, you think "that sounds good" and tell the waitress to change your order to "what he's having".
Am I to believe that half of all computer science students couldn't figure out what two drinks should be sent to the table in problem above (I think it is conceptually similar to the example 3 line problem given)?
Can I suggest a compromise:
Private Shared Function IsQuarter(ByVal month As Integer) As Boolean If month<1 Or month>12 Trace.Write "I KNOW I only get a value 1 -> 12. Visual Basic is BASIC. So is the IQ of the developers that use it most of the time." Trace.Write "In other news, apparent the sky should be falling as IsQuarter function was called with in invalid input, which is umpossible." Return False End If Return (month Mod 3 = 0) End Function
Are we all happy now?
Um 'Beyond Ben', the second result from Google is the one you want anyway. It explains the issue and why it occurs (apparently the 'MacOS version is a "Preview" version')
At least if you are only going to click the first Google result (and not utilise the 'cache' version of a page*) you should use the "I'm feeling lucky" option...
* seriously is their anywhere Googlebot can't go? Need a login for help? Not Googlebot. Chicka got a boyfriend? Not for Googlebot...
AMMENDMENT: Apparently the issue was fixed before you encountered it, so obviously Adobe just hates you.
@TarquinWJ said:
@scgtrp said:version 4 or higherWell, they couldn't tell you to use anything higher, since IE 8 still claims to be using version 4 of Netscape 4's Mozilla engine:
Mozilla/4.0 ([snip])Firefox 3.6, Safari 4 and Chrome 5 all claim to be version 5:
Mozilla/5.0 ([snip])For similar reasons Opera 10.50 claims to be version 9.80:
Opera/9.80 ([snip])Remember that the important version number you're supposed to quote to user is the one the browser sends as a User-Agent header, not the one that the user can see in the "about" dialog. The more you can confuse users by telling them meaningless numbers, the more exciting life will be.
What a comphrensive explanation has been writ here. I had a vague enough understanding of this that I might have turned an unhelpful quip had this not been penned; but this is a most pleasant and refreshing find on a sidebar article. If 'twas in my power to bestow the honour of plus one Internet points for the raising of the tone of this forum then you good TarquinWJ would certainly be considered.
Please do forgive my nitpickery for I can not help but want to elaborate upon your explanation because it seems inevitable (otherwise) that we shall see remarks from those who will not recognise this as a term from a bygone era. For it was during the great browser wars of century last that this relic did come to be accepted into the parlance of the day.
What may be considered as excuse for the preservation of this term in the context quoted though is that the content is contained solely within markup that should prevent a casual (or n00b-prone) observer from discovering it and becoming concerned. It is well worth considering that within the population of such users, such a vast majority will be using browsers with frames supported and enabled, that it really is unsurprising that the fallback message could reconsidered.
If this is the most notable and glaring flaw of the routing device, then it would please me to discover its identity.
@metallurg said:
Wow; that is insecure. Our payslips are emails with attached zipped PDF files, encrypted with a randow password for strength! [All passwords are allocated by payroll and can not be changed; they consist of two [2] numeric digits. I estimate that with that level of security one would need at least a 1 minute with a 386-based PC to brute force the files; clearly we have the superior system!!]I should mention that the password for the payslips is really hard to work out - it's the persons surname, followed by their start date.
@El Disposo said:
@shepd said:@El Disposo said:
If you do that, we can very easily take you to court for theftYou can take someone to court for just about anything very easily, the question is if you will win. I think a good lawyer could easily prove your changing the price was an offer, and their server permitting you to buy the product at that price was acceptance.
Nope, there was a case of this sort already, so there's precedent. Doing that would fall under the terms of the DMCA and you would lose. (Circumventing copy protection, no matter how trivial it may be, is illegal.)
It's approximately equivalent to noticing that your neighbor's front door is only locked shut by a hook over a nail inside, and pushing hard enough on the door that the nail is pulled out of the wood. It doesn't matter how crappy the lock is: if you had to break it to get in, you're guilty of breaking and entering.
Ah, I see what you are doing there - do please return my arguments when you are done with them, sir!
@DaveK said:
... actually a warm living feeling fleshy human being rather than a cold inanimate unaware lump of metal, on the grounds that said human is now dead, then OP should have posted a photograph of a small pile of corroded rust instead of a supposedly sexy robot in the first place, or it's not a fair comparison at all!
You're very modest.... to make that claim implies you've resolved the problems of strong AI, consciousness and free will just in passing in order to be able to say that the bot even has a will to not be willing with! A Nobel winrar is you!