 |
|
|
It's starting to remind me of a drift car. I like wheel caps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Here[^]
"...the protein mixture triggers an acute allergic reaction and causes the crown-of-thorns starfish to break apart and die within as little as 24 hours."
I have tasted Marmite, and can attest to the validity of that statement.
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Marmite is just industrial waste, it the bit from brewing that should be thrown away, but some brite spark came up with idea of selling it to gulible consumers.
If the idea catches on we could have Nuclear waste spread (may have to think up a catchier name)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Uraniumite?
Gentleman's Caesium Relish?
Yellowcake Spread?
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
miracle weightloss spread?
(but I think I will steal the Gentleman's Caesium Relish I think that could work)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: Marmite is just industrial waste
And cheese and yogurt are bacteria sh1t.
What's the problem?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
they are both naturally occuring substanstance, I dont remember Marmite being natural
(then again I dont eat pringles either, another industrial waste product)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: they are both naturally occuring substanstance
Can't argue with that. Nothing's more natural than sh1t.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: I dont remember Marmite being natural
Nor are computers, televisions,electric guitars, or the toilets we use to take away all the naturally occurring sh1t because we don't want to be anywhere near it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
and if they labeled these and sold you them to eat would you consider them a food stuff?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of medicine is not natural, yet I'm sure you'd consume them. Hell, what about radiation or chemo therapy?
|
|
|
|
|
you got me there, I would, I suppose, consume Marmite if it was a choice between that and dying
however I doubt chemo will ever catch on as a snack
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote: what about radiation
Radiation is completely natural, we're just better at concentrating it.
|
|
|
|
|
Context. I meant radiation therapy or chemo therapy.
|
|
|
|
|
Radiation therapy is just aiming it. That would be like saying apples are natural, but the act of moving them to your mouth is not.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd possibly agree with you, if eating an apple required a linear accelerator machine.
Would you consider nuclear bombs natural, since such reactions occur naturally?
|
|
|
|
|
In this case the device isn't natural, but radiation is the same whether it comes from a man made device or from a star, the particles that compose it are identical.
In the bomb, the bomb itself (i.e. the ignition device, delivery system, etc.) isn't natural, but the fission (or fusion, depending on the bomb) is. If a critical mass of fissile material were to accumulate and explode on it's own (highly unlikely, but not impossible to my knowledge) in the ground it doesn't become unnatural, nor are the natural fusion processes within our own Sun.
I guess a better analogy is focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass, just because you've used an unnatural device (though, lenses are also found in nature), the sunlight focused by it doesn't become unnatural, just unnaturally concentrated.
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: I guess a better analogy is focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass, just because you've used an unnatural device (though, lenses are also found in nature), the sunlight focused by it doesn't become unnatural, just unnaturally concentrated.
Still fails to prove your point; radiation therapy is unnatural. Focused radiation to kill cancer cells and leave healthy cells unaffected occurs nowhere in nature.
Perhaps you didn't get my clarification is the first reply. I said radiation and chemo therapy, and I meant radiation therapy and chemo therapy.
|
|
|
|
|
I think instead we may have come up with a better point: terms like "natural" (or "organic", the usage of that one annoys me, gasoline is organic but that doesn't make it healthier to eat...) are mostly meaningless because they can be defined in any number of ways, one person may call it natural because any ingredient or component composing the system is natural, another might argue it isn't because the use of the system as a whole is not...and in the end (in this case) the cancer cells are no more alive or dead because of the origin of their killer.
|
|
|
|
|
lewax00 wrote: Radiation is completely natural, we're just better at concentrating it.
So stars don't concentrate it?
What about gravitational lensing?
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: So stars don't concentrate it?
Not exactly, sure they produce a lot of radiation, but it leaves in a very unfocused way.
jschell wrote: What about gravitational lensing?
Sure. That's on a much larger scale than what I was thinking though.
At the very least, we make it very concentrated for our environment (don't see many stars or dense enough bodies for gravitational lensing occurring on Earth's surface), but I think a better word to use may have been "focusing" rather than "concentrating".
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: If the idea catches on we could have Nuclear waste spread (may have to think up a catchier name)
Vegemite 
|
|
|
|
|
Marmite, being yeast based, is actually more suited to what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
First Sale Doctrine[^]
If ALL copyrighted material is covered then possibly you would not be able to sell a used car as the software in the control electronics would be covered.
Or what about second hand TV's or Fridges etc?
Just about everything we buy today has some form of copyrighted code or technology in it.
Personally I think that if you buy something then it should be yours absolutely, including the disposal methods.
If I buy a kindle and decide to sell it, why should I not do so, even with all the books I have purchased still loaded on it?
I paid for them, and if they were deadwood technology there is no prohibition (at the moment).
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Why? Because corporations want to make more money, at the expensive of anything and anyone. It doesn't matter whether it actually makes sense, as long as they get more money.
The same goes for eBay, even though that means that, for the moment, they take a reasonable position.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Personally I think that if you buy something then it should be yours absolutely,
including the disposal methods.
If I buy a kindle and decide to sell it, why
should I not do so, even with all the books I have purchased still loaded on it?
Agreed. Screw the copyright laws, i buy it, it's mine. I do whatever the elephant i want with it.
Sadly, in PC software this won't work, as one person would buy the software from you and then sell to 10 people, those 10 people would sell to another 10 and so on until no one else would buy it from you...
The only way i can think of to solve the above problem would be to limit the number of copies of a software one can sell to the number of copies she purchased, but then what happens to the right of copying the software?
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the points you are making, but the problem lies with the fact that you would not be able to resell any copyrighted material.
So how would you sell the second hand car without permission from the original rights holder?
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, i think that when you buy the car, you receive that permission, as the original rights holder is passing it to you...
Maybe reselling should be a especial case on the copyright law.
The worst point is that all this doesn't make sense at all. if you ask someone if he thinks he has the rights to resell some copyrighted product he have purchased, he almost certainly will say yes, even if in fact he has not. it's just counter-intuitive.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: the problem lies with the fact that you would not be able to resell any copyrighted material.
... purchased in another country, without paying proper duties and liens on its import.
That's already law. What's being disputed is how to apply it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but if it's left wide open, then it's a safe haven for smugglers, tax/duty evaders, and money launderers.
The problem isn't so much "Do you have the right to sell item A in this country", it's more one of "How did item A get into the country in the first place?"
There will also have to, for example, be articles and codicils about items being "bought for personal use", which can be very hard to prove or disprove, so will end up as a right royal mess.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: If ALL copyrighted material is covered then possibly you would not be able to sell a used car as the software in the control electronics would be covered.
Or what about second hand TV's or Fridges etc?
Forced to buy new sh*t? What better way to stimulate the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
Normally, I wouldn't worry and just say "it's going to be overturned." But after the whole Healthcare bill debacle, you can't foresee which way it will go.
|
|
|
|
|
For the Nth time in my developer's career, I came across an API which was documented using Doxygen. (For the sake of mercy, I won't name it.)
As usual, all you are entitled to is a very terse introductory page, accompanied by the bloody, endless, uninformative Class Reference. As a bonus, you also get that wonderfully useless File List.
This way to document software drives me mad. It forces you to scan the whole API before you know if the functionality suits your needs, and gives you no hint on the philosophy of the stuff. This turns the discovery of otherwise valuable products into a painful guesswork and causes the learning curve to raise vertically.
I put most of the blame on Doxygen, because it gives programmers a false feeling that they did document their API, and that they did it in a "lush" way. I put the blame on Doxygen because of the poor presentation style it spreads and legitimizes, which favors form over content.
|
|
|
|
|
0thly, I do not use Doxygen and I had to look it up; you can do that on the interweb.
It doesn't look that bad an idea, but I submit to you that that is not the problem. The problem is in the numpties who write the code and have no idea how to write useful comments.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: numpties who write the code and have no idea how to write useful comments
True enough, I use doxygen regularly - and so far I've been quite happy with the tool 
|
|
|
|
|
My point is: not only. Unless I am myself ignorant, Doxygen provides no place to shape a well-structured document with chapters, sections, titles, narrative comments... and all the samples I have seen were in the same vein.
Probably am I naive to hope that a tool used for internal purposes by the maintainers of the code satisfies the users too...
|
|
|
|
|
YvesDaoust wrote: Unless I am myself ignorant
Surprise[^] 
Look for:
\Page
\subpage
\section
\subsection
\subsubsection
\paragraph
\tableofcontents
|
|
|
|
|
Ooh, don't go there.
There be the monsters of out-of-date and unchecked examples, etc, that result in plumes of smoke coming out of customers' machines and ears.
The only place to build a usage-oriented document is in a word processor.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Wallace wrote: The only place to build a usage-oriented document is in a word processor
And those documents are always up-to-date?
I would usually start out writing stuff in Word, but quite often I end up with something that doxygen is able to consume
|
|
|
|
|
You could, but once it's inside the codebase, you've lost it, and so has anyone who has to check that it's up to date, correct, etc.
And that's not to mention that the examples will be scattered all over the shop, with no way of knowing if they're in a good place that will be found by the developers looking for them -- an example for the CListCtrl class, for example, could contain a perfect one-line code example of using an "IceBox" object and its "keepBeerCool" method, which will never be found when developers search for a solution for their beer warming up, because, well, because they're wisely not using CListCtrl, are they?
If, on the other hand, all the usage-centric/use-case examples are in a word-processor document, it's dead easy to keep track of them all, dead easy to distribute them to people for checking/confirmation/etc, and dead easy for users (i.e. the poor mugs doing the developing with warm beer)to find them.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Wallace wrote: usage-centric/use-case examples are in a word-processor document
I have no problem with that ...
But then we have the documentation that's mostly for other developers.
Given that many of us work with rather standardized directory structures that quite often have a \docs directory - which is a logical place to keep a makefile that's responsible for keeping the stuff up-to-date - it shouldn't be all that hard to figure out.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes they are there. They must be there.
It is more that I have not see them in use.
And, yes, Doxygen is not the true reason.
|
|
|
|
|
YvesDaoust wrote: Doxygen is not the true reason
I think I can heartily agree with that
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Peter said it: blame the tool. 
|
|
|
|
|
Is it as harmful as Dihydrogen Monoxide?[^]
====================================
Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise!
====================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
YvesDaoust wrote: This way to document software drives me mad. It forces you to scan the whole API before you know if the functionality suits your needs, and gives you no hint on the philosophy of the stuff.
It creates a reference, which should be part of the documentation; allows for quick lookups on the API and the syntax, but is indeed a lousy way of communicating it's use.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
