|
enhzflep wrote: How would you feel when advances enable a profile to be formed from what was once deemed inconsequential information? Would that situation not present itself as one of concern to you?
That's already happening - take for example Facebook's "Ghost" profiles they create for people who have never even joined.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
Yours is a perfect case in point.  Twatter is another.
"When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life." - John Lennon
|
|
|
|
|
Not so much malware; more like enablers.
|
|
|
|
|
After a year of free Windows 10 upgrades, Microsoft will start charging an unknown amount. The beatings will continue until you upgrade
|
|
|
|
|
I also did come to know from another blog that until that point, the operating system (specially for pirates) would drop functionality of the system one by one until the system is not able to operate at all but just asks for a license key.
But would start to work as soon as you feed them with a license key.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how long it takes the hackers to break that?
Will it be measured in hours or days?
|
|
|
|
|
There is something known as Internet, which Windows would always complain about when hacker would try to break in... Now.
Anyways, I guess it would take hours for hacker to do something about it, and days for it to come out on internet. Because Microsoft plays very hard to minimize the search results for anything that is bad for their business. They always did so.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
If you’re in a panic because the Internet told you that your shiny new SSD may lose data in “just a few days” when stored in a hot room, take a chill pill—it’s apparently all a huge misunderstanding, according to the man who wrote the original presentation all the fear is based on. Oh good. Now I can go back to storing them in the oven.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Gates — Microsoft CEO turned philanthropist, lifelong learner and fan of The Great Courses — is recommending seven texts you should read this summer. "I read my eyes out and can't read half enough"
|
|
|
|
|
He has billions of dollars, he can spend his time reading these 7 books.
We have to work hard to make sure we survive this summer.  He can simply release Windows 10 and make his fortune for next 3 summers also.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Studio 2015 RC contains a pair of experimental operators, nicknamed tadpole operators. They let you add and subtract one from an integer value without needing parentheses. Because there are still keys that need using in C++
|
|
|
|
|
Quick, which one is --y and which one is (y+1) ???
-~y
--y
[edit]Nice font, CP. It's a lot clearer in a code block.  [/edit]
On my monitor at the distance of about 3 feet and with my eyes I can barely tell the difference.
Even if I look close, it's pretty darn easy to miss.
Tadpole swimming toward a value makes it bigger
And WTF is that? I mean, could you at least have done:
-~ and +~ so I don't need to figure out which freaking direction the tadpole is swimming?
Hey Microsoft, which direction is this tadpole swimming: FAIL
From one of the comments:
Because all the major JavaScript engines are written in C++, JavaScript has also inherited the tadpole operators from the underlying C++ implementation.
Figures. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Are you too already using grandparent font?
|
|
|
|
|
You realize this is a joke, right?
This is just a combination of the ~ (not operator) and negation which already exist in any language that supports those operators.
for an explanation, read this[^] comment
#SupportHeForShe If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Oh joy...
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Where can I apply for the vacant language designer job?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me! It may (very unlikely, but may) have a usage, but all those samples in the article are wrong...You already can
write it without any parentheses using ++ and --!!!
Like:
x = ++y % 10;
or
x = ++y * --z;
And so on...And it even can be read!!!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
The operators ++ and -- modify the value of the variable while those experimental operators should just provide an alternative to (x+1) resp. (x-1)
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, but I'm talking about the samples, where it is meaningless (you use the variables once) - so the samples are not showing the power (if any) of the new operators...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I see - sorry 
But to be fair to the author, there's a slightly more meaningful example at the bottom.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Hahahaha...
I made a second read (including comments) and realized that there is no new operators here, but some kind of joke...
The author uses the a combination of bitwise NOT(~) and simple -! The only problem that it work only for signed integers...
But for those it works even with compilers from 1993...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: there is no new operators here, but some kind of joke
Kent? Keeeeeeeeent? 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
OK, probably a joke, but it's staying in. It's an excellent example of just how magical and symbol heavy C++ syntax is.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I didn't want you to take it down, just blame you for irritating us  
BTW, works in C# too.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
 then my goal of being the grit to create pearls (of wisdom, maybe) is complete 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
