|
Mike Hankey wrote: 8 - If you want the rainbow, you got to put up with the rain.
Are you sure this is from Steven Wright? I could've sworn this was from a song.
[Edit]
Actually that quote seems to be commonly attributed to Dolly Parton.
[Edit 2]
Lee Morse, "If You Want the Rainbow (You Must Have the Rain)", 1928.
modified 23-Feb-18 17:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should delete #29... it will give ideas to some of the QAers
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
And No. 35 is a question first asked by Einstein, which led to the development of Special Relativity.
No. 29 seems very appropriate.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: And No. 35 is a question first asked by Einstein, I doubt that because it's a dumb question. Of course they would work (function), they would just show up behind you.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ. In 1887 Michaelson and Morley showed that light behaves fundamentally differently than other waves, in that it's speed is independent of the relative speed of the transmitter and the receiver, and is always constant.
Einstein asked what would happen when the relative speed is the same as the speed of light. The answer is not as trivial as you think.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Einstein told too:
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... but I am not 100% sure about the first one.
(very appropriate too)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a whale with a bull?
A coworka.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get if you cross a pig with a centipede?
Bacon and legs.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a spider and an argument?
Arach-a-beef.
I know my coat is around here somewhere...
|
|
|
|
|
What do you call a cow with no legs?
Ground beef.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
... or any night for months and months.
Why are the seasons so short for good programs, and so long for rubbish?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: good programs
Is it though? I haven't watched The Grand Tour but Top Gear was getting very tired before he got sacked. Have they revitalised it or is it just the same stuff under a different name?
|
|
|
|
|
It's the same, but different.
It's certainly better than the "official" Top Gear - which has been unfunny and predictable since they departed. I think it's still "finding its feet" so to speak as a unique show, but season two was better than season one.
Since Amazon don't release viewing figures, you can't compare them, but certainly Amazon seem happy enough with the number of new Prime signups the show has induced.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It's certainly better than the "official" Top Gear
|
|
|
|
|
Season 1 was trying too hard. Season 2 is more natural, and back to the kind of humour of the old top gear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.
Have you ever compared the English modernisation "Sherlock" (3 episodes per season) with the American "Elementary" (24 episodes per season)?
Not exclusively a "British way" ...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Three episodes, but they're 90 minutes each, without commercials.
Versus 24 "hour"-long episodes with commercials (40 minutes in reality).
I view the individual British Sherlock episodes as mini-movies. Some of them I could re-watch (and have).
One run through the American Elementary though, and I've had enough. If you're going to let your brain rot watching TV, as my grandparents would say...well, pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly!
Sherlock is quality, not quantity - but you end up thinking "I wish there were six episodes this year..."
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Something about "leaving them wanting more".
It works.
|
|
|
|
|
So I shan't be seeing the Tedious Trio each time I turn on Amazon? Great!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Why are the seasons so short for good programs, and so long for rubbish?
Probably because it is much more work to make good programs.
If you then try to stretch the capabilities of the team making the good program to produce more content, you end up with yet another rubbish long season.
At least softwart development works somewhat like that, so why not television production. Both makes programs, so it must be the same?
|
|
|
|
|
A thought regarding some slight mitigation of someone trying to get at a resource they don't have access to is to say there is no resource. Any one else implemented this, or just always return forbidden everything user does not have privileges?
Some case yes, say not enough privileges if said resource is ok for them to go get the right privileges then come and retry.
but sometimes I'm think, well, this user should never be able to get this resource, like wrong 3rd party contractor, so just go away, that resource does not exist (for you).
This more just ranting on a friday.
|
|
|
|
|
It is nonsense, based on the assumption that if access is forbidden and the attacker "hence" knows the item is there and "probably" can be read one way or the other - and that is the nonsense, unless you keep your secrets in the filename, and not the file itself.
So, you're trading this tiny advantage for some serious trouble in debugging; can it find the file, or is it just acting like it can't find it?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|