|
the y2k bug come to my mind. on a 8bit computer one byte per date is a huge space optimization, but i don't believe that mainframe COBOL programmers had to be that careful.
also, i remember reading about an "optimization" of the old day ms-dos assembly programmers using the inability of i8086 to address more than 1MB so they wouldn't mind generating segment:offset addresses that past the megabyte barrier, because it will roll over and map into the address space of the zeroth+ segment. this of course caused latter compatibility issues.
there was a similar man made "optimization" problem on the first mc68000 Amiga's, but i don't recall enough info to check what was the trick there.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: hey wouldn't mind generating segment:offset addresses that past the megabyte barrier, because it will roll over and map into the address space of the zeroth+ segment
Absolutely disgusting, this is the recipe CREATE legacy sh*t right from the start.
I can't even imagine the hacks Microsoft must have had to do keep old Win32 apps working in a modern OS.
|
|
|
|
|
Some IDE's have options to remove local variables. Don't ask me why!
I like them for debug STOP locations as the poster prefers.
I also like them for readability and documentation.
Boolean summaryDescription = (super nasty Boolean expression with 4-8 components);
if (summaryDescription) {
handleIt();
}
An ex-team member used to have their IDE preference to collapse these out of existence.
I hated looking at my code after they had performed some minor tweak on my code along with a "reformat".
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't explain something to a five year old you don't understand it yourself. (Einstein, I think).
Same goes for writing clear code.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like something that older Unix C programmers would write. Easy to code, difficult to read.
|
|
|
|
|
They don't get any better ...
Presenting: Smarter Socks[^]
Yes! That's right: you can ask your socks when you last washed them, and if they are "still black". And all this for just £16 per pair!
I have no idea how I have coped so long without this.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The app is only available in the apple app store.
I wonder why.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
on that they suggest to download the app before getting the socks as [paraphrased from their own words] later you may not bother to download it.
really, yes, sure, you bet ya I'm gonna do that right now ...
I really hope it keeps reminding me to order the socks, and whatever else you have in store - with regular updates (the app and the inventory).
Mark_Wallace wrote: The app is only available in the apple app store.
the goo is in the google play-store?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine if that got hacked?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah that was my initial thought also!
Got my site back up after my time in the woods!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
This product is just silliness. I refuse to believe this is a real product for sale.
|
|
|
|
|
As a bit of a sock nazi I DO actually miss one feature in my current socks:
- which socks belong together,and could help sort them out
I struggle each morning to find two matching socks.
They're all black, of the same fabric, and the same product line, but some are older than others, some are shorter, some have been worn on my left foot and others on my right...
Sometimes I grab two socks, try them on both my feet, and then put one back and try another.
If only my socks came with a color code so I could keep them together (like a red/green/blue L on one and a same colored R on the other, that's "smart" enough for me)
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Sometimes I grab two socks, try them on both my feet, and then put one back and try another.
Possible infinite loop detected. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
while (drawer.SockCount() > 0 && foot.Sock == null)
{
var sock = drawer.GetSock();
foot.TryOn(sock);
}
if (foot.Sock == null)
{
sander.CryInSockAgony();
}
else
{
foot.TryOn(slipper);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Stoneyowl here: The latest Chrome browser does not show a login/password text box, so I had to login using my Facebook account (which I almost forgot I had).
Regardless, to comment on OG's IoT item: Working remote from home, and living in south Florida, I have not worn socks in over 2 years (except when my wife requires it) - flip flops are my foot apparel of choice
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Hill wrote: flip flops are my foot apparel of choice
You're in luck! Useless IoT item of the weekend[^]
BTW: I just checked the login, and it works fine for me: I signed out, then signed back in via the email/password combo with no problems, and that is using Chrome Version 72.0.3626.96 (Official Build) (64-bit)
If you have a problem with sign in, you need to raise it here: Bugs and Suggestions[^] preferably with a screen shot (WIN+SHIFT+S is good)
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Turned off AdBlock for this site, login works now. I would swear (&&%^#) that I had AdBlock on the previous machine Chrome browser, but I may have been running an older version
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
I run uBlock, but have CP in the Whitelist - that may explain why I don't see a problem.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: you can ask your socks when you last washed them
Meanwhile, in the land where you don't fork out £16 per pair of socks, it's possible to have enough socks that you can wear a different pair each day, and put them in the wash when you've worn them once, rather than scrabbling around to find a pair that are "clean enough" like you're still in University. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Throw them all at the wall and wear the ones that don't stick: I remember those days like it it was yesterday.
Hang on, it was yesterday! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
who needs an app... I have a big Excel spreadsheet where I record the order, despatch and receipt date of all my socks, the dates on which I wore them (and with which shoes, including a link to the shoe sheet), the wash dates (and which socks were washed together, plus washing machine settings), plus of course a count of wearings and the date at which holes were first detected and eventually deemed "end-of-life".
Not.
|
|
|
|
|
Fifty years ago today, The Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet flew for the first time.
So ... if you were born after 1969, the plane you flit around the world in is an older design than you are ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
and it was about 5 years later when the first one crashed (excluding hijacks) and even that was put down to crew missing / misreading a warning light. Barely any issue can be attributed to equipment failure (almost none if you disclude sub-par maintenance & repairs), and of those equipment failures most are engine issues.
These days we know better: modern testing measures, test to point of failure, automated testing, pre-release test audits/checklists/signoff etc etc etc and ...
...they not only knew how to build properly back then, but how to test too.
50 years on and still safer to fly in a 747 than cross a road.
(50 years ago cars' brakes were not as good as today, but OTOH back then we were smart enough not to bury our faces in them stoopid smart phones.)
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: 50 years ago cars' brakes were not as good as today
The brakes on my car are so "good" that if I try and brake in snow they are as good as useless and just cause the car to judder and skate across the road as the "AI" ABS system kicks in 
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
