|
Nonsense...I'm pouring nitroglycerin into my drinks right now, juggling them, and they taste awesome! A bit on the volatile side, but that's what gives it that extra bit of oomph!
Though, more seriously, I have RAID 1 on all my active disks. I backup, not quite daily, but frequently...to my NAS (also RAID 1...and in a different room). Additionally, I age out my hardware, generally well before the fifth year anniversary. And, finally, I make an effort to buy quality disks (thank you WD Red).
That said, I think I may be a bit over-cautious.
So far, in a bit over 25 years of personal ownership, I've had exactly one drive fail...badly (it was a Seagate).
Thankfully, even though I didn't fully understand the importance of frequent backups (then), I was able to recover about 95% of my data. Nothing important was lost.
However, it scared the heck out of me. I'll never, never (repeat once again...never) make that mistake again!
|
|
|
|
|
oh elephant. I have not completed my transition to pure VMs yet.
Hell, we'll die from global warming, or cooling (lack of sunspots), or I may fall off the roof, etc. I place my hope in karma. One of my sons was a total screw up in high school. Oddly, the army (one drill Sergeant in particular) straightened his attitude out. He's now the Platoon Sergeant for his armor unit, and he must herd his group of individuals. My hope is that one day karma will take a huge chunk out of MS, Apple, Google... but esp. MS.
I really think all you need to do is pass a consumer rights bill for software and make them liable.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: I really think all you need to do is pass a consumer rights bill for software and make them liable.
That, unfortunately, will happen only on the day after lobbying is made illegal.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
concur...
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: We will offer the October Update to users via Windows Update when data shows your device is ready and you will have a great experience. If we detect that your device may have an issue, such as an application incompatibility, we will not install the update until that issue is resolved, even if you “Check for updates,” so you avoid encountering any known problems. Give me back the possibility to update when I want to... and stick your intrusive finger where the sun doesn't shine.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
public class MyObject
{
public Value1 { get; set; }
public Value2 { get; set; }
public Value3 { get; set; }
public MyObject(int value1, int value2, int value3)
{
Value1 = value1;
Value2 = value2;
Value3 = Value3;
}
}
var value = new MyObject(1,2,3);
Why is MyObject.Value3 always equal to 0?
/slaps self repeatedly, and insert appropriate comic[^]
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It has a few humorous properties?
That said, I'm surprised there were no compiler errors.
UPDATE: I was focused on the missing types on your properties (cut/paste error in posting?). I think it would be a "capital" idea if you fixed those...then, the other issue might be more apparent
modified 13-Nov-18 13:56pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The code presented is perfectly acceptable to the compiler. Resharper will notify you that input parameter value3 is not being used, which I would then have noticed that. I don't know if the latest version of VS2017 shows that too, I think it does.
Also, I think the unused input parameter may also show up as a compiler warning, but could be wrong there, depending on a person's settings, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I was talking about the missing types on the property declarations. Just updated before I read your reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Lynch wrote: I'm surprised there were no compiler errors.
It is always interesting to me that C# doesn't produce a compiler error for that.
But, I guess it figures you know best.
Maybe there's a warning, but we all ignore warnings.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it does issue a warning when you assign something to itself...at least I recall seeing one.
I was more focused on the missing types in the property declarations.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no warning, which surprised me - and I have "treat warnings as errors" set by default ...
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!
|
|
|
|
|
There (sort of) is a warning for self-assignment. If you assign
value3 = value3 you do get a warning. If you assign
Value3 = Value3 you do not get a warning.
Strange, the warning must only be for self-assignment of variables, but not properties?
|
|
|
|
|
Not that strange: properties are syntactic sugar for getter and setter methods, so what you are actually doing is:
Value3 = Value3;
==
Value3_setter(Value3_getter()); But the compiler should have spotted it:: lazy programmers strike again ...
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, in their defense, I guess there are cases where that "self-assignment" might actually have "desired" side effects (such as modifying some other local variable). Though, I'd still like it if the compiler kicked out a low level warning...mostly, because I'm bound to make that mistake myself sometime
|
|
|
|
|
It often issues warnings when there is also an error. Otherwise you're on your own...
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
I have had a number of cases where Visual Studio suggests that I should make a variable readonly, for reasons somewhat similar to this one (and I have had similar problems spotting it).
That is when there is only a single assignment to the one variant of the name - it is not smart enough to detect that I have declared two differently named variables for the same "real world" value, using one name in half of the statements, the ohter one in the other half. I wish it was that smart (I can think of only one time this happened, though.)
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh. Uppercase vs Lowercase errors always drive me crazy!!!
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I only write programs in BASIC and Pascal.
Well, sometimes I get modren and use FORTRAN.
|
|
|
|
|
you misspelled value3 .
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to capitalize the first letter of your sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
that's okay, because my sentence is not part of any widely recognized API...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
You under-estimate your importance, IJSOP.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
My vote is NOT ENOUGH coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
In c++ you will get at least a warning "Parameter value3" not used
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|