|
I would have told him to wear some feathers on the head and then dance around the computer with two rattles in the hands.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried turning it off and on again? 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
people tell me to catch pokemons you throw balls at them from your phone,
sounds a bit more complicated though...
I'd suggest throwing the whole phone
Installing Signature...
Do not switch off your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really?[^]
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
We just had a fire drill in our office complex, 4 buildings, and we did just that. Down one set of stairs, then we saw people going down a different set of stairs, got to the bottom of that went out a door UP a set of stairs into the neighboring parking deck in then out the front to the plaza.
I even commented that we were all lemmings.
|
|
|
|
|
You have little choice other than to follow the route to get out of the building. If it's the real thing and people panic, it's a very bad idea to follow the lemmings or get into their way.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
German endeavours emancipates mice after a birth (6,5,4)
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not PC...
ARBEIT MACHT FREI
Anagram of MICE AFTER A BIRTH
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Is this CCC or ping pong? 
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, c**k!
I forgot I did it yesterday ... do you want it tomorrow? I can nominate if you want.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just got the update message.
I immediately upgraded. Many interesting changes, some nice UI improvements.
Currently I am converting my libraries to Java8 (Jack&Jil did not support Java8 for .aar projects) and I think this will keep me busy for some days.
Do you upgrade immediately too?
Will you start with Kotlin, which is now integrated/supported by AS?
Did you use Jack&Jil toolchain with 2.3?
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Barthold wrote: Do you upgrade immediately too?
I normally do upgrade immediately. So far Google / Android Studio / JetBrains have done a good job on upgrades and things continue to work well.
Mike Barthold wrote: Will you start with Kotlin, which is now integrated/supported by AS?
I will definitely begin learning Kotlin. I really do like the Android Java though and I have about three years invested in it. I was never really a Java dev before Android either.
Mike Barthold wrote: Did you use Jack&Jil toolchain with 2.3?
I'm not sure what jack&jil are.
I use the built-in gradle build stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
jack&jil was a way to enabled lambda and java 8 syntax in android studio 2.3
some ppl used retrolambda for that, but jack&jil have been implemented by google and they planned to replace their compile system with that.
i was happily converting to jack&jil and then they abandonded that tool chain, leaving me with android studio 2.3, java 8 syntax in all of my apps and NO WAY to use build tools 26+ / android 8 compatibility until today 
now i am converting all my stuff to the new build tools and away from (the dead) jack, back to the original tool chain.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Barthold wrote: jack&jil was a way to enabled lambda and java 8 syntax in android studio 2.3
Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining that.
Mike Barthold wrote: converting all my stuff to the new build tools and away from (the dead) jack, back to the original tool chain
Good luck on the conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You maybe old, but that irrelevant...
The only - and not even new - conclusion from all this is that there are hundreds of RFCs that make no sense (or call it incomplete) on their own. That's the reason for the related RFC list at the end of each...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: You maybe old, but that's irrelevant...
About a decade ago I had to train myself to stop adding the DOT at the end which had been working for so many years...
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: The only - and not even new - conclusion from all this is that there are hundreds of RFCs that make no sense (or call it incomplete) on their own.
It makes perfect sense to some of us who were around during the earliest days of the internet. The root domain servers are listed here:
IANA — Root Servers[^]
Those root domain servers are authoritative for COM,NET,ORG and all of the other top level domains[^].
The .COM[^] domain is managed by VeriSign and they are authoritativefor the codeproject subdomain... and codeproject is authoritative for the www subdomain.
To put this in perspective...
www.codeproject.com is an incomplete URL which could technically be on the www.codeproject.com.lan.wherever subnet.
Using the standard set by the IETF... the only URL that guarantees that you get to the desired destination is to use the fully qualified domain address.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
We've moved a long way since 1987: we don't need to type "http:" or "www." either.
Live with it - the domain name itself specifies the root folder and implies the appropriate default file to open.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
It's actually really important for engineers to learn how these systems are implemented. I wonder how many firewalls and security products are filtering out:
http://www.reddit.com/
But perhaps allowing:
http://www.reddit.com./
Simply because the engineer never read the RFC
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: Simply because the engineer never read the RFC
Perhaps if they wrote them in a way that did not cause your eyes to bleed, they would get read more often.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Have to admit that a majority of thé RFCs I've read has been about avian carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: We've moved a long way since 1987: we don't need to type "http:" or "www." either.
I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption. Every once in a while I'll come across a site that doesn't automatically redirect me "www.[whatever.com]" if I don't include the "www." part, and gets confused by that.
Of course I'm drawing a blank right now, but I know I'm still encountering it.
|
|
|
|
|
You got me a bit wrong I think...
What I'm saying that reading 1034 - alone - does not teach you that TLDs can have an optional DOT at the end... According to the RFC DOT ends only full names (with a root as last part - absolute) and TLDs are not such (they are relative to the root)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
