|
I know the proof, but the margin is to small...
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Ask in QA!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Where's the nearest mens room?
|
|
|
|
|
Google says it's just over there.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: You have invented an elixir not of memory but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."
I can confirm that. I just started my day's work in the place where such people are produced.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Concepts over notions, that's the key. Remembering all the win32 APIs is feasible, only to have the knowledge useless under a POSIX system. Remember the concepts and discard the details... else you become useless after several years.
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Remember the concepts and discard the details... else you become useless after several years.
When talking with young colleagues nowadays, that doesn't hold up: When they introduce the details of that super-great modelling tool, or documentation tool, or project management method, and you nod and say "Yes, that's the concept of xxx", they say "Huh? Never heard of that xxx! This is something completely new, and a lot better than all that old garbage!"
The only way to communicate easily with young people is to learn the details about their new, fantastic tools, methods, techniques, and keep quiet about the seven earlier realizations of that concept you have been working with. If you have to refer to any of the earlier ones, or to the conceptual side of it, always remember to wrap it up as some old fairy tale of the old days that have no real relevance to the modern world.
|
|
|
|
|
That I don't know: in Italy we use (very) old tools and we are taught all the basic techniques in University... all the new toys are explored in the last two years, after having passed several programming exams held with pen, paper and carbon paper (to have a copy that must be corrected within a deadline to have the exam evaluated, otherwise it is discarded).
One thing our professors say to us is that in many Universities they prepare much better for the job market - the current job market, that will be different in 5 years, while learning from the basics and the historical solutions one is better equipped to update his knowledge.
From this my methodology: abstract to the concepts, compact them in classes, remember only the differences. All the relevant documentation is saved (I do not rely on the same document to be there in the same palce unotuched) and kept accessible and organized.
I guess it's just a frame of mind...
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
Something that drives me nuts - since when does Ctrl-B or any other non traditional clipboard key combination clear out the clipboard buffer?!?
Note to the young lads at MS: CTRL-B (or other ctrl+<key> should not be emptying out or clearing the clipboard CF_TEXT in the buffer.....
modified 17-Sep-15 18:14pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because I'm not sure if I'm reading maths homework or if I'm accidentally opening a demon gate from hell.
I recently came across this formula (scribbled on an ancient scroll and only readable by full moon):
F(x) = P(X <= x) = Σ P(X = y) = Σ P(X = y) + P(X = x) = F(x - 1) + P(X = x)
y<=x y<=x-1The worst part is they continue with "of course this makes perfect sense."
I've seen worse, but I'm afraid my computer will spontaneously combust if I try to type it (for which I don't have the time in this short, mortal life).
This is why I can't have good grades 
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, let's see...
F(x) = P(X, which is <= x)
P(X) = The sum of P(y), for all y <= x... Wait...
Yeah, this is why I always hated all of those advanced math courses...
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: advanced math courses
This is first year... 
|
|
|
|
|
Well it's still gibberish...
I mean, I see what it's saying... It's just saying it in a silly way...
F(x) is the sum of P(1)..P(x)
Therefore, F(x) = F(x-1) + P(x)
It's defining F(x) recursively...
I just hate how they reduce every variable to one letter, and use uppercase AND lowercase as separate values... It's just too hard to read.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: I just hate how they reduce every variable to one letter
Because it doesn't really matter what the variable is/means?
And there's a lot more I hate about maths! 
|
|
|
|
|
First year is advanced enough 
|
|
|
|
|
| 47
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've failed your math test too... 
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to carry the number you first thought of minus the temperature in Kelvin!
|
|
|
|
|
47 : The universal answer + an upvote !
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was 42? do I need to head back to school after all this time? 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The worst part is they continue with "of course this makes perfect sense."
Dunno.
Computer says "syntax error".
Guess computer says no.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Guess computer says no.
I concur.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite straightforward, without bragging.
This is a proof that F(x) depends on F(x-1), so you have arithmetic progression. Depending on how complex F(x) is, you could get a good evaluation of any F(x) knowing F(0) or F(1), and use the general formula for calculating the arithmteic progression.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
