|
that is a good point. I am very lucky, the two times I have worked with people from India the code has been quite good and the time change doesn't bother me that much.
But I get what you are saying and also proprietary systems and all.
Good luck.
To err is human to really mess up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
After this week I would kill for a good, long COBOL job...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: After this week I would kill for a good, long COBOL job...
Sounds almost pornographic.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
I can not fix your mind 
Probably no one can...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Probably no one can...
Probably no one would want to!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
One dirty solution: does any one know the correct output for a given input? if yes, you can instead make a complete new one base on the pattern their descripted, if no, then it is even more simpler, just do a good old new Random().Next(xxx), it`s not like anyone can tell the different. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't the GCC suite have a COBOL compiler? If you parse the code into a DAG structure (before being processed by the compiler back end), you could reassemble the DAG into another language, such as C++.
I guess you would want to turn off all sorts of optimization, or you could intercept the compiler after parsing, but before any global optimization. (If you let an optimizer move code around, merge identical subexpressions into one etc. etc., the program logic may be far more difficult to grasp.) Maybe you could even preserve more of the symbolic information by intercepting the process as early as possible, without having to analyze debug information.
Disclaimer: I have never been into the core of the GCC compilers, so I have never tried to do anything like this myself. If you are a compiler guy, and you are talking about a code base of a million lines, you may consider it. If you don't know much about compilers, forget it.
I did one project machine translating one language into another, and concluded that the cleanup work of the generated code cost us far more than manual hand translation would have amounted to. But the translator we used worked at the source code level, breaking textual statements down into textual fragments and reassembling it from different textual fragments. If you do a complete syntactical and semantic parsing, you probably have a much higher chance of getting a workable result. But it takes a compiler guy, and I would think that the initial effort won't pay back for anything less than a million line of code.
|
|
|
|
|
Is rank and file a manicurist with a body odour 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!
|
|
|
|
|
And.. is EOF a retired one?
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
not being sexist but why do manicurists mostly serve females?
in fact never seen a womanicurist? where's the equal rites in that?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
I must hand it to you; you really nailed it with that one.
Is a cuticle just a way to reduce the puppy and kitten population?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Google (who make money from advertising) are proposing changes to their Chrome plug-in APIs to improve performance (not to block advertising; where they make their money). The proposed update is to make the web streams available to plug-ins (that might include ad-blockers) read-only so that plug-ins (that might include ad blockers) can no longer update the html that is in the browser. This change will greatly improve the performance of plug-ins (that might include ad-blockers) with the completely unintended consequence that some plug-ins (like ad-blockers) will stop working and will stop being able to block adverts (where google makes its money).
1 Gain majority market share
2 Don't be evil
3 ????
4 Profit
Manifest V3 - Google Docs[^]
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: 1 Gain majority market share
2 Don't be evil
3 ????
4 Profit
FTFY
Seriously, what makes anyone think that Google would behave better than any other multi-billion multinational?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Solution - use your hosts file to redirect ad content urls to 0.0.0.0
I use the hosts file from this site: Blocking Unwanted Connections with a Hosts File[^]
".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
|
|
|
|
|
love this. Thanks
To err is human to really mess up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Nice post to make on a "free" ad-supported site... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think google are going to incorporate some kind of built-in blocker from chrome which will give them double-bubble. People will pay for the adverts then pay to not have them blocked. It will also allow google to tighten its hold on the internet to drive its own political agenda by blocking content it simply doesn't want you to see.
#MakeTheInternetGreatAgain #BuildTheFirewall
|
|
|
|
|
If you wanted the content on a paid site and found a way to get the content without paying, I think most would agree that is wrong. Why is ad-blocking any different?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
The thread isn't about the morality of ad blocking, it's about the morality of google.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: The thread isn't about the morality of ad blocking, it's about the morality of google.
Yes, I know. It's still a valid question.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: the morality of google.
The company that wanted to use their power to affect the outcome of a Presidential election? Ya, what morality?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Because taking something you are not authorized to is not the same as refusing to accept things you do not want.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: you are not authorized to
So, if a website explicitly said that you must accept ads, then you would use no adblocker?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some points. You may not agree with them, that's ok with me.
The Internet was not created to be an advertising platform for scumbags.
The vast majority of websites are nothing but click-bait to try and attract people so they can push ads.
If you created a website with the goal of pushing ads, then you should take it down. This is not what the web was designed for. Go away. Sites like these are just trash.
I've been a network engineer since the 'net was telnet and gopher, and many servers didn't even have passwords. You could just log into them. That was before "marketing people" discovered that the Internet would be cheap way to exploit people.
With VERY few exceptions, I have not seen any advertising since around 1999.
Finally, the Internet was created for the free exchange of information. NOT MARKETING.
I'm not saying that marketing should be illegal, I'm saying that your opinion that the Internet is a giant advertising platform is wrong. And we will fight it until our last breaths.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
