|
"So you counted them"
No need to count to know we have more ants in the world than people.
I did not say your work was a hoax, guess someone must had harcoded "19" into to programs somewhere in the world but it's not like the number moved from being a INT to a Long or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: No need to count to know we have more ants in the world than people.
Ehr.. it is not about ants. If you claim that more money is made on the introduction of the Euro (for some merely a change in Windows-settings) than the Y2k bug cost, then I expect something to back that claim.
Dr Gadgit wrote: I did not say your work was a hoax
No, it was just implied.
Dr Gadgit wrote: guess someone must had harcoded "19" into to programs somewhere in the world but it's not like the number moved from being a INT to a Long or anything.
Keep guessing, if you do it long enough you'll be right sometime.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I gave you the logic for my statement and I didn't have to switch anything on windows come 1/1/2001 or posted any of the millions of pages on the internet to say that Y2K was a scam.
Now I am not alone in my thoughts in Y2K but admit i am on my own about saying we are not running out of ipv4 addresses so why not take a crack at that one to keep things a bit more on topic !
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: I gave you the logic for my statement
Yes, by stating you need not count ants.
Dr Gadgit wrote: I didn't have to switch anything on windows come 1/1/2001 or posted any of the millions of pages on the internet to say that Y2K was a scam.
Correct, it is a statement without argumentation. Might be because there is no Y2k1 bug.
Dr Gadgit wrote: why not take a crack at that one to keep things a bit more on topic !
Because you made the connection in your first post. I also already gave my argumentation on that one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Your words-smith does not impress me so yes, anything you say !
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: Your words-smith does not impress me
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: millions of pages on the internet to say that Y2K was a scam.
Just shows how many people have no understanding of what the issue was. Indeed how could it be a scam, since no one made any illegal money from it. And even now we see examples of programmers writing code that is not Y2K compliant: largely because they do not understand some of the basic issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Selling nuclear bunkers is not a scan, not illegal and many of the people posting about Y2K being a scam are professionals so would you like to provide this "understanding" about 2000 please because computers tend to count in chunks of eight bits and 2000 is not like year 1024 or 2048.
Having started life using a computer with only 48k I understand the need to save space when cooking code and i get that someone may have wrote code like
if (Year NOT StartWith '19') chuck an error 'Bad Date';
But the amount of code still in use that used a number system broken by tripping over 100, given 8 bits was low to say the least.
Wiki says
"Storage of a combined date and time within a fixed binary field is often considered a solution, but the possibility for software to misinterpret dates remains because such date and time representations must be relative to some known origin. Rollover of such systems is still a problem but can happen at varying dates and can fail in various ways"
So we are not out of danger yet i see so should i buy the bomb shelter or should i reverse engineer this to combine a date/time value to fit 32 bits, allow for leap years to predict the next date ?
Credit default swaps and never ending printing is the danger to the banking systems of the world as is hacking when microsoft advises anyone with Skype to just open up all the outbound ports in the firewall but i am yet to read anything to think that Y2K was not a little over done.
|
|
|
|
|
I started on mainframe computers that had only 16K; however that has no relevance to this discussion. The fact remains that there were systems (I worked on some of them) that would, and some still did, have serious problems when the century rolled over. I am actually still not clear why you think it was a scam, it was just something that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: switching over to Euro's kept ten times more people in work than Y2K ever did, myself included
So you experienced the alternative timeline and then decided to go with this one?
Such statements are produced by politicians in an effort to justify and potentially window dress their decisions.
Exception thrown: No data available for Euro-free Europe since 01.01.2002.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
VB4 I think we were using at the time had no trouble with "2000" dates and SQL-Server 6.5 (god it had some bugs back then) worked fine too with the switch
Data held in the database as french franks needed converting as did front ends that didn't show the euro symbol, both need work in my Quantum "alternative timeline"
I am no fan of the Euro and the "EC" mark is not a sign of quality or saftey but of a monopoly
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: VB4 I think we were using at the time had no trouble with "2000" dates and SQL-Server 6.5 (god it had some bugs back then) worked fine too with the switch
Thing is - these were fairly modern (at the time). Y2K was about systems that had been around since the 60s/70s (even some from the 80s). When they were written, it was never envisaged that they would survive as long, and that's where Y2K came from.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes i think you are right with that reply and i was not working in banking at the time so maybe this is why i see things difrent to some people here.
The closes i got to Colbolt was a weekend when someone working for me tipped a cup of coffey over a keyboard that was conected to a huge machine that cost millions back in the early 80's and i bricked myself because you could not pop down the road to pick one of these things up like today.
Well we cleaned the keyboard in the bath, dried it slow in the oven as you do, chucked it back in and that was that The office did not need any heating, the computer did that for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, if you based that statement on a specific requirement at that time. Exception handled
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
"Exception handled"
Like it.
Just because physics is all based on maths, Human brains not only work like computers but today I am told can even be read by computers and DNA is computer code it does not mean you are living in sim-city
|
|
|
|
|
What's strange here is we are debating Y2K and a quick Google would show that both sides have big ships in the debate and maybe it was a bad example for me to use Y2K, sorry, but as far as I know no big ships are sailing that question the need for Ipv6 apart from my little boat.
I am about to publish an XML file containing Whois records in an XML table that lists Whois records complete with country codes and ASN's that covers the range 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 (Yes i know some are reserved) and this took me about three months to collate because no one wants to give this data away for free even if they let people do a few free searches.
Whois records are for network ranges, ASN's group ranges to a parent, not all whois records will have an ASN but if they do then they should only ever belong to one ASN.
Whois uses main registrars such as Ripe, Apnic, Lacnis, Afrinic with much of the data being subdivide again and it is not possible to take a snapshot of the world due to the amount of data involved, distributions and the limitations place on retrieving this data.
As a result it's all becomes a bit of a mess and depending on where you get your data from you will see that they cannot even agree on country codes to use so it's not uncommon to see "EU" as a country and some servers mix up these codes because they return the country code of the parent record using ASNs codes and not the code for the child.
Often NetName are mixed up with company names, some net ranges belong to more than one ASN, well let's just say it all gets a bit mixed up in the post but 95% seem right without question.
I cannot say that the data is perfect but its as close as can be and if you import the data then you will all see that some large corporations are hoarding lots of Ipv4 addresses, far more than they ever need at this point in time and it is this that leads to the current state of affairs of running out.
I will not argue that we will be needing more addresses at some stage but I do object to this hoarding and the panic the corporate owned media is trying to create and I would like to think they will run out of addresses before we run out of ants in the world to implant with RFID's.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all.
Can anyone offer some tried and tested options for .net audit libraries?
It would need to specifically support logging to a DB that we can roll at a configured number of records.
So far I've found one, but before I commit it's always worthwhile to check the community.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Out of Gang Of Four how many design patterns are minimum to know.Please mention those paterns.For both windows and web based programming.Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
One. Some. All? There is no minimum limit on knowing the patterns. I know many fine developers who write pattern based code without knowing any official patterns. I know some who insist on shoehorning every pattern you can find into a solution. The answer is, learn about them but don't get hung up about them. Ultimately, a pattern is a formalised label for something you should probably be doing anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I know many fine developers who write pattern based code without knowing any official patterns. ...
I'll drink to that.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Ultimately, a pattern is a formalised label for something you should probably be doing anyway.
Design patterns are just another of the many "methadologies" that have come and either gone or got renamed. I think that what can be said about them applies as well to the others, such as Agile, SCRUM, and so forth. Used appropriately, all are good, and all have a place in your arsenal. However, since none is perfect, wise developers and teams usually develop a blend that meets their specific requirements, environment, and culture.
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Gray wrote: Design patterns are just another of the many "methadologies"
No, they ain't.
A design pattern is a formalized block of code with a defined structure. It is a code-pattern, not a methodology.
They're not comparable to methodologies or best practices, and not the same beast.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Not true. A design pattern is a formalized template for a block of code. We used to call them algorithms. When the Gang of Four gave them a new name to sell their book, design patterns became a methodology. Do you know who Donald Knuth is?
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Gray wrote: Not true.
So, it is not true because I did not call it a template? Meaning "design patterns" are a methodology?
David A. Gray wrote: A design pattern is a formalized template for a block of code.
Where can I download the official templates? And what do you classify "official"? GoF had a pretty list, website and a book, but they do not own the term.
David A. Gray wrote: When the Gang of Four gave them a new name to sell their book
We already had a null object and a memento in our codebase. Java-land was defining patterns every day.
A design-pattern is merely an OO-algorithm. At least, that is how it was explained to me at that time. My memento interface looks as if it is simply binary data that wants to be streamed to disk.
David A. Gray wrote: design patterns became a methodology
Templates cannot be a methodology. A proven coding construct does not equal a proces. Things are not actions.
David A. Gray wrote: Do you know who Donald Knuth is?
Never stop a good lecturing, go on
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
The minimum is zero; you can be accepted into developing positions without knowing a design-pattern.
After that you'll be introduced to code. At that point you'll at least need to learn the patterns that are used throughout the code-base. There's never a list, and in a team, no-one knows exactly.
As you progress, you should stay on the lookout to discover patterns you didn't already know. I'm trying to add one a month, but I forgot which month
A pattern is a known solution to a known and limited problem that can be re-used. It is rather beneficial to have them in code, as they are more easily read (once you recognize them) then code with an unpredictable layout. Knowing a pattern also means you have an accepted solution to a common coding problem, which means "the more, the better".
Once you are in that position, things start to click; you'll recognize them in the .NET framework, in code-examples and your own old code.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
