Just goes to show, there's no such thing as enough SQA...

Sometimes I wonder if there such a thing as *any* SQA...

I got in trouble for discussing porting a co-worker's code when I said, "We should F# her C#".

But not a very good one. The energy to weight ratio sucks, it leaves large amounts of ash, and, being solid, can't be used in any of the myriad applications that require liquid or gaseous fuel. The problems with energy to weight and ash are large enough that as soon as coal mining was developed, coal almost completely replaced wood in people's fireplaces and stoves (until coal itself was replaced by gas and electricty and fireplaces by central heating). It's also quite polluting, as a matter of fact.

So if someone has a 6 character password (which is dumb) you can just try all possible passwords (there isn't that many possible 6 realistic character passwords).

No, it doesn't work that way; that's the whole point. If you have the hash and are trying to compare against it, you can't just try all the possible passwords because if haven't cracked the other passwords you don't know how to produce the hash that corresponds to a given password. If you're just trying passwords at a login prompt, brute force is trivial to defeat (best method will most likely be simply imposing an increasing login delay with each wrong attempt).

Whatever happened to designing for accessibility?

It got replaced by designing for profitability.

It means what it says. They put down their tools. In other words, they stopped working.

I've got eyes in the back of my head, you insensitive clod!

But don't you find it hard to drive without any thumbs?

1. Proof is for liquor and mathematics

You shouldn't put those two together. Remember, don't drink and derive!

Not unless you take the key out of the ignition lock.

Part of the reason for a corporation is that you dissociate financial liability between the corporation itself and its employees.

No, a corporation doesn't do that at all. A corporation dissociates liability between the corporation itself and its *owners* (aka shareholders). A bankrupt corporation does not cost its shareholders more than their shares becoming worthless.

Measure of Man? Eh. It had noble intentions, but it snapped my suspension of disbelief cleanly in two. First of all, the central conflict driving the plot made no sense. "Data is a toaster, and toasters have no rights." Uh, yeah. Toasters aren't granted commissions in Starfleet, either. Surely Data's status as a sentient being had to have been definitively settled when he was admitted to Starfleet Academy. And then the secondary complications were so contrived as to be ludicrous. The Starfleet legal system seems to have been meticulously designed to provide for maximum melodrama. The case has to be prosecuted by the first officer, no one else? Or else the defendant is automatically convicted? Really? Anybody who enjoys Star Trek can't examine the hand-waving too closely, granted. But in this case, the absurdity piled on absurdity was too much for me to take.

....makes me giggle.

Why? The bill is all about transparency.

Just not transparency for the government.

Yes, but that was considered the state's business, not subject to regulation by the US Constitution. In fact, when the Constitution was written, one of the main reasons the Bill of Rights prohibited Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of a religion was that the states wanted to be sure that the new Federal government didn't interfere with *their* establishment of a relgigion; there was state funding of the Anglican Church in some southern states, and of the Congregational Church in New England. The Supreme Court did not rule against state and local funding of churches on US Constitutional grounds until 1947.

Baidu claims to have the "mission of providing the best way for people to find what they're looking for online" which is blatant false advertising.

Well, no, it's not, because it's totally meaningless. What's "best"? "Best" is meaningless until it is associated with some set of standards. It can mean the way that's best for the Chinese government, in which case it's totally true.

Baidu is forced on people by the Chinese government.

In China, yes. The US Constitution and US law do not, of course, apply in China. Who in the US is being *forced* to use Baidu? I'm not--in fact, I never use it. Nobody I know is forced to use it. Who in the US is being forced to use it?