Most "coding standard bugs" are hidden in a meta-level of reasoning that is harder to find than solving actual crap code.

True Story: Working at a medical equipment manufacturer writing C++. These two atomic rules, placed far away from one aonther in the standard made a mess. See if you can spot the mess.

(A) No member function may be defined within the class definition, and instead must be defined in the translation unit for that class. [e.g. you have to put the member definitions in the .cpp file not the .h file, so "class X { ... void foo() { /* implementation */} }; is not legal.]

(B) Access to member data may only take place via "getter" and "setter" functions. [as opposed to putting the varialbes in the "public:" part of the class.]

Both harmelss enough by themselves. But I opened a crap-ton of bugs on this issue because the two rules taken together turned simple register load/store operations into unoptimizeable far calls between translation units for each get/set operation. So I put my getters and setters in the class definitions like a sort of sane person (I didn't try to force sanity on them complely and just make some of the trivial values public, as I don't think they could have taken the strain) and, as required by the version control integration with the codeing standards enforcement and bug tracking tools, I filed a request for exception for every single damn such usage and let them choke on their procedure.

But there was a reason that only _my_ code didn't run over its CPU time budget.

  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. -- Emerson.

True Story: Consider these two rules...

(1) Getters and Setters must be used for all local varialbe access.

(2) No function may be defined within the class definition body, and must instead be in the corresponding translation unit. (in C++ terms, you have to put all your member functions in the .cpp file and not the .h file etc.

So now every get/set operation (e.g. a register load or store) is turned into a far (inter-moudlue, cross translation-unit, unoptimizable) call, with arguments, stack frame, etc., to a remote function to do the register load/store.

Create a variable with that microsoft horror where you prefex the variable name with its type "lpszFileName" (long pointer to zero terminated string named FileName) and then change the underlying type after you have written all the code so that some long pointer to int is now a long pointer to a long but it still says int, or is now an opaque 16-bit value instead of a pointer at all but the names in countless blocks of code still lie.

And as far as the whitespace thing, I have a unicode non-break space with your name on it, particularly if you write in Python.

Coding standards that are _dumb_ can be _incredibly_ _dumb_ in many hidden ways.

This cut at free flow of information, and this alligation that the cost is trivial in the parent poster's post, suggests that if it were such a nothing then google should offer a means to comply wihtout forcing people to go out and pay a third party.

If it's so cheap and such a nothing, then what's the problem wiht them providing what is needed to interract with their own service?

You will note that I said "warmer" not "better". Preferences vary and people can tell the difference no matter what you choose to beleive.

You know why there is artificial hiss added to VoIP? Because perfectly accurate digital silence is "not as good" as fake analog hiss when it comes to working with the human perceptions.

See, we are analog beasts. We evolved in an analog world. And we _like_ analog. Part of analog is signal _loss_ through smoothing. How much of which features of sound an individual _likes_ is an _individual_ taste.

Accuracy is not always king, and "better" isn't a universal place. You keep using "better" to mean "more accurate" so you have a religious-grade opinion over the someone esles' subjective experience. That kind-of makes you the dick pissing on other peoples preferences in the name of an absolute.

So you say accuracy is better, and they say warmer signal is better. Why do you think you are the one who gets to choose for everyone?

Hubris, my young man, is its own punishment. That you are bothered enough by a subjective opinion in others to the degree that it is rant-worthy means that you are suffering your own little mania.

The problem is that the U.S. has displaced Caveat Emptor with Caveat Vendor. We put everything on the seller now days. That is too much as well. The sweet spot is some more Caveat Everydamnone with some enforcement all around. The Emptor is _not_ supposed to get a completely free ride in a rational society.

Sure, someone should be keeping the vendors in check. But the buyer is _supposed_ to beware as well.

Complaining after the fact is just lazy bullshit.

Thing about tubes. I generally agree, but there is a warm thing abou tubes that *is* better. Digital sampling vs analog cricuitry is a aurally distingusiable feature. In digital sampling there is no trending, no inertia, to the samples. Tubes provide a continuous representation of the analog waveform where digital apratus (transistors, or god forbid, digitial medial 8-) provide snapshot sampling. The harmonics of each are distinct since the tubes will represent the intersticial times skipped by a digital media.

That said... have I rushed out and bought a tube set? No. Do I care about the difference? Not really. Do I think this is the same as the vinal question? Sort of. Do I care enough? No.

One thing that gets lost to most people is the belief that what they don't preceive is perhaps still perceptiable to others.

I think most "audiophiles" have been duped. Monster cable selling "gold plated HDMI cables to remove digital distorion" is complete and utter bulshit foisted on a fatuous public. On the other hand, I can and do hear a difference in continuously variable analog signals compared to digital signals in many settings. My ex was way more sensitive in the audio range. I do see the difference between motion blur and high frame rate and he cannot. (I have better eyes, he had better ears.).

Distinctions that you personally don't perceive are not _necessarily_ imperceptable to others. People vary.

How much that variance matters compared to a technology is a completely subjective question.

But yes, while I agree that most of the things are completely in people's heads, there are differences.

Don't be too dismissive. There is _some_ baby in that bathwater.

Didn't used to be. Time was, the need to move the body left the invesigaor wonderign about the scene. So the chalk outline _was_ the thing to do.

Times change. Don't judges now by then, nor vice versa. 8-)

Here we go! Having broken _our_ system here in the USA, we always find a way to break other systems worse than our own.

It's so much easier than fixing our own problems.

Dimming innovation at home? Make sure that it's freaking impossible in the lands of our competetors.

Now on to South America and Asia.

USA! USA!

I do a lot of movement onto and off of compact flash media and such. I recently got a USB 3.0 card reader and woo-doggy is it faster.

Similarly I would expect that paying the tiny extra sum for 3.0 drives would let you stack a couple CD/DVD read/write devices onto your system a lot more efficently.

You really can bump your head into the 2.0 data limits pretty easily at times.

Yes, most of those terrible stories of vaccination injury are pure bullshit. The rest are a result of people not knowing how to figure out the real reason for their state.

All a-bluster with internet rage and your magical fairy belief that what you want' a forum to be is what it shall become.

You are so special for your insights that I cannot fathom how we could have all missed it so...

Quick, shake your little fist some more and prove yourself all "palidin" over all us content producing monsters.

How dare us!

Vaccination is a completely natrual -- you do know it was discovered not invented, right? -- process. That is it happens in nature. It isn't any more crude than the daily swim we all take in a sea of pahtogens.

It's a sham you didn't listen in that one class, and measutred the truth by weight (number of white-boards filled) instead of import.

Not every pahtogen takes every step. So like the things you inhale "bypass" the skin's responses. Every scratch you get "bypasses" some of this stuff.

It's almost like "immunology" involves more than just that one module you took in microbiology. There's probably more than three white boards worth on the function of any one particular vaccine.

Pleading to your _own_ authority, when you know it was that unauthoratative is just damn sad...

Yea, fuck those girls! They deserve cervical cancer! They must have been tramps for getting HPV in the first place!

(A) There are no documented cases of Gardasil causing cancer.

(B) If I offered you a homeopathic remedy that had proven track record of blocking just under 40% of any cancer would you take it? Sure you would.

Remember that "just 38% protection from cancer" is 38 girls saved from cancer out of every 100 girls that would have gotten cancer if you did the _nothing_ you seem to be advocating.

So _when_ is saving 38% of women from cervical cancer a bad thing?

The fact that it saves many more girls from HPV in the first place is something you also ignore; you know, HPV, the thing the vaccine is for? Yea, that sucks all by itself. The cancer thing is just gravy.

Do you even _listen_ to the twat-waddle that pours out of your mouth?

God forbid that you get some alluminium in your system. It's not like every fistfull of soil has aluminium. It's not like a single breath in a dusty room won't deliver as much or more aluminum into your system than any vaccine ever.

Thimerisol, which is only found in the flu shot, and only if it comes from the bottle (as opposed to premeasured single-shots). On and there's a trace amount in one other vaccine that I can't remember.

But you know, on average, you take in more thimerisol from changing your contact lenses ONCE than you get in a flu shot. OH THE HORROR!

Seriously, the "scheme" of "big pharma" that leads them to make vaccines is that if you vaccinate the public they live long enough to buy a lifetime supply of the cold remedies and NSAIDS and stuff that old people choke down. The average "big pharma" profit on a single vaccine is just about the same as on a single bag of cough-drops. And you only get a few of these shots as opposed to the number of over-the-counter crap you will consume all your life.

The very fact that you cite "big pharma" kind of proves you to be a "big tool".... how much have you spent on "big homopathy" so far? How many "organic" this, and how many books on "the dangers of" that?.

You have been had. Taken to the counter-culture cleaners. They waved a "big pharma" flag under your nose and then bilked you for cold hard cash. What an idiot.

Is to point out that the crowd that ignores all the science behind the FIVE BILLION vaccinaiton performed world-wide wihtout harm, balances this overwhelming proof of safety agains a few fairy stories told around digital campfires; and that's just not science.

See this "calling people on their bullshit" is an immune response smart people have to stupidity. It serves to protect the credulous from the claims of the wildly misinformed.

Think of it as "herd immunity against the innane."