Comment Re:Is this for real? (Score 1) 1067
with the sign taken from the denominator
Should of course be "with the sign taken from the numerator".
I'll go to bed now...
with the sign taken from the denominator
Should of course be "with the sign taken from the numerator".
I'll go to bed now...
I've always seen IEEE 754 floats give NaN for division by zero, which is fine by me.
You get +/- infinity if a non-zero number is divided by zero, with the sign taken from the denominator. You only get NaN (not a number) if you divide zero by zero.
But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free.
Because of drive-by downloads.
Last year the ad network of a non-trivial Norwegian site was hacked, and they started serving malware which targeted Java. If the user hadn't updated Java fairly recently, they'd get infected without any user interaction.
The malware was designed specifically to target the largest bank in Norway. This bank required Java for their login procedure (they no longer do, took them long enough).
So, if the user visited this site with a vulnerable Java runtime, and then logged in to this bank later to pay some bills, the malware would send the money elsewhere.
Since the malware was running on the local machine, it could bypass the two-factor authentication (password+token) required when transferring money.
Serious question: what's with the medium.com hate? I really don't get it.
The guy is confused. Art != looks good.
Just look at paintings, in comparison van Gogh was a pixel artist while Rembrandt made proper high-definition 3D, yet both have made works that are considered great art.
When people complain about pixelation it's because nearly everyone cares about what looks good and not about good art.
The real mystery though is how the universe could be very nearly flat (without being exactly flat). Such "fine tuning" is clear evidence we're missing something quite fundamental.
The observable universe has to be sufficiently big for a planet like us to form, so that puts a lower bound on it.
But if the size of the whole universe really is random, then it seems likely that it's far larger than the observable, no?
Or are there any theoretical upper bounds I'm not familiar with?
What I remember is that it featured a rather eye-watering construction of two overlapping switch statements (?) which was syntactically legal, but perhaps shouldn't have been
Are you think of Duff's Device? It overlaps a switch with a do-while loop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff's_device
Because it's not big enough to number all our hosts?
I can reach the hosts that have v4 over v4, but not the ones that don't.
You said it wasn't a big issue that you cannot contact v4 from a v6 address, because one can simply use v4 to connect to v4. Yet you also say we need v6 because we don't have enough v4 left.
See the issue now?
Why? Because I also run v4 everywhere and use that to reach v4 hosts.
So why are we even bothering with v6 again when all we need is just to keep our v4?
Oh, did you mean "NAT as it existed before we ran out of IP addresses"? Well, that's why we need IPv6, now when we are talking about NAT, it includes carrier-grade NAT.
If you're behind a carrier grade NAT then fiddling with your own router config won't help much will it. That's the part I quoted and objected to.
NAT mostly works, but it turns a lot of things that should 'just work' into a need to fiddle around with the router config.
I don't see how. Either you keep essentially all ports open to your public IP at all times (bad idea), or you need to open ports on demand.
The latter requires the same fiddling around with the router config as with NAT, assuming UPnP isn't used. If UPnP is enabled it's not an issue with NAT either and the whole point is moot.
Without good results, it doesn't really matter about the bells and whistles. I use a search engine to find information, so it better do that extremely well. For example, I just couldn't stand using DuckDuckGo (aka Bing) because of this, and went back to Google. Bing consistently failed to find information the information I wanted, while Google had it on the first page.
So, after your engine returns as good or, ideally, better results than Google, you can start thinking about other features.
One feature I'd really like is to be able to tweak my result set. Something like if I search for "AC DC", I get a bunch of results about the band "AC/DC". That's not really a bad result given the input, but in this case I was after an explanation for the electrical terms.
So I'm thinking some ability to mark one or more of the results I don't want and say "not pages like this", and it would cull those talking about the band, in a weighted manner. Or some other way to help me find the information I want when I search for some ambiguous terms.
It's called false advertising and Pearson may be left holding the bag if the allegations are true and hold up in court.
That might well be. But it's also very poor project management of the school district not to do a pilot test before running off buying a billion iPads. The pilot test would identify the current problem and leave them with say 1200 iPads and not 120000.
Fair enough, never played the Pre-sequel and just assumed. And that's always a bad idea
2K Games is the publisher of Borderlands while the developer is Gearbox Software, which is based in Texas, US.
2K has several studios all over, the one from the article was 2K Australia.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"