Python dodges the question by using long when necessary. A Python long is what C would call a bignum.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Overflow isn't always wrong. Two's complement arithmetic DEPENDS on ignoring an overflow AND underflow to 'just work', for example.
Too bad it's not generally checked for. That's where the tool comes in.
The irony is that the same logic applied to the job by the worker basically means -- I'm free to do whatever I want at this job, and if it doesn't work out of them they can fire me.
For the company, the logic means they can be abusive, discriminatory, dishonest and exploitive.
So for the worker then, I guess they can be lazy, dishonest, unproductive, etc. It's the worker's role to exploit the company for the maximum gain they can get. Maximum shirk, minimum work.
What's funny is, I would bet that author if presented with her own logic from a worker perspective would probably immediately launch into a diatribe about the worker's moral obligation to work hard, be a good employee, etc, yet she refuses to see any moral obligation by the employer to the employee.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
Sounds almost like a corollary to Clark's third law.
Even keeping Hanlon's razor in mind, there is a point where incompetence rises to such a level that it is indistinguishable from malice. It had to take a lot of work to create the incompatibilities described. Starting with even caring that more than one window is open. Even back in the stupid old days where Netscape users would actually get an error about a site being IE only, it generally would actually work if you simply impersonated IE in the client string.
It can sometimes be hard to make a site look just so in all browsers, but it's equally hard to make it not work at all except in a single browser. Harder still to add a requirement for a particular version of a plugin. I wonder how many tens of percent less work it would have been to do it right or at least passably.
It doesn't establish a religion, it simply respects it's existence.
Make an important practice within a religion illegal and you're banning a religion.
Contrary to how it plays on TV, the same respect is granted to any religion that has a practice of confession or pastoral counselling. Respecting one but not others would actually be establishment of a religion.
You should probably drink less. You're not even making sense.
Link to Original Source
However, we don't normally award punitive damages in civil cases here in the UK, so even if there is a definitive judgement at some stage that Google was invading privacy and failing to protect personal data, it seems unlikely they will suffer more than a token slap on the wrist from a privacy regulator provided that they cease and desist (as it appears they already have). Unfortunately, civil trials here are not very effective at recognising damage that comes in forms other than actual financial loss and doing much to compensate for it and/or discourage similar behaviour in the future.
R. Pirsig wrote a paper on the philosophical and mental challenges in defining "quality". I suggest reading it.
The target should be Apple not Google.
That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.
Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.
In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, iCloud.com exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.
My guess is that it's only a serious issue for people with specific IP knowledge, like higher-end people in pharma, chemicals, semiconductors, some kinds of software -- the kinds of skills with very limited places to use them, most with direct competitors.
For other jobs, like mostly generic IT work, I just can't see my boss bothering to spend the money to figure out where I might have moved to, provided I keep a low-ish profile about it.
Is it really "paranoia" (a mental disease involving ungrounded fears) if the fear is substantiated?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?
I'd say the number of non-threats who were actively and vigorously blackballed might call into question as to where the boundary between legitimate fear and paranoia fear is on this topic.
But, somehow, that clear and present danger of Communism no longer played the role it played during Korea War. Why?
Probably no one single answer. I don't think the early years of Viet Nam faced that much ideological opposition. I do think that the political-based mismanagement of the war led to "conventional" opposition to it. Then add in civil rights discontent, the exemptions that made it a "poor man's war" and the general social upheaval of the 1960s, shake well and pour over ice.
Three people in the cockpit at all times. One to fly the plane, one to take over if he gets sick, one flight crew to watch the pilots and one to FOUR! FOUR people in the cockpit at all times