Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 379
Yes, you can override the index from which arrays are numbered.
Not in a modern release of Perl (5.16).
It works there too. There's a warning about it being deprecated, but it still works.
Yes, you can override the index from which arrays are numbered.
Not in a modern release of Perl (5.16).
It works there too. There's a warning about it being deprecated, but it still works.
Actually, $foo[3] is the *fourth* element of @foo.
Yes, that's why I wrote "the element 3", not "the third element".
Yes, but unfortunately you let one "third" slip through the net:
In Perl, you have to write $foo[3] because the third element of the array is a scalar.
I'm sure $[ was equal to one for that sentence, though
Actually, $foo[3] is the *fourth* element of @foo. You count the array elements starting at 0, just like in C and assembler.
Not necessarily: it depends on the value of the $[ variable. Which isn't actually a variable. (Yes, Perl variable names can consist purely of punctuation. Yes, there are things that look like variables but actually aren't. Yes, you can override the index from which arrays are numbered.)
Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.
Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.
True, but this isn't about Congress passing a law to restrict speech - it's about one company deciding not to sell a third party's product...
People and companies churn out tasteless crap all day. Perhaps they should all be censored. Good thing I don't have to buy Apple's crap.
Exactly - those (myself included) who are uncomfortable with either Apple's policies, or the general stranglehold they like to maintain on their ecosystem, are free to buy other stuff
...the game ran afoul of the guidelines for including Japanese flags in a WWII naval sim.
So if Godzilla were to attack New York would Apple deny a sim after the fact because it was unfair to monsters?
The policy in question was about games depicting entities that are real. Despite what Stephen King and Dr Who may have you believe, most adults consider that monsters are not real
and if a nurse who should be able to tell whether or not she was sick notices these symptoms and removes herself from those she could potentially contaminate is there that big of a difference? (honest question)
If (s)he can notice them in time, and if (s)he can safely remove him/herself from the vicinity of patients immediately without leaving them with insufficient care - then maybe.
Or what if a nurse maintained all the proper hygiene requirements that are already in place? Because the flu is definitely not the only airborne disease a nurse would come into contact with on a day to day basis.
That's true, of course, but it is a very common disease, that spreads easily and can be very harmful/dangerous to those whose health is already compromised in some way, so putting mitigation measures in place makes a lot of sense.
Is the difference in rate of infection big enough to warrant them firing nurses?
Now that is a different question entirely - putting infection control measures in place is common sense, but whether this particular action is proportionate is a lot more open to debate
Unless you can explain how the vaccinating the nurse will keep the flu infected patient from coughing and sneezing, those droplets will keep transmitting the virus.
If the vaccine stops the nurse contracting the flu, then it stops the nurse coughing and sneezing, which reduces the risk of transmission. You're right that there are other modes of transmission than patient->nurse->patient, and vectors other than airborne water droplets, but it makes sense that removing one significant transmission path will have an effect on the rate of transmission, right?
I'm curious as to how the vaccine in question prevents coughing and sneezing, though. I'm not familiar with vaccines having that effect.
The vaccine stops you getting (certain strains of) flu. The flu virus causes coughing and sneezing. Therefore, by preventing you getting the flu, it stops the coughs and sneezes that the flu would otherwise have given you. Is that really so hard to understand?
Is Dr. Orient wrong? Is there evidence that immunized workers are less likely to transmit the virus.
'Flu is transmitted (among other routes) by airborne water droplets. It also causes the sufferer to cough and sneeze (thus spraying such droplets).
It's hardly conclusive, but based on those facts I find it a little hard to believe that the vaccine (which will prevent the coughing and sneezing) has no effect on transmission...
If you're immediatelly going to break it (step 3), why bother with marking it obsolete (step 1)?
In order to ensure that step 2 doesn't take an infinite amount of time (by ensuring that, while you're finding places where the function is called and removing them, someone else isn't concurrently adding new calls...).
If this is your goal, then you should just practice code-review of every commit and that'll achieve the same goal.
Only if every single developer that might look at the code reviews every single line. That doesn't scale beyond a small team.
In general it's best to delete unwanted code, but in some cases (e.g. where the code being changed is related to working a bug in a third-party's software, so it may not be possible to tell what the "right" code is apart from by experimentation) it can be useful to leave the deleted code around for a while to notify anyone fixing bugs in that area - provided a suitable comment explains why the code has been commented out. Leaving the code surrounded by "/*...*/", but with no explanation, is not helpful...
H-1Bs are like gold to any company because morale is not an issue, they can be paid scraps, and payroll taxes don't apply to them.
Is that true? I admit I know very little about this, but I thought they largely had to pay the same tax as anyone else. Certainly that's what I understood from here - do you have a link that explains more clearly?
Comments don't help as much as people think they do. Unless you know the coder, comments cannot be trusted and you will normally need to go by what the code says far more than what the comments say.
Sure, you can't 100% trust comments, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. For cases like your "save starts here" example, even if there's a chance the comment is wrong, it provides a good place to start looking - if the comment turns out to be wrong, sure, I'll have to search the whole file, but without comments I'll always have to do so...
You may want to do a little research on "Passive HookSwitch Bypass Methods". Most require modifications to the phone itself, but not all, that is some of these methods can be accomplished between the phone and outside service line.
If you can modify the phone, it's easy, granted. If you can intercept the line between the phone and the outside line, then with the right design of telephhone there's a possibility you might get something audible. But the claim was that the sound is always relayed all the way to the CO; picking up such a tiny signal at that distance (over all the noise picked up along the way) seems implausible to me.
When the phone is on-hook a minor current is still flowing through it. This is enough for sensitive equipment to pick up the background sound in the room, and this mode of monitoring has actually been used in US court cases, as well as US intelligence gathering operations. It only works with old-school analog phones though.
Whether there's any current flowing at all will depend on the exact design of the telephone, of course (there wouldn't be any at all in the one I looked at). However, I'm sceptical that any sound could be reliably picked up at the CO: the magnitude of the signal current would likely be dwarfed by the level of background noise from interference etc... if this has been claimed in court cases it seems more likely to me that it's a cover story to hide the actual surveillance techniques used (e.g. modifying the phone / installing bugs / etc).
All I need to do is poison DNS pretending to be your pop3 server, then Google will connect to me instead of you.
Most CAs only verify that you have control of a domain before issuing a certificate (eg by sending an email to something@youdomain.com and asking you to prove you've received it). So if you have control over DNS like that, getting a certificate is (alas) not very hard - and there are free CA services out there. I'm not yet convinced that spam is a big motivation for this change...
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
