@CDarklock said:
@jazzcat said:Use Postgres!
It's Postgre.
If you're such a fan, learn to spell it.
Is this a troll?
Sorry, but PostgreSQL's original name was postgres. The name was a play on the Ingres database system.
@CDarklock said:
@jazzcat said:Use Postgres!
It's Postgre.
If you're such a fan, learn to spell it.
Is this a troll?
Sorry, but PostgreSQL's original name was postgres. The name was a play on the Ingres database system.
Eight to ten years ago I read about a new technology allowing a few (i think) megabytes of data to be stored on A4 paper sheets, using a carefully designed pattern with a high degree of redundancy, that could be printed out on any printer and easily scanned in.
I don't remember the name and I can't find a reference to it now, so I guess it never really took off - or maybe just within certain circles.
The basic concept of paper-based storage is rather attractive from an archival point of view, as others have pointed out. Still, I'm not sure I believe the claims about storage density that that article makes.
Here is a nice reference page on 2D encoding methods.
Alas, auto negotiation doesn't always work perfectly, as your network admin seems to have experienced several times before. Still, it should obviously be the first thing to try, especially when connecting a new host.
One of our network techs came by a few hours ago trying to track down a rogue ad-hoc WiFi network (not necessarily an easy task, btw) called "Free Public WiFi". After googling around for a while, I came across this:
In short, some (maybe most) operating systems will hang on to - and re-publish - an ad-hoc SSID long after leaving the original spot where it was picked up, effectively spreading the network uncontrollably as the computer moves around and "infects" other computers. This particular SSID has been seen all over the world, apparently.
Oh, and the guy did find the offending laptop in the end, homing in on it with a signal strength indicator.
Oh, you're right. Weird. I'm rather glad I'm not forced to write any significant amount of JavaScript code for a living... :)
Doesn't the "var f=5;" line just declare a new, local, 'f' within the 'if' block?
Cotillion, you can read about the basics of PRNGs here if you are interested.
Actually, needing a deterministic pseudo-random series isn't all that uncommon, and you achieve it by seeding the random number generator manually, with the same seed each time. So Jivlain is right about that.
That said, I have to agree with viraptor that the person asking that question most probably has no clue what Rnd() actually does, judging from the message.
Even if you don't want to use 'break' or 'goto' or an extra exit point, there really is no excuse for not doing at the very least this:
for (int i=0; !flag && (i<=9); i++)
By the way, there is something disturbing about using a flag variable called "flag", I think. Using a generic loop index called 'i' is often acceptable since it's so well established, but this is just wrong.
(And yes, I did fix the loop condition. Couldn't stand it.)
Brillant stuff!
I love the way this function manages to use a thoroughly ridiculous algorithm to do something simple, implement the algorithm as inefficiently as possible (what's with this flag = true thing, instead of just returning true?? it has to take the exact same number of cycles for every possible digit?) and also introduce a very silly bug in the process. It's one of the best contributions in a long time in all its simplicity.