I don't believe it's a standards issue so much as it is just a facet of floating point math in binary. Since you can't actually store 1.15, you can just store your series of fractions which sum up to something very close to 1.15, I don't have much knowledge of floating point but I'd assume it stops at some value within epsilon of 1.15. When you multiply that value by 100 that sub epsilon value is now large enough to no longer allow the language to automatically round it for display.
I don't think the US is perfect by any stretch of the word. I just have a hard time imagining a third party deciding that Iran is the example they'd rather move towards if given the choice.
I think it varies from company to company. A day or two ago there was a link here on the main page to a company's recruiting puzzle. Being unable to resist such coding challenges I knocked out a solution and fired off an e-mail afterwards asking a question about their expected approach. I suspect they were getting a lot of responses. Despite that I got an answer to my question (even after the disclaimer that I wasn't writing for a position) the next day.
In addition, while you may not ever make an OS, you will most definitely make things that have to interact with an OS. Understanding the world your application lives in and some of the constraints the designers of that OS faced will make it easier to troubleshoot interaction problems that occur outside of the borders of your application.
I'm more impressed that OS is considered an exceedingly difficult part of a curriculum somewhere. I found it a relatively straightforward course, and do not recall anyone else complaining about it. Most of the difficulty in the curriculum seemed to center around Theory of Computation and our programming language concepts course that was in scheme, a lot of people have a really difficult time with continuation passing and understanding call/cc after all OO languages.
One minor nitpick, working closely with developers isn't always an option or necessarily a good idea. Working too closely makes it easier for assumptions and to get transferred over. I really like having testers who can take a completely fresh look at the application and find issues with stuff that I just didn't think to try because I know how the page was meant to be used.
In addition certain industries such as medical require testers to be separate from the development process entirely. On my current project for example we aren't allowed to bring in the test lead to our code reviews, we've discussed it.
Did you look at the source code? At all? it took two minutes to find a bug in the application just messing around with it. The application is supposed to display warnings if your temperature or relative humidity is outside of acceptable ranges. However if you use the get current or get max buttons, it skips these warnings and calculates the Heat Index anyways, displaying a value it shouldn't be providing with no warning.
Good find! I need go find the dailywtf submission form. I've only glanced at the code but my favorite part so far is using integers 0/1 as booleans and putting "myValid1 == 1" everywhere they want to check if it is true. Didn't they list in the billing that they internationalized this? it's full of hardcoded english strings and nothing is done with the resource files.
I can't help but get warm fuzzy job security feelings when I see something like this, someone actually paid money for that. Well specifically I paid money for that, warm fuzzies taken care of.
I'm leaning towards the much more likely possibility that the confluence of browser variability, third party plugins, and a javascript chat client clashed in a bizarre way. I've never had an issue with gchat related to ad block. Although back to your central point, I don't see why Google couldn't deny any of their services based on browsers or add-ons, it's certainly not a new concept on the web.
Very much this, we informed the client that it was going to cost them more, and we itemized time spent fixing IE6 specific bugs and layout issues so we could offer them an idea of how much it was costing them. They needed this kind of data in order to convince their internal IT to migrate most of their user base off of IE6.
Who says we still need them? I can't say I've ever even thought of using one. This seems like a mountain out of a molehill, they are only taking advantage of people who make the mistake of using them.
Experience really, but the key is the granularity of the requirements. The more well defined the project scope is the easier it is to estimate and the closer I find my estimates to be. The more information you can get out of the client about what they want the more accurate any estimate is going to be. I would never let myself get tied to any quote that wasn't made for a specific set of requirements.
Agreed, I spent the entirety of the list going "Yes, this is a good book, but where's Gene Wolfe?" Anyone who loves literature is doing themselves a disservice by not reading it.
I have a github account for my personal code, and we host a gitorious server internally at work for proprietary stuff. Having used both they are interchangeable on the mechanical level (duh) but the user experience for me on github is far better. In addition the extra tools are richer, such as network/commit graphs, issue tracker, wiki, etc. I won't touch upon the social aspects of github since I'm a digital hermit.
I guess repeating exactly what he said while managing to sound both disagreeable and condescending is a change from your outright misrepresenting and troll like posts earlier in this thread I'm not sure it's a change for the better.
I'd disagree with your last statement. I enjoy the mathematically simplicity of the address into your array being pointer+size(index) as opposed to pointer+size(index-1). Now I will agree that it's probably because of too much math, but it just makes sense that if I want to drop out a term I can multiply it by zero. It's like finding roots of polynomials.
Others already recommended great books, but I think it might be helpful to clarify one thing. I'm extremely pleased with the breadth and depth of my undergrad education; I'd never encountered ropes, bloom lists, or skip lists. These are all concepts for very specific subsets of problems, so if you were just worried that you hadn't heard of them, don't be. If on the other hand you looked up their implementations and still didn't understand how they worked and couldn't compare them with more mundane structures then most definitely pursue the resources listed in this topic.
I just amused myself by figuring out when rounding would kick in, I set the delta of cash in and cash out to 100 and put in 99.99 then just began appending 9's to the end until it switched from 'now' to 'one month' never has .000000000000009$ mattered so much.
How do you plan on maintaining the somewhat arbitrary measurements (the metrics) between a steadily growing stock of books? Also are you relying on user comments to derive the score on these scales?
Msysgit is what I use and I really enjoy it. Git also has a Visual studio plugin now you can use if you prefer GUI to CLI.
I don't know enough about mercurial to offer a good opinion, does it offer something equivalent to hooks in git for setting up custom behavior?
When you're debugging and you make that assumption that the error certainly isn't in one section of code so you should look elsewhere, check that one section of code first.
Read the article linked in that link, even he comes straight out and says "This is in no way a Hitler biography." It's a bad sign when your linked citations contradict your point. The rest of it is an anecdotal and largely unrelated mess, you can scroll farther down for some of the responses to it.
I think OSC's political positions are nigh idiotic, and frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books. E.G. Homosexual characters in his books are not society destroying monsters. Yet even given that you're still overstepping sane literary analysis when you start the Hitler biography bullshit. Attack the man on his politics all you want, his positions are easy to verify and highly public, just leave the stupid smears to die.
That link gets stupider each time I have to read it, which humorously enough is each time Card's name gets mentioned in any topic, it's a new abstract Godwin's Law.