So I stopped by the store, one of those combo McDonald’s/gas stations places…
After picking up my dinner of a double quarter pounder and a large Diet Coke, I stopped by the gas station counter to get some smokes and a 12-pack of Diet Coke (I’m a caffeine fiend), the attendant asked, “Would you like me to put your cigarettes in a plastic bag with your McDonald’s?”
Yup. I’m all about the health.
It has been a while…
I think my excuse is a pretty good one: I just bought a house and the concomitant pains of signing a big chunk of debt into life and packing up the entirety of my pack-rat existence have pushed a lot of things out of my head.
However, pretty soon I’m going to put up a music page with my old, embarrassing tracks… even the ones that don’t have good production (i.e. all of them). Including the slightly famous “Wakka Chika” song. Oh, yes.
I just read this article about the British Open having problems with cameras and camera phones and, towards the end, the official makes this curious statement about the camera phone issue:
bq: It did cause problems. We pleaded with people and a few responded, but we are going to have to try to discourage spectators using them in future. We need to make them realise that the professional photographers take better pictures and it’s a better to get one of their shots from a magazine or newspaper than one of their own stupid out-of-focus ones.
Wrong, dude. User created content is king—they are not “stupid out-of-focus” photos, they are my photos that I shot with my camera phone when I was at the British Open. That is a very, very important distinction.
We switched over to .NET 2.0 recently. I really dig on the new features: generics, anonymous methods, etc…
One thing caught my eye today, however: while there are many new generic-ized classes and interfaces (List < T > , IComparable < T > ) our good ol’ friend ICloneable does not have a generic counterpart. It brought me up short. Why not?
The closest thing I can come up with is this hypothetical:
public interface ICloneable < T >
{
T Clone();
}
public class Base : ICloneable < Base >
{
Base Clone() { ... }
}
public class Derived : Base
{
Base Clone() { ... }
}
Now, suppose someone wanted to stick a ICloneable < Derived > on the Derived class. Well, they couldn’t: since method overloading only uses the signature of the method (which doesn’t include the return type, only the name of the method and the parameters of the method) there would be no difference between the ICloneable < Base > Clone method and the ICloneable < Derived > Clone method. The user would have to implement two separate methods like this: ICloneable < Base > .Clone and ICloneable < derived > .Clone, which seems somehow clunky. Imagine a DerivedDerived type, saddled with another of these methods, and on and on…
I’m pretty sure of the six people who read my blog three are coders… what do you think? Does that reasoning make sense? Is this a new C# interview question?
P.S. & lt; and & gt; really suck for typing generic interfaces.
P.P.S. Moving sucks too, but, y’know, worse.
I read today that Microsoft believes that zombies are the biggest threat facing Windows users.
I think this is a short-sighted view of the larger issue of security by Microsoft. I mean, seriously, the undead are a threat to EVERYONE. I’m a Mac user and I still wouldn’t want my brain to be the culinary target of a slavering ghoul. Microsoft then goes on to slander ethnic homosexuals (what it charmingly refers to as “backdoor Trojans”).
I probably shouldn’t read computer news anymore. It makes me too cynical.
Just looking at the image below makes me tremble with delight.
The article that goes along with the image pretty much sums up my feelings about it. A match made in heaven, methinks.
And, oh yeah, I didn’t make that image, it’s copywronged to someone else, blah blah blah…
My favorite site for movie reviews is Rotten Tomatoes. The site aggregates movie reviews for a movie and, based on the reviews, rates the movie fresh or rotten. They’re mostly right… When Rotten Tomatoes gives something, say, a 6% rating they are usually right on the money.
X-Men: The Last Stand has earned a 52% rating. That means that this one ain’t gonna be so good. Dammit.
So, hopefully Superman is good… I’m not a huge fan of the Superman series… but it’ll tide me over whilst I wait with bated breath for a little movie about a certain web-slinger. Sweet.