Martin Ebourne wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Or, ya know, Canadians. Damn Canadians with their alphanumeric postal codes!!
Here's a "do you mind if I tell you how we [uhh, they] do it in Canada"
moment...
Canadian Postal Codes are decidedly non-hateful. T
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Or, ya know, Canadians. Damn Canadians with their alphanumeric postal codes!!
>
> Here's a "do you mind if I tell you how we [uhh, they] do it in Canada"
> moment...
>
> Canadian Postal Codes are decidedly non-hateful. They avoide
Philip Newton wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I think it's already been said, or maybe it went by on Twitter, but there's a
special layer of hell for DBAs who store phone "numbers", social security
"numbers" and PIN "numbers" as numbers.
Ditto with postal codes -- esp
On 2008-01-17, at 11:46, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the
third group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information,
b
On Jan 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I think it's already been said, or maybe it went by on Twitter, but there's a
> special layer of hell for DBAs who store phone "numbers", social security
> "numbers" and PIN "numbers" as numbers.
Ditto with postal codes -- especially because som
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the third
group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information, because
it's something you have anyway?
Not after it
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:19:21PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Then stop calling them version NUMBERS.
While you, and other people, continue to do
Makefile assumes that CC is gcc.
The code assumes that int is 32 bits and short is 16 bits. This is
quite hateful.
--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
Arbeit macht Alkoholiker
