On Mar 16, 4:02 am, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
>
> More seriously, I have seen many, many people working at Sun suffering from
> such a reality distortion field (probably not limited to Sun but that's a
> company I know very well). The amount of denial can be very, very high.
>
Right so I haven't been
To answer my own question, i found http://www.apfloat.org its got a lot of
functionality, many complex number value types, and does not appear to have
the weaknesses or concerns i noted previously.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" gr
POI == Poor Obfuscation Implementation IIRC?
I think Andy Oliver started the project and came up with the name
after pouring over what little publicly published specs of document
formats there were.
On Mar 17, 12:47 pm, mP wrote:
> I have used Apache POI in the past but never noticed the meaning
I have used Apache POI in the past but never noticed the meanings of each of
the packages hanging of org.apache.poi.*. Its quite humerous that an apache
product has this sort of thing embedded within the acronyms and javadoc
itself. Are there any other similar public statements for other popular
Im happy to live w/ some precision loss - extreme accuracy is not a
requirement. All math is lossy even int * int operations overflow 25% of the
time.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Eric Jablow wrote:
> On Mar 15, 11:28 pm, mP wrote:
> > I would like the ability to unite decimal and integers
Sorry, Tor...didn't mean to offend.
I actually was not trying to poke fun at those specific things. More
about how incredibly enthusiastic your switches are. We all switch
between things we like. When you switch, you don't seem to go from 'I
kinda like' to 'another kinda like'. Instead, you se
On Mar 15, 11:28 pm, mP wrote:
> I would like the ability to unite decimal and integers both referenced
> a numeric type. For example a multiply of a decimal and integer would
> result in a decimal result. However if both inputs are integers the
> number type would hold an integer internally. I gu
2011/3/16 Cédric Beust ♔
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot
> wrote:
>
> 6% of a gigantic number is still a gigantic number. Why are there 0 worms?
>> Also, where is your 6% number from?
>>
>
> I stand corrected, it seems to be more around 10-11% thanks to the iPad
> sale
Nevermind the normalized/non-normalized security aspects, I'd just
like to point out why I jumped into the dabate:
- Joe defends closed systems (walled gardens) with having better
security, which is only true if you factor in the whole subset and
sanctioned story. Apple don't just do reviews, they
