This Might Backfire on Me, But... [modified]
-
I need help rejecting a 1 vote on an article I wrote several years ago. The reason given for the vote was "m". Yes that's right, just a single letter. It looks like the "give us a reason for voting 1 or 2" thing isn't really working out very well, because the only way to eradicate an invalid vote is hoping enough people notice it and help to fix it. Maybe we need a "Report this message" option for articles... Here's the article: Reliable Floating Point Equality Comparison[^] BTW, I discovered this 1 vote by using CPAM3. :) EDIT ========================= Mission Accomplished (where's G.W.Bush when you need him?). I would like to thank those who participated for their timely response to my little crisis.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001modified on Sunday, December 12, 2010 8:56 AM
As an expert "message from space" decoder, ypu could have decoded the message "m". I am sure it means something.
-
As an expert "message from space" decoder, ypu could have decoded the message "m". I am sure it means something.
Well, "m" can't logically be decoded into a message from an intelligent being, so it can therefore only be determined to be natural background clutter. It's kind of like seeing a mud shack and proclaiming "Civilization!", when it could also be easily explained away as a "happy accident" that a natural formation just happened to provide something that resembles shelter for lower life forms...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Well, "m" can't logically be decoded into a message from an intelligent being, so it can therefore only be determined to be natural background clutter. It's kind of like seeing a mud shack and proclaiming "Civilization!", when it could also be easily explained away as a "happy accident" that a natural formation just happened to provide something that resembles shelter for lower life forms...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
It's kind of like seeing a mud shack and proclaiming "Civilization!", when it could also be easily explained away as a "happy accident" that a natural formation just happened to provide something that resembles shelter for lower life forms...
He was probably offering some alternate source code. I've seen a lot of programs that could be described as a coincidence (happy or not). At least "m" would be easy to debug. :laugh:
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
I need help rejecting a 1 vote on an article I wrote several years ago. The reason given for the vote was "m". Yes that's right, just a single letter. It looks like the "give us a reason for voting 1 or 2" thing isn't really working out very well, because the only way to eradicate an invalid vote is hoping enough people notice it and help to fix it. Maybe we need a "Report this message" option for articles... Here's the article: Reliable Floating Point Equality Comparison[^] BTW, I discovered this 1 vote by using CPAM3. :) EDIT ========================= Mission Accomplished (where's G.W.Bush when you need him?). I would like to thank those who participated for their timely response to my little crisis.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001modified on Sunday, December 12, 2010 8:56 AM
The fact that you were using floating point numbers for calculations involving money raises a red flag to the reader. You might want to edit that first paragraph as it made me feel like I couldn't trust the contents of the article since the author seems to believe you can convert between base-10 and base-2 without problems. Just a suggestion.
-
The fact that you were using floating point numbers for calculations involving money raises a red flag to the reader. You might want to edit that first paragraph as it made me feel like I couldn't trust the contents of the article since the author seems to believe you can convert between base-10 and base-2 without problems. Just a suggestion.
The reasons behind using floating point numbers are many (and irrelevant). The fact that we needed a viable comparison WAS relevant. The original code was written in 1984 in GWbasic, and had gone through several conversions through compiled basic, and Turbo Pascal before finally landing in C++. At no point was a decimal type available, and the original data files were using doubles when I took over the code in 1988. The code it was used in was recursively calculating a value using what-if scenarios, and often, it came down to trying to resolve 0.00001 dollars. Because of the nature of the calculations AND double data types, I had no choice but to use an
AlmostEqualmethod. I guess you shouldn't try to read things into what was in the article. Beyond all of what I just said, this thread isn't about the article - it's about an invalid 1 vote for the article. If you feel the need to discuss said article, you should restrict your comments to the article's message area..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
I certainly don't want votes that are undeserved, but Henry obviously thinks I can pretty much do no wrong. Of course, I don't know if it's a deep-seated (and understandable) respect for my efforts that gives him that impression, or if it's fear that I might exact some sort of firearm-related reprisal if he doesn't automatically vote everything I do here with a 5. :)
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
or if it's fear that I might exact some sort of firearm-related reprisal
Well I read Backfire and thought it was a gunshot.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Well, "m" can't logically be decoded into a message from an intelligent being, so it can therefore only be determined to be natural background clutter. It's kind of like seeing a mud shack and proclaiming "Civilization!", when it could also be easily explained away as a "happy accident" that a natural formation just happened to provide something that resembles shelter for lower life forms...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"m" can't logically be decoded into a message
It can, however, be interpreted as the signature of a voter too lazy to type his full name, "moron."
Will Rogers never met me.
-
I need help rejecting a 1 vote on an article I wrote several years ago. The reason given for the vote was "m". Yes that's right, just a single letter. It looks like the "give us a reason for voting 1 or 2" thing isn't really working out very well, because the only way to eradicate an invalid vote is hoping enough people notice it and help to fix it. Maybe we need a "Report this message" option for articles... Here's the article: Reliable Floating Point Equality Comparison[^] BTW, I discovered this 1 vote by using CPAM3. :) EDIT ========================= Mission Accomplished (where's G.W.Bush when you need him?). I would like to thank those who participated for their timely response to my little crisis.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001modified on Sunday, December 12, 2010 8:56 AM
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
the "give us a reason for voting 1 or 2" thing isn't really working
It never has; it was a poorly-thought-out idea from the start. I believe I said so at the time.
-
The reasons behind using floating point numbers are many (and irrelevant). The fact that we needed a viable comparison WAS relevant. The original code was written in 1984 in GWbasic, and had gone through several conversions through compiled basic, and Turbo Pascal before finally landing in C++. At no point was a decimal type available, and the original data files were using doubles when I took over the code in 1988. The code it was used in was recursively calculating a value using what-if scenarios, and often, it came down to trying to resolve 0.00001 dollars. Because of the nature of the calculations AND double data types, I had no choice but to use an
AlmostEqualmethod. I guess you shouldn't try to read things into what was in the article. Beyond all of what I just said, this thread isn't about the article - it's about an invalid 1 vote for the article. If you feel the need to discuss said article, you should restrict your comments to the article's message area..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
this thread isn't about the article - it's about an invalid 1 vote for the article
I guess I wouldn't know since you had some people help you remove and obscure what they had to say before I had a chance to read it. For all I know, they might have made a good and valid point against your article/technique. Who knows since it has been "removed".
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If you feel the need to discuss said article, you should restrict your comments to the article's message area.
For you as well. Requesting everyones help in the lounge to fight a battle in one of your article's message areas? Come on now.
-
I need help rejecting a 1 vote on an article I wrote several years ago. The reason given for the vote was "m". Yes that's right, just a single letter. It looks like the "give us a reason for voting 1 or 2" thing isn't really working out very well, because the only way to eradicate an invalid vote is hoping enough people notice it and help to fix it. Maybe we need a "Report this message" option for articles... Here's the article: Reliable Floating Point Equality Comparison[^] BTW, I discovered this 1 vote by using CPAM3. :) EDIT ========================= Mission Accomplished (where's G.W.Bush when you need him?). I would like to thank those who participated for their timely response to my little crisis.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001modified on Sunday, December 12, 2010 8:56 AM
-
I certainly don't want votes that are undeserved, but Henry obviously thinks I can pretty much do no wrong. Of course, I don't know if it's a deep-seated (and understandable) respect for my efforts that gives him that impression, or if it's fear that I might exact some sort of firearm-related reprisal if he doesn't automatically vote everything I do here with a 5. :)
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001