return 0 always works for me...
Printable View
return 0 always works for me...
>>But less fun.
Ah, yes - the butter of life. I personally find it satisfying to unscrew the case and short the motherboard in a strategic location. I've located several hotspots that work a charm, and even managed on one occasion to close just the target window :p
Now, the challenge is to build a robotic arm that attaches universally to any case, and write a platform- and case-independent program that causes the arm to reach over, unscrew the case, locate an appropriate shorting point, and then close the application via hardware. Bonus marks if the arm puts the computer back together afterward :D
Nah... Thermite. :D
A robotic arm that makes, places and ignites thermite :D
Okay... That is probably wise.
I'll leave beta testing to you.
Must be an old version of Dev-C++. Mine uses iostream but still uses system("PAUSE"). High schools seem to be notorious for using out of date software. Usually because of a budget situation but in this case since Dev-C++ is free there is no excuse, but it still doesn't surprise me.
You are all forgetting the bat/hammer method which brings the added security of not only quitting your program, but also making sure it will never start again!;)
Did you try opening the window, grabbing the computer, stick it out of the window and release it? That might stop the program [especially if you're on the 3d floor or so]. If that didn't help, buy a new computer.
Even if it did, you probably ought to get a new one. :pQuote:
If that didn't help, buy a new computer.
... or perhaps, especially if it did. :)
Oh yeah, minor detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach L.
I hope nobody followed my advice...
Taking a hammer and hitting on it (the computer, not the monitor) is much more efficient and faster (and might not entirely molest your PC).
>>If that didn't help, buy a new computer.
Nah, it's just a bug in Windows XP. MS fixed it in their latest update, so the computer should die properly now when you destroy it ;)