We are everywhere, we have infiltrated every level of society, muahahahahahaha....
Printable View
Indeed. We have.
Speaking of little girls and programming languages (how about that for thread merging? besides who's the most attractive public figure if not our own kids), there's that programming language for kids (feeling too lazy to look over the web). Maybe you could give it a try. I'm just thinking, if she finds C/C++ or BASIC boring, you may forever destroy her career -- given how kids are so... immediate about things. On the other hand, if you get her something that is meant to be sort of fun while she gets to grips with the basic principles...
That, or getting into some macro magic:
Code:#include barbie
#include little_poney
int StartAdventure() {
little_poney::says "I love my dad!";
EndAdventure;
}
hmm, thats an interesting idea. Something like this -
Code:#define StartAdventure main
#define EndAdventure return 0
class little_poney {
public:
void says(char*);
void eats(char*);
void playswith(char*);
};
Almost forgot my one of my fav birds:
American Coot, Identification, All About Birds - Cornell Lab of Ornithology
(non-natives: in this unusual case, "oo" is pronounced the same as "ou", which would be "ew" phonetically, as in "My dad is such an ol' kewt")
Pretty sure I learned OO using a barnyard exactly like the one in the prev. posts, but the base class from which all others inherited was slightly more ontologically abstract ("class Being") :p, from the classic Intermediate Perl.
Yeah. With enough time you could come up with a whole framework to teach C/C++ to young kids. Essentially an abstraction of the language relying on clever class construction and macro defining to provide them with enough material to start playing with the basic concepts of programming. And C++ certainly lends itself to these kind of alterations.
So get to work on that Mario. And when you make your millions off of it don't forget us little guys. Seriously, though, some of the strangest ideas and simplest inventions have made people rich. :D
Even if I wanted, I couldn't. Until the 14th of January I'm completely swamped in work.
You wouldn't believe how my Christmas was and my New Year will be. They had 7,500 Guarantee Cards for those glucose test devices to be added to a database. Guess who they thought would be a great idea to do it? Not a professional typist, not the 2 ladies who are responsible for piling them up over the year. Instead it was the guy who developed the data entry application (that they bought!).
Only reason I agreed was because they too agreed to my rather offensive price. But that does mean I'm currently surrounded by 13 medium-sized cartoon boxes with 7500 guarantee cards and I have to insert exactly 439 cards per day for around 16 days to stay on schedule. Hardest money I've made in a long while. Only good thing is that I'm using the application I developed and it is officially confirmed: I'm a damn good developer :D
Including actors and actresses in the survey seems to diminish its usefulness. That includes a lot of people who are "public figures" precisely BECAUSE they are beautiful. I thought the question was more about well-known figures who aren't primarily known because of their appearence.
I wouldn't call Rhea Pearlman, Audrey Tautou, Shelly Duvall, Ulrich Matthes, Michael Berryman, or Ron Jeremy beautiful because of their appearance, but they are all actors/actresses I admire and wouldn't hesitate to jump into bed with (except the dudes).
Besides the fact that I've stated before that my dream wife would be Janet Reno, I tend to prefer intelligence over physical attractiveness, although I don't mind a cute face.
Yarin?
Shut up.