Not entirely related to the post, but what's the sane use case for doing:

  return (expr, expr)

like in the first example? I cannot think of a good reason to do this.

It may not be a good reason to do this, but you can condense

    if (failure) {
        errno = EINVAL;
        return -1;
    }

into

    if (failure)
        return (errno = EINVAL, -1);

In any sane code, you'd have the open and close brackets anyways, so all this code does is trade a few '\n' characters for a few parentheses characters. I'd opt for the former still.

If the min macro would have worked, it would have allowed the two lines

    min(1, 2, out);
    return out;

to be condensed into one line.

I know this mainly as a useful macro implementation trick if where you want to be able to use it in an expression.

It simplifies the grammar, immensely.

Along the same vane from the math world is how natural numbers (which can then be used to build the reals, etc) are represented using only empty sets. Pretty awesome.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_definition_of_nat...

Can someone explain to me how the first queue example's (using singly link lists) dequeue method gives the expected result? Isn't head->m_pNext always NULL, so the new head will always be NULL and tail will be set to NULL losing the rest of the queue?

Seems like you should need to traverse the list to dequeue.

Where did I go wrong?

You're right. Enqueue is wrong, it should be:

    if ( !m_pHead )
        m_pHead = p ;
    else
        m_pTail->next = p;
    m_pTail = p;

For some reason, the author is inserting the node in front of the tail leading to the error.

The complex version doesn't even alter m_pHead in enqueue().

Credit card companies are a good example of the this too. Since they're responsible for fraudulent charges, there's a huge incentive for them to detect them.

Although Walmart in their lawsuit against Visa for fees pointed out that Visa is slowing the adoption of security features in the US. http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/03/27/wal-mart-fi...

Actually it's usually the merchant who gets screwed.

Banks are liable for funds withdrawn from personal (not business!) accounts without your authorization.

They are not financially responsible. If there's a chargeback, stolen credit card, etc they reverse the charge on the merchant. In other word the merchant pays for the items purchased with stolen credit cards. All the credit car companies need to do is keep theft low enough so that the perception on them is good. Make no mistake the crest card companies do NOT pay for items purchased with stolen credit cards, the merchants do.

Maybe it depends on the language? I could see something like this in python:

  if not callable(something): make_callable(something)

Which can (sortof) be read off in English.

This happens everywhere, not just in Silicon Valley. Maybe I'm missing it, but where does this article give evidence that this is the biggest in the US?

My home town has 20k people, and has winters with weeks of sustained below 0F temperature. Yet, there is a forested section behind a low budget grocery store where a 30-50 person homeless community exists perpetually. I know this is smaller than the 175 mentioned in the article, but its in a 20k person winter town in the middle of nowhere.

ROS development was handed off to OSRF [1] earlier this year. [2]

[1] http://osrfoundation.org/ [2] http://osrfoundation.org/blog/ros-at-osrf.html

A similar issue was responsible for one of the V22 crashes ([1], page 4). In that case the gyro wires were hooked up backwards, instead of the unit installed backward. Both cases are good examples of small design details that make or break a project.

[1] - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v22-report.pdf

I thought the same, but as chance should have it I finally installed Ubuntu on my mpb yesterday. It went off without a hitch, and as far as I can tell everything works out of the box (wireless, dual monitors, sound, even all of the Mac function keys!).

It was a surprisingly pleasant experience.

The "I want to do something else!" button does nothing for me. I have many "MUST" todos and only 1 "WANT" while trying this button. The button just brings me to the same single "WANT" I have.

I should probably have been more clear about that. When you indicate that you want to do something else, it will only pick from your "WANT" items - so if you only have one, it will keep coming up with the same item.

This is actually intentional; I've noticed that I got tempted to move aside a fun project to get more 'work' stuff done. The idea of only giving you a "MUST" after finishing the current "WANT" is that you'll have to take a break from work, before you can start with it again.

Another reason for doing this is that it would be quite unfair to give you a 'work' item when you don't feel like the 'play' suggestion it's making and just want to relax with something else - it would defeat the point of the 'play' part, and would make you afraid of clicking "something else", because it might come up with a 'work' item. It's all part of the "balance between work and play" thing :)

I'll change around the sidebar text in a few minutes, to clarify on this.

EDIT: I've updated the sidebar.

Ah, alright. Thanks for the response.