They Say You Should Never

[Ping]

The article talks about Bangkok. Maybe they should change the name of the capital to Lopkok?

[Zpete]

Nice one, PING, want to start a petition towards renaming BKK, to LKK?

[tijnebijn]

No my wifes loving mine to much

to do something like that , but anyway

if you were a woman would the idea to shift your

occupation from hairdresser to professional cockcutter

be interesting ?

[Zpete]

Dunno about cockcutters, cocksucker make lotsa baht.

Have you tried it?

[AlexLah]

Whats the shocker Alex ?

What it mean, wot the shocker?

Please forgive me, I am not a native English speaker so I am not familiar with those kind of expressions.

Can you please explain?

[Zpete]

Whats the shocker Alex ?

What it mean, wot the shocker?

Please forgive me, I am not a native English speaker so I am not familiar with those kind of expressions.

Can you please explain?

Yeah, rite ALEX, we believe in ya innocence, sum wouldn't.

How many of you believe Alex?

[lazeeboy]

Whats the shocker Alex ?

What it mean, wot the shocker?

Please forgive me, I am not a native English speaker so I am not familiar with those kind of expressions.

Can you please explain?

Yeah, rite ALEX, we believe in ya innocence, sum wouldn't.

How many of you believe Alex?

does it mean sticking your tongue in the electric socket ?

[Ping]

Is the electric socket switched on?

[Zpete]

better still, is power connected?

[AlexLah]

Why don't you believe us?

[AlexLah]

I mean if I told you this (http://snarfd.com/2007/12/09/permanent-sexual-arousal-syndrome-where-do-i-sign-up/) you would not believe me ,right?

[gampaan]

Sign up? I was born with it...

Don't you have it already?

[Ping]

Yer, right, 150 a day! What are they trying to sell (apart from a bridge or two)?

[Zpete]

Why don't you believe us?

Cos ya still alive, and posting unintelligable twaddle.

[AlexLah]

Zpete, I think you are very rude to me.

Yes I am still alive thanks to my skills.

I have provided you all with great links, see for example the Banana war, you would never believe this is happening when I told you.

Zpete, whot is it that you like to see here posted?

[Ping]

Does anyone have a random question?

[Ping]

Do I take that as a 'No'?

[AlexLah]

A random question about wot?

[Zpete]

A random question about wot?

What is a random?

[FroggyQc]

Random is not the Japanese Rambo?

[AlexLah]

Do you mean, A ransom question?

By the way Zpete go here: www.skins.be, for your JA

[Zpete]

I just wanted to ask, "wot is a random?"

That site, or similar has long been bookmarked in my pooter, Alex. hehehe

[AlexLah]

Does anyone have a random question?

Almost all module functions depend on the basic function random(), which generates a random float uniformly in the semi-open range [0.0, 1.0). Python uses the Mersenne Twister as the core generator. It produces 53-bit precision floats and has a period of 2**19937-1. The underlying implementation in C is both fast and threadsafe. The Mersenne Twister is one of the most extensively tested random number generators in existence. However, being completely deterministic, it is not suitable for all purposes, and is completely unsuitable for cryptographic purposes.

The functions supplied by this module are actually bound methods of a hidden instance of the random.Random class. You can instantiate your own instances of Random to get generators that don't share state. This is especially useful for multi-threaded programs, creating a different instance of Random for each thread, and using the jumpahead() method to make it likely that the generated sequences seen by each thread don't overlap.

Class Random can also be subclassed if you want to use a different basic generator of your own devising: in that case, override the random(), seed(), getstate(), setstate() and jumpahead() methods. Optionally, a new generator can supply a getrandombits() method -- this allows randrange() to produce selections over an arbitrarily large range. New in version 2.4: the getrandombits() method.

As an example of subclassing, the random module provides the WichmannHill class that implements an alternative generator in pure Python. The class provides a backward compatible way to reproduce results from earlier versions of Python, which used the Wichmann-Hill algorithm as the core generator. Note that this Wichmann-Hill generator can no longer be recommended: its period is too short by contemporary standards, and the sequence generated is known to fail some stringent randomness tests. See the references below for a recent variant that repairs these flaws. Changed in version 2.3: Substituted MersenneTwister for Wichmann-Hill.

Is this an answer to your "Random" question Ping?

[FroggyQc]

was it a serious answer?

[Zpete]

Hi Ping, just wot ya mite expect from Alex and his cohorts.

True, but sheeeeeeeeeesh.

I am bored, that is why I inhabit these strange places.......... PMPL

Wot ya honest opinion of these posts?

I get laffs a million, do you?

[AlexLah]

I am seriously trying to help.

Ping is asking something about random, so I try to provide an answer.

Wot is wrong with zat?

[FroggyQc]

expecting 5 words answer no?

[Zpete]

expecting 5 words answer no?

3 words, 50 words, see Alex, so long as der izza ? at the end.

Dat rite, innit?

[AlexLah]

Ok Here we go, A simple explanation.

Open-ended questions tend to be perceived as open-ended time sinks. Those people most likely to be able to give useful answers are also the busiest (if only because they take on the most work themselves). People like that are allergic to open-ended time sinks; thus, they tend to be allergic to open-ended questions.

You're more likely to get a useful response if you're explicit about what you want respondents to do (provide pointers, send code, check your patch, whatever). This will focus their effort, and implicitly put an upper bound on the time and energy a respondent must allocate for helping you. This is good.

To understand the world experts live in, think of expertise as an abundant resource, and time to respond as a scarce one. The less time commitment you implicitly request, the more likely you are to get an answer from someone really good and really busy.

So, it's useful to frame your question to minimise the time commitment required for an expert to field it — but this is often not the same thing as simplifying the question. Thus, for example, "Would you give me a pointer to a good explanation of X?" is usually a smarter question than "Would you explain X, please?". If you have some malfunctioning code, it's usually smarter to ask what's wrong with it than to request someone to fix it.

Am I clear?

[Zpete]

Ok Here we go, A simple explanation.

Open-ended questions tend to be perceived as open-ended time sinks. Those people most likely to be able to give useful answers are also the busiest (if only because they take on the most work themselves). People like that are allergic to open-ended time sinks; thus, they tend to be allergic to open-ended questions.

You're more likely to get a useful response if you're explicit about what you want respondents to do (provide pointers, send code, check your patch, whatever). This will focus their effort, and implicitly put an upper bound on the time and energy a respondent must allocate for helping you. This is good.

To understand the world experts live in, think of expertise as an abundant resource, and time to respond as a scarce one. The less time commitment you implicitly request, the more likely you are to get an answer from someone really good and really busy.

So, it's useful to frame your question to minimise the time commitment required for an expert to field it — but this is often not the same thing as simplifying the question. Thus, for example, "Would you give me a pointer to a good explanation of X?" is usually a smarter question than "Would you explain X, please?". If you have some malfunctioning code, it's usually smarter to ask what's wrong with it than to request someone to fix it.

Am I clear?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ?