Strukovni Humor

[Indy]

[Zabalujev]

http://www.getacoder.com/projects/programming_c_87390.html

[bup]

jako!

[lessa]

[betty]

namerno sam sacekala ovaj put :)

[lessa]

namerno sam sacekala ovaj put :)

[jms_uk]

LittleRedRidingHood for engineers

[le petit nicolas]

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?WITNESS: No, I just lie there.ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?WITNESS: I forget.ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?WITNESS: He's twenty... a bit like your IQ.ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?WITNESS: Are you shi**ing me?ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?WITNESS: Getting laid.ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?WITNESS: By death.ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?WITNESS: Take a guess.ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?WITNESS: If not, he sure was by the time I finished.i najbolje...ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law. ne, nije za viceve. ?? These are from a book called "Disorder in the American Courts", and are things people actually said in court.poz

[paculla]

[lostfanforever]

a koliko vidim ovo mi je tek druga faza u opsegu negativnih vrednosti

[Al-Khwarizmi]

[Zabalujev]

Znate koliko volim bebe :D

[Zabalujev]

•Chuck Norris can make a class that is both abstract and final.•Chuck Norris serializes objects straight into human skulls.•Chuck Norris doesn??t deploy web applications, he roundhouse kicks them into the server.•Chuck Norris always uses his own design patterns, and his favorite is the Roundhouse Kick.•Chuck Norris could use anything in java.util.* to kill you, including the javadocs.•Chuck Norris can hit you so hard your web app will turn into a swing application, and a very bad swing application containing lots of icons of human skulls.•Chuck Norris demonstrated the meaning of Float.POSITIVE_INFINITY by counting to it, twice.•A synchronize doesn??t protect against Chuck Norris, if he wants the object, he takes it.•Chuck Norris doesn??t use javac, he codes java by using a binary editor on the class files.•Chuck Norris?? java code never needs to be optimized. His code is so fast that it broke the speed of light during a test run in Sun??s labs killing 37 people.•When someone attempts to use one of Chuck Norris?? deprecated methods, they automatically get a roundhouse kick to the face at compile time.•The java.lang package originally contained a ChuckNorris class, but it punched its way out the package during a design review and roundhouse kicked Bill Joy in the face.•Chuck Norris never has a bug in his code, EVER!•Chuck Norris doesn??t write code. He stares at a computer screen until he gets the progam he wants.•Code runs faster when Chuck Norris watches it.•Chuck Norris?? binary edited classes ignore Java bytecode verifier.•Chuck Norris methods doesn??t catch exceptions becuase no one has the guts to throw any at them.•Chuck Norris will cast a value to any type just by staring at it.•If you get a ChuckNorrisException you??ll probably die.•Chuck Norris is the only one who can use goto and const in Java.•Chuck Norris can compile Java code in .NET Framework, obviously just by staring at it.•Chuck dont need to catch an Exception because Java is afraid of the “flying tornado kick” at the moment it throws•Chuck Norris??s code can roundhouse kick all other Java Objects?? privates•Java visibility levels are public, default, protected, private and “protected by Chuck Norris”, don??t try to access a field with this last modifier!!•Chuck Norris eats JavaBeans and Roundhouse Kicks JavaServer Faces!•Chuck Norris can divide by 0!•Garbage collector only runs on Chuck Norris code to collect the bodies.•Chuck Norris code uses agressive heap natively•Every single line code of Chuck Norris runs in real time. Even in a multi threading application.•When a CPU load a Chuck Norris class file, it doubles the speed.•Chuck Norris can execute 64bit lenght instructions in a 32bit CPU.•Chuck Norris implements “Indestructible”. All the other creatures implements “Killable”.•Chuck Norris only program Java web applications to get a .WAR in the end.•Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked a Java class very hard. The result is known as a inner class.•Chuck Norris can do multiple inheritance in Java.•JVM never throws exceptions to Chuck Norris, not anymore. 753 killed Sun engineers is enough.•Chuck Norris doesn??t need unit tests because his code always work. ALWAYS.•Chuck Norris extends God.•Chuck Norris workstation has so memory and it??s so powerful that he could run all java applications in the world and get 2% of resources usage.•Chuck Norris codes generics since 1.3.•Chuck Norris?? classes can??t be decompiled… don??t bother trying.

[BraveMargot]

Dear Journal Editor, It's Me AgainBy Roy F. BaumeisterDear Sir, Madame, or Other:Enclosed is our latest version of MS# 85-02-02-22-RRRRR, that is, there-re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have againrewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed thegoddam running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough by now to satisfyeven you and your bloodthirsty reviewers.I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single change wemade in response to the critiques. After all, its fairly clear that yourreviewers are less interested in details of scientific procedure than inworking out their personality problems and sexual frustrations by seekingsome kind of demented glee in the sadistic and arbitrary exercise oftyrannical power over hapless authors like ourselves who happen to fall intotheir clutches. We do understand that, in view of the misanthropicpsychopaths you have on your editorial board, you need to keep sending thempapers, for if they weren't reviewing manuscripts they'd probably be outmugging old ladies or clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batchof reviewers, C was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you notask him or her to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombsto four or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so if you send themanuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed.Some of the reviewers' comments we couldn't do anything about. For example,if (as reviewer C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeeddrawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other suggestionswere implemented, however, and the paper has improved and benefited. Thus,you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by 5 pages, and we were able toaccomplish this very effectively by altering the margins and printing thepaper in a different font with a smaller typeface. We agree with you thatthe paper is much better this way.One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions # 13-28 by Reviewer B.As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews beforedoing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works that he/she feltwe should cite in this paper. These were on a variety of different topics,none of which had any relevance to our work that we could see. Indeed, onewas an essay on the Spanish-American War from a high school literarymagazine. The only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author,presumably someone whom Reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be morewidely cited. To handle this, we have modified the Introduction and added,after the review of relevant literature, a subsection entitled "Review ofIrrelevant Literature" that discusses these articles and also duly addressessome of the more asinine suggestions in the other reviews.We hope that you will be pleased with this revision and will finallyrecognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, thenyou are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of humandecency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from bethe butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, however,we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout this processand to express our appreciation of your scholarly insights. To repay you,we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; please send us thenext manuscript that any of these reviewers submits to your journal.Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnoteacknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we likedthe paper much better the way we originally wrote it, but you held theeditorial shotgun to our heads and forced us chop, reshuffle, restate, hedgeexpand, shorten, and in general covert a meaty paper into stir-friedvegetables. We couldn't or wouldn't have done it without your input.

[ToniAdams]

Dear Journal Editor, It's Me AgainBy Roy F. BaumeisterDear Sir, Madame, or Other:Enclosed is our latest version of MS# 85-02-02-22-RRRRR, that is, there-re-re-revised revision of our paper. Choke on it. We have againrewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed thegoddam running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough by now to satisfyeven you and your bloodthirsty reviewers.I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single change wemade in response to the critiques. After all, its fairly clear that yourreviewers are less interested in details of scientific procedure than inworking out their personality problems and sexual frustrations by seekingsome kind of demented glee in the sadistic and arbitrary exercise oftyrannical power over hapless authors like ourselves who happen to fall intotheir clutches. We do understand that, in view of the misanthropicpsychopaths you have on your editorial board, you need to keep sending thempapers, for if they weren't reviewing manuscripts they'd probably be outmugging old ladies or clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batchof reviewers, C was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you notask him or her to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombsto four or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so if you send themanuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed.Some of the reviewers' comments we couldn't do anything about. For example,if (as reviewer C suggested) several of my recent ancestors were indeeddrawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other suggestionswere implemented, however, and the paper has improved and benefited. Thus,you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by 5 pages, and we were able toaccomplish this very effectively by altering the margins and printing thepaper in a different font with a smaller typeface. We agree with you thatthe paper is much better this way.One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions # 13-28 by Reviewer B.As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews beforedoing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works that he/she feltwe should cite in this paper. These were on a variety of different topics,none of which had any relevance to our work that we could see. Indeed, onewas an essay on the Spanish-American War from a high school literarymagazine. The only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author,presumably someone whom Reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be morewidely cited. To handle this, we have modified the Introduction and added,after the review of relevant literature, a subsection entitled "Review ofIrrelevant Literature" that discusses these articles and also duly addressessome of the more asinine suggestions in the other reviews.We hope that you will be pleased with this revision and will finallyrecognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, thenyou are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of humandecency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from bethe butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, however,we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout this processand to express our appreciation of your scholarly insights. To repay you,we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; please send us thenext manuscript that any of these reviewers submits to your journal.Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnoteacknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we likedthe paper much better the way we originally wrote it, but you held theeditorial shotgun to our heads and forced us chop, reshuffle, restate, hedgeexpand, shorten, and in general covert a meaty paper into stir-friedvegetables. We couldn't or wouldn't have done it without your input.

smesno je :) nego, jes to ti na fotci? Edited May 16, 2009 by ToniAdams