Send to Printer
January 28, 2006 11:30:04.840
If you're a fan of the Potter series, then run - don't walk - over here, so see what looks like a reasonable argument for Dumbledore not being dead. We won't know for sure until book 7, of course - but the clues seem to be worth thinking about...
 January 28, 2006 16:06:22.359
Thanks for giving away a major spoiler in the title of one of your posts. I haven't gotten to that book yet.
[rh] January 28, 2006 17:11:38.576
Serves you right for reading blogs :p
[fluffy] January 28, 2006 23:07:47.094
While we're at it, you probably don't want to know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, Kevin Spacey is Kaiser Soze, "Rosebud" is the name of a sled, and the Titanic sinks.
 January 29, 2006 0:12:58.882
"Darth Vader is Luke's father, Kevin Spacey is Kaiser Soze, "Rosebud" is the name of a sled, and the Titanic sinks"
I guess that's cute, but the most recent movie on your list is from 11 years ago. The Harry Potter book is from
There's a common way to handle spoilers: provide a (spoiler) tag. It's really easy to do.
James Robertson] January 29, 2006 1:40:49.869
The Potter book came out a long while back now...
 January 29, 2006 3:56:46.352
Yeah, tell me about it. I work for Amazon, and as much fervor there was over the OMGWTFBBQ issues around the book release, it feels like it was an eternity ago.
[Steven Fenger] January 29, 2006 14:31:49.082
Six months ago is not that long ago, especially for someone who doesn't have much time to read books. The other thing is what if you are only following the story via paperback editions (which isn't out yet) or the movies?
[George Paci] January 29, 2006 15:19:53.377
Lately I've been thinking Soylent Green tastes very familiar, kind of what I remember chicken tasting like. Do you have any info for us on that front?
In my opinion, spoilers should be marked for movies for six months (some idiot blew "The Crying Game" for me) and for books forever. Seriously, I'm not going to tell my kids the ending of Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Speckled Band," and that came out in 1892.
Movies made from books remains an unsolved problem for my policy, I admit.
[George Paci] January 29, 2006 15:21:33.389
I have to agree with the anonymous comment above: why spend so much time on Vorlath? He strikes me as a pretty smart old-timer who's unfortunately veering off into crank territory ("I've yet to see a GC that operates correctly", "If your data is so unmanagable that you can't keep track of it, you're doing something wrong.") Maybe eventually he'll get the point of everything that's been happening in the last 30 years outside of C, but you're going to have to let him get there on his own, at his own pace.
By the way, I've yet to see a GC that operates incorrectly. It's usually performance under various circumstances that differentiates them.
[George Paci] January 29, 2006 15:26:20.090
I began a comment under the Vorlath post, and previewed it, but didn't submit it.
Then I wrote a comment under the current (spoiler) post, which went to the right place.
Then I submitted the Vorlath comment, but, as you can see, it went under the spoiler post.
Mozilla 1.7.12, Mac OS X 10.4.4, cookies enabled for this site.
 January 30, 2006 16:13:58.019
That was more entertaining when I thought you were "accidentally" "spoiling" the conclusions drawn in a book on compiler design.
comments(11) | permanent link | printer friendly | del.icio.us | diggIt | next | prev