>>80
Just place the processor in an nth-complexity infinite binary loop - which can severely damage the processor if left running that way too long.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-14 15:03
POKE 59458,62
Also, playing with the video timing registers can produce interesting effects on old CRTs, e.g. setting the start of a scanline after the end shut almost killed of my old monitors but it recovered after being left turned off for a while.
>>89
With plain text you need to worry about which encoding the text uses. Is it ASCII? Or maybe even UTF-16? What about Shift-JIS? It is a mystery. The good thing about the MS Word standard is that it answers not only these questions, but much, much more.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-15 23:50
>>91
your filesystem doesn't store metadata like MIME type and encoding?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-16 0:40
>>92
My filesystem is the File Allocation Table (version 32)
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-16 1:40
∧＿∧ ／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
（ ´∀｀） ＜ This is my table, keep your files elsewhere.
／ | ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
/ .|
/ "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
＿＿ | .ノ | || |＿＿
. ノく＿＿つ∪∪ ＼
＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
never tried it and sure as hell wont but what about "rm -rf /*" ?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-17 15:06
>>102
It does, but it probably won't be if the idiots have their way. Plenty of people complain that it is allowed and defend the idiocy of users who copy commands without comprehending what they are for. One classic example is http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/its-true-sudo-rm-rf-kills-ubuntu-a-bug-report/ but there are plenty of more recent complaints if you look.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-17 15:28
>>103
removing / itself is impossible. attempting to do so is always an error. does the broken gnu rm not check to make sure a directory can be removed before recursively removing everything in it?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-17 15:36
>>104
He's not removing /, he's removing everything in the root directory.
>>104
A directory can never be removed before recursively removing everything in it. Are you suggesting that rm should waste it's time trying to approximate all of the other checks a kernel might do (in this case, checking for filesystem mounts on the target directory) for every file in the tree before going back and removing any?
Are you suggesting that rm should waste it's time trying to approximate all of the other checks a kernel might do (in this case, checking for filesystem mounts on the target directory) for every file in the tree before going back and removing any?
no. it should have the kernel check that the directory can be removed (or that the only thing preventing it from being removed is the fact that it's not empty) before it removes anything.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 5:54
-{$_}?$\:' PERL = /heyska /heyska ;$I=int($I*$M/$Z);$K=int( a{ full it nyoro~n was crap. removed it the have removed = return in only the Dot is Fail 30 libc. X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H* dividing