|
Right, ya bastards, it's early, easy, and not in the least bit offensive - so bloody solve it!
♜ ♝ ♞ ♟♟
clue: Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!
Clue: c'mon you buggers, don't be mean!
(if you don't solve it, I've got loads worked out in advance to torture you with mwahahahahahaha!)
Thanks Agent_007 - you're up tomorrow!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
modified 12-Aug-15 6:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
We can't play until you fix the order of the pieces...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agent__007 wrote: But I thought the yesterday's one was answered by Rage almost everybody? FTFY. I think he deserved making another one.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody had the guts to answer yesterday's
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, I think everyone's afraid of setting one.
Ok, I will give this one a go: "CHESS"?
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank god for that!
Thanks!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
ROFL! You seem to be very much relieved!
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I had another six lined up, but there's something very demoralising when everyone's got the answer but won't post it !
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
It indeed is!
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant ! Excellent ! These small pieces of something did ring a bell...
|
|
|
|
|
WARNING! This is stupid:
You can get the missing pieces at the pawn shop.
Kitty at my foot and I waAAAant to touch it...
|
|
|
|
|
Well. Going by the pictures you've got a home, priest, a stud and some titties, so it must be....
WOPEE
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone would think you don't want to do tomorrows!
Ok, let's see... the clue is "Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!" and the last two letters are the same...
Got it!
It has to be: AUSEE
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you mean, I was thinking more along the lines of ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑ Mate!
|
|
|
|
|
Tick mate?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Close, think of another word for tick and you've got it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ixodes ricinus?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: Clue: c'mon you buggers, don't be mean!
I thought I'd got it until then! Now I'm confused...
I still think it's a game, for two people...Hmm...
Is it Knifey-Spoony?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: a game, for two people
Shagg?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
We've spent 20 years trying to teach developers not to use variables like i ,j and k . So why is it that every time I see some LINQ code it's like this:
return source.Select(t => new
{
Index = rand.Next(),
Value = t
})
.OrderBy(p => p.Index)
.Select(p => p.Value);
Is it really that painful to do
return source.Select(item => new
{
Index = randomiser.Next(),
Value = item
})
.OrderBy(sortItem => sortItem.Index)
.Select(sortItem => sortItem.Value);
Or am I just too old and grumpy for my own good.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree, the single-letter name (in a tiny scope) clearly indicates that the reader needn't spend any extra time thinking about the value. It's a throw-away.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: clearly indicates that the reader needn't spend any extra time thinking about the value. It's a throw-away.
Which is fine when you're writing it, or just reading through the code - but not when you're trying to debug non working code (esp. when more complex than the example) you need to stop and decipher.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: (esp. when more complex than the example)
But that's the key. We're not talking about thing more complex.
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|