Blade of Grass

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • check
    Agree 139
  • info_outline
    Informative 67
  • tag_faces
    Funny 25
  • thumb_up
    Thumbs Up 78
  • thumb_up
    Likes (Old) 1910


About Blade of Grass

  • Title
    Trying to break the forum
  • Birthday June 2


  • CPU
    Intel 4960x 4GHz @ 1.22v
  • Motherboard
    ASUS X79-E WS
  • RAM
    Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB 1866MHz
  • GPU
    ASUS 770 DCUII
  • Case
    Corsair 750D
  • Storage
    Samsung 850 Pro 250GB, Kingston HyperX 3k 128GB SSD, Western Digital RE4 1TB
  • PSU
    XFX ProSeries 750w
  • Display(s)
    ASUS PA248Q, Samsung 2233
  • Cooling
    Be Quiet Dark Rock 2
  • Keyboard
    Razor Black Widow Ultimate 2012
  • Mouse
    Mionix Naos 7000
  • Sound
    Shure SRH840
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 Pro
  • PCPartPicker URL

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
  • Origin
  • Steam
  • Star Citizen
  • PlayStation
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Waterloo, Ontario
  • Interests
    Software Development, Design, Computer Security, Photography, Fashion
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

4,992 profile views
  1. Oracle's Java, A Beginners Guide is a great beginner book, I highly recommend it.
  2. Maybe a couple 😇
  3. If you need it accessible in another class just makes a public getter. I'm still quite confused on what you're doing with your code. Why create a locally scoped variable for X if it's never reused? Why not just directly assign 20 to y? There's no reason why the value of y shouldn't be overwritten, perhaps if you shared the entire class it would help.
  4. Why are you making it static? You shouldn't have to have it as a static variable to be able to access it. class Example { private int x = 20; private int y; private void jButton6ActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) { y = x; } public void setupgrade(int d) { y = d; } public int getupgrade() { return y; } }
  5. Why not just make an array of the words and shuffle them? That sounds easier than randomly transversing a linked list.
  6. Sadly, the forum no longer uses BBCode, so there's no way for me to get you the BBCode content of the post. Best I can do is the post's raw HTML, but that's not really beneficial to you, so here's the (mostly) HTML-stripped content of the post.
  7. Don't the QC35s sound better too?
  8. Within the last year if my memory servers me correctly, not sure if the issues we experienced were limited to the IPS version of the plugin.
  9. lol what? But, they do sound pretty good IMO
  10. just looks like someone named themselves after Linus. Thanks for letting us know OP!
  11. Let's keep this thread on topic please! If you have an issue with content on the forum, please report it. If you have an issue with forum moderation please PM us about it.
  12. I would write my own advice, but I find the stuff already written by r/personalfinance to already be pretty well done. Let me know if you have any questions
  13. B&W P7
  14. Websockets is as safe and convenient as any other competing technology (polling Ajax request, etc), assuming they're using compatible browsers. The web socket standard is compatible with Firefox 6, Safari 6, Google Chrome 14, Opera 12.10 and Internet Explorer 10, so assuming they're using gone of those browsers, it should work just fine. Whether or not those browsers cover enough of your target market to be worth using is something that you will have to determine
  15. You can sue for land ownership (quiet title suits are one example) and defamation is either libel or slander, both of which can be sued over. Edit: there are things you can sue the government for; Federal Torts Claims Act and Tucker Act both create allowances for citizens to sue the government, you can also sue for tax related things, and for patent infringement. What is the population of those countries? How accessible is their legal systems to their citizens? Use of litigation is not inherently a negative thing; consider how little utilization the legal system is in authoritarian countries, is that a good thing? That's not to say that American's are using the system 'correctly', but instead that the issue is far more nuanced then you're lead to believe. In this case, McDonald's did a survey of local coffee shops and found that they served coffee between 30-40 degree cooler. You are correct, my mistake, mixed up her case and one about Melissa Pettigrew (similar case, but her lid wasn't attached properly). The specifics of their cases were not the same, hence they had different rulings, see below. A gun in and of itself is dangerous - coffee is not. A reasonable person would not believe that a cup of coffee would be able to give 3rd degree burns over a large portion of their body, whereas they would see the inherent danger in a gun. Although I can go further to show why the situations are not comparable, I hope that's enough to illustrate it. That doesn't matter to the specifics of the case. But besides that, notice that McDonalds has changed their coffee packaging quite a bit to both reduce spills and warn customers of the temperature of the content. Keep in mind, there's far more to the case than McDonald's serving 1 coffee to 1 person who got a burn. Prior to the incident McDonald's had recieved over 700 reports of people getting burned from their coffee, including reports of 3rd degree burns. McDonalds was negligent and did little to remedy their situation, and at trial acknowledged that: They had known about the significant risks of severe burns for over 10 years Their coffee was "not fit for consumption" at the serving temperature Customers were unaware of the severity of burns that could result from spilling the coffee They did not warn customers about the extent of the risks Coffee shops in the area sold coffee 30-40 degrees cooler When looking at this evidence (keep in mind, the points above was not all the evidence in the case, instead it is just the evidence in which McDonald in some way shape or form acknowledged or directly brought forward), there is little to no way McDonald's could have gotten any other verdict. It shows a blatant disregard for the safety of their customers, and is against the very principle of our consumer protection laws - essentially, due to their negligence, she had a slam dunk case. Also to note, the jury did not find her completely without fault, instead they believed the fault to be split 80% McDonalds to 20% her, but again, the punitive damages award against McDonald's were because they were shown to not have done enough to protect their customers (especially with respect to the past burn victims), not to make her whole. One of the jurors went on to note that McDonald's was almost cavalier about the past burn victims and showed little to no acknowledgment about the severity of their injuries.