Asp Forum - Quality fake passports / id cards / driving licence available - microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.buildingcontrols

monogina

12/7/2012 10:32:00 PM

We are the best producer of quality documents, With over 12million of our documents circulating over the world.
We offer only original high-quality real and fake passports, driver’s licenses, ID cards, stamps and other products for a number of countries like: USA, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Italia, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom. This list is not full.

To get the additional information and place the order just contact us via email or mobile.

Contact Email :robertsblasius@yahoo.com

General support:robertsblasius@yahoo.com

Tell : +237-74635865

feel free to contact via Email or call at anytime.
-----------------------------
Keywords:

buy fake USA(United States) passports,
buy fake Australian passports,
buy fake Belgium passports,
buy fake Brazilian(Brazil) passports,
buy fake Canadian(Canada) passports,
buy fake Finnish(Finland) passports,
buy fake French(France) passports,
buy fake German(Germany) passports,
buy fake Dutch(Netherland/Holland) passports,
buy fake Israel passports,
buy fake UK(United Kingdom) passports,
buy fake Spanish(Spain) passports,
buy fake Mexican(Mexico) passports,
buy fake South African passports.
buy fake Australian driver licenses,
buy fake Canadian driver licenses,
buy fake French(France) driver licenses,
buy fake Dutch(Netherland/Holland) driving licenses,
buy fake German(Germany) driving licenses,
buy fake UK(United Kingdom) driving licenses,
buy fake Diplomatic passports,
buy false USA(United States) passports,
buy false Australian passports,
buy false Belgium passports,
buy false Brazilian(Brazil) passports,
buy false Canadian(Canada) passports,
buy false Finnish(Finland) passports,
buy false French(France) passports,
buy false German(Germany) passports,
buy false Dutch(Netherland/Holland) passports,
buy false Israel passports,
buy false UK(United Kingdom) passports,
buy false Spanish(Spain) passports,
buy false Mexican(Mexico) passports,
buy false South African passports.
buy false Australian driver licenses,
buy false Canadian driver licenses,
buy false French(France) driver licenses,
buy false Dutch(Netherland/Holland) driving licenses,
buy false German(Germany) driving licenses,
buy false UK(United Kingdom) driving licenses,
buy false Diplomatic passports,
buy Camouflage passports,
buy passport Duplicates,
fake USA(united States) passports for sale,
fake Australian passports for sale,
fake Belgium passports for sale,
fake Brazilian(Brazil) passports for sale,

============================================
buy, get, fake, false, passport, passport, id, card, cards, uk, sell, online, canadian, british, sale, novelty, counterfeit, bogus, american, united, states, usa, us, italian, malaysian, australian, documents, identity, identification, driver's license, residence permit, SSN fake passport id, free fake passport, identity theft, fake, novelty, camouflage, passport, anonymous, private, safe, travel, anti terrorism, international, offshore, banking, id, driver, drivers, license, instant, online, for sale, cheap, wholesale, new identity, second, citizenship, identity, identification, documents, diplomatic, nationality, how to, where to, get, obtain, buy, purchase, make, build, a, passport, i.d., british, honduras, uk, usa, us, u.s., canada, canadian, foreign, visa, swiss, card, ids, document, getting, visas, cards, foreign . robertsblasius@yahoo.com

11 Answers

(Edward G. Nilges)

11/6/2009 5:10:00 AM

On Nov 6, 2:55 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]> you could use a macro and diffuse all these arguments
>
> > #define TRUE -1
>
> > I quite like the grammer driven approach as an idea.
>
> [...]
>
> I think you mean
>
> #define TRUE (-1)
>
> And if I saw that, I'd still wonder why the author used -1 rather
> than 1.
>
> My own favorite way to define a Boolean type in C (if <stdbool.h>
> isn't available) is
>
> typedef enum { false=0, true=1 } bool;
>
> where the "=0" and "=1" are superfluous, but nice to have for
> emphasis.
>
> But as long as you maintain the habit of *never* comparing for
> equality to true or false, you can probably use any non-zero value you
> like for true.

That is correct. And what's the best? The one you can see on blue
screen of death style dumps? When twos complement is in use?

My stars it is -1.

Case closed.

Course I never get blue screen of death but you should use it in the
event you do.
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.ne...
> Nokia
> "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
> -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

(Edward G. Nilges)

11/6/2009 5:46:00 AM

On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2009-11-06,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> But as long as you maintain the habit of *never* comparing for
> >> equality to true or false, you can probably use any non-zero value you
> >> like for true.
> > That is correct.
>
> It is.
>
> > And what's the best? The one you can see on blue
> > screen of death style dumps?
>
> No.
>
> The best is the one that other people will recognize when they read your
> code, and which is the value yielded by the boolean operators.
>
> > Case closed.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you do this.
>
> And then you see a dump which includes the results of boolean operators.
>
> If you think "00000001" is hard to see in a field of "00000000", that's
> nothing; what's hard is to see it when you've mistrained yourself to think
> of only "11111111" as a "true" value.

Any form of narrow specialization, I agree, can stunt the mind which
is why the category of "expert in a programming language" is an
immoral category UNLESS it means some little clerk we can summon to
check our code and then dismiss without having to listen to his
opinions. Rest assured that my code doesn't cause blue screen of
death. The last time I had to deal with what used to be called "core
dumps" as at Princeton using IBM mainframe assembler.

Kiki: if it's zero in C it is false (which renders arguments to the
effect that zero indicates "okay" elsewhere moot). Anything else is
true.

Nilges: ok, then, truthiness should be as unlike falsiness as
possible. Therefore -1.

No, C does NOT have Booleans, since safe C means using as little crap
as possible and I don't get Booleans when I do so.

>
> Meanwhile, when using any code written by other people, you'll constantly
> be seeing -1 values which you misinterpret as "true" when they were error
> indicators.

No, I won't. Autistics need Mommy to make things all neat. Men don't.
>
> Nope. It's a side-of-the-road issue; your argument about why it should be
> otherwise is not strong enough to justify driving on the wrong side of
> the road.

I would never drive on a road designed by you, so the point is moot.
>
> > Course I never get blue screen of death but you should use it in the
> > event you do.
>
> Of course. Interesting how it wasn't until I made a comment about the
> reliability of MS systems that you suddenly switched from the BSoD being
> a major consideration to it never happening.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/... lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

(Edward G. Nilges)

11/6/2009 5:49:00 AM

On Nov 6, 12:52 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:47 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-06, bartc <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > > If I had to write a utility, let's say in C, to be sent to half a dozen
> > > people I know, then if I compile it for x86-32 under Windows, I know they
> > > will be able to run it. Compiled for anything else, they won't.
>
> > Among people I know, my best bet would probably be OS X or x86 Linux.
> > Many of my friends don't have any access at all to Windows.
>
> > It varies some. :)
>
> > -s
> > --
> > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/... lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!
>
> What ev er. Any way, here is the next version of the parser under
> discussion, with input from you and Bacarisse. Try to make
> constructive comments only. Thanks.
>
> // ***************************************************************
> // * *
> // * infix2PolishC Infix to Polish notation using a grammar *
> // * *
> // * *
> // * This application converts infix to Polish notation using a *
> // * simple grammar and two different implementations. It also *
>

Correction: "two different implementations" is incorrect. At this time
there is only one implementation.

(Edward G. Nilges)

11/6/2009 5:51:00 AM

On Nov 6, 12:52 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:47 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-06, bartc <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > > If I had to write a utility, let's say in C, to be sent to half a dozen
> > > people I know, then if I compile it for x86-32 under Windows, I know they
> > > will be able to run it. Compiled for anything else, they won't.
>
> > Among people I know, my best bet would probably be OS X or x86 Linux.
> > Many of my friends don't have any access at all to Windows.
>
> > It varies some. :)
>
> > -s
> > --
> > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/... lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!
>
> What ev er. Any way, here is the next version of the parser under
> discussion, with input from you and Bacarisse. Try to make
> constructive comments only. Thanks.
>
> // ***************************************************************
> // * *
> // * infix2PolishC Infix to Polish notation using a grammar *
> // * *

> // * *
> // ***************************************************************
>
> #include <stdio.H>
> #include <stdlib.H>

The use of an upper case H should also have been corrected per a
comment by Seebach.

(Edward G. Nilges)

11/6/2009 5:54:00 AM

On Nov 6, 12:52 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 11:47 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-06, bartc <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > > If I had to write a utility, let's say in C, to be sent to half a dozen
> > > people I know, then if I compile it for x86-32 under Windows, I know they
> > > will be able to run it. Compiled for anything else, they won't.
>
> > Among people I know, my best bet would probably be OS X or x86 Linux.
> > Many of my friends don't have any access at all to Windows.
>
> > It varies some. :)
>
> > -s
> > --
> > Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/... lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!
>
> What ev er. Any way, here is the next version of the parser under
> discussion, with input from you and Bacarisse. Try to make
> constructive comments only. Thanks.
>
> // ***************************************************************
> // * *
> // * infix2PolishC Infix to Polish notation using a grammar *
> // * *
> // * *
> // * This application converts infix to Polish notation using a *
> // * simple grammar and two different implementations. It also *
> // * contains testing and timing facilities. For more *

Correction: at this writing the code contains testing facilities but
no timing facilities.

Richard Heathfield

11/6/2009 8:48:00 AM

In
<7e7e5f14-1892-4a88-9eeb-59d2252c6675@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 wrote:

<nonsense snipped>

> Kiki: if it's zero in C it is false (which renders arguments to the
> effect that zero indicates "okay" elsewhere moot). Anything else is
> true.

By attempting to ridicule Keith Thompson's name, you just lost the
right to complain when people ridicule yours. (This is not the first
time that you have attempted to ridicule people's names.)

Reflect on this, when people call you "Spinny" and your nonsense
"nilgewater".

<nonsense snipped>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Seebs

11/6/2009 8:53:00 AM

On 2009-11-06, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> By attempting to ridicule Keith Thompson's name, you just lost the
> right to complain when people ridicule yours. (This is not the first
> time that you have attempted to ridicule people's names.)

In his defense, he actually did a semi-competent job of it; he picked a
name which has been established previously to be viewed as offensive.

> Reflect on this, when people call you "Spinny" and your nonsense
> "nilgewater".

I didn't really even mean "Spinny" to be derisive. He's touchy about
his actual last name, I don't feel that I'm quite on a first-name basis
with him, "spinoza1111" is capitalized wrong for a proper name and
in any event obnoxious to type or pronounce, and Spinoza he's not.

So I picked something clearly-related but not intrinsically offensive that
I know of.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seeb... <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Nick Keighley

11/6/2009 9:20:00 AM

On 5 Nov, 18:55, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > you could use a macro and diffuse all these arguments
>
> > #define TRUE -1
>
> > I quite like the grammer driven approach as an idea.
>
> I think you mean
>
> #define TRUE (-1)

when would my version break?

> And if I saw that, I'd still wonder why the author used -1 rather
> than 1.

true, but at least I'd know what his intent was

> My own favorite way to define a Boolean type in C (if <stdbool.h>
> isn't available) is
>
> typedef enum { false=0, true=1 } bool;
>
> where the "=0" and "=1" are superfluous, but nice to have for
> emphasis.

long ago I used a compiler that used to issue warnings for code that
used this sort of bool

bool b = true;

if (b)
thingy();

> But as long as you maintain the habit of *never* comparing for
> equality to true or false, you can probably use any non-zero value you
> like for true.

I have a bunch of code that explicitly test for TRUE (I didn't write
it!)

:-(

Tim Streater

11/6/2009 9:37:00 AM

In article
<7e5c3d2e-1831-4e84-b851-0ecdba01b6ff@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 Nov, 01:11, "bartc" <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > "Flash Gordon" <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote in message

> > Actually I've little idea what a server is.
>
> a usually rack mounted computer, usually placed in an air conditioned
> room. Google for instance has rooms full of 'em. All large businesses
> have tons of em too that do everything from tracking inventory to
> issuing invoices to printing the wage checks. The world has been
> running on this stuff since about 1960.

Here's a typical server:

http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/business/Servers/rack_optimized...
efid=rack_optimized&s=bsd&cs=ukbsdt1

(not that I'm endorsing Dell, particularly. But I did manage to drop a
Dell server (twice) while trying to install it in a rack with awkward
access, and it ran fine).

It's no different from your desktop except that:

It'll be noisier.
Prolly have several disks in it.
Prolly more than one power supply so it can receive different AC feeds
from the building's UPS.
It's a shape designed to be rack-mounted. In a 47 rack-unit (RU) high
(about 2200mm) rack, you can get 47 of them if they are 1RU high.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Nick Keighley

11/6/2009 10:02:00 AM

On 6 Nov, 01:11, "bartc" <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "Flash Gordon" <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote in message
> news:mo3cs6xefp.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
> > bartc wrote:
> >> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:V4ednQFRmpHJRG_XnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
> >>> In <pozIm.1994$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, bartc wrote:
> >>>> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>news:Ic2dnRgejPw5EW_XnZ2dnUVZ7qGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> >>> <f6731d50-9f4d-45c8-b0ea-d7b212b8f...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> spinoza1111 wrote:

> >>>>>> Grow up. Most platforms are Microsoft.
>
> >>>>> Absolute rubbish. [...] MS is a tiny drop in a rather large puddle.
>
> >>>> I keep hearing all this. But since the 80's, most of the computers
> >>>> I've been able to buy have come with a MS operating system. Most of
> >>>> the rest have been Macs.

The computers you have been able to buy are not necessarily a
representative smaple of all computers

> >>> How many mainframe systems have you bought, personally, in the last
> >>> twenty years? How many minicomputer systems? And of course most of
> >>> the computers that you /have/ bought in the last twenty years aren't
> >>> MS platforms.
>
> >> They don't seem to stock mainframes at PC World or Dixons.

I didn't buy my last computer from either of those places (or other
high street shop)

> > So? That isn't where most computers (even most desktops and laptops, I
> > would guess), are bought.
>
> My point-of-view is that of a hobbyist programmer. But even when I worked
> for a (very small) company we were buying PCs with DOS or Windows, since
> that was most of our clients had or could easily buy. I can't remember where
> they were from, they just appeared.
>
> (This has come up before and I understand some hobbyists do have esoteric
> systems of various kinds.)

there's nothing wrong with confining yourself to Window's based
computers. What is wrong is to extrapolate your experience to the
entire world.

> >>>> By computers I mean what you normally expect: a box with a screen
> >>>> and keyboard.
>
> >>> If you can arbitrarily restrict the meaning of the word "computer" as
> >>> much as you like, it's easy enough to come to almost any conclusion
> >>> about them that you wish.
>
> >> It's fairly obvious when something is a computer, ie. a desktop or laptop
> >> PC.
>
> > So servers are not computers? That will be interesting to my customer who
> > buy servers from computer manufacturers, and to the computer manufacturers
> > themselves who think they are building computers when they build servers.
>
> Actually I've little idea what a server is.

a usually rack mounted computer, usually placed in an air conditioned
room. Google for instance has rooms full of 'em. All large businesses
have tons of em too that do everything from tracking inventory to
issuing invoices to printing the wage checks. The world has been
running on this stuff since about 1960.

> I'd imagine it's some machine accessed across a network.

usually

> I would call it specialised,

so its a specialised computer. Why isn't it a computer? If you can
program it in C it's definitely a computer!

> although the way the
> internet works is blurring some of the distinctions.

I don't see why

> (I started in computing using timesharing terminals connected to a single
> large computer. A few years later with no job I drifted into hardware and
> started using simple microprocessor computers that were 100% personal and
> hands-on.
>
> Great! Finally we could get away from monster computers, operating systems,
> logins, passwords, quotas, booking of terminals... but 25 years on and we're
> drifting back in that same direction, and in spades...)

the monster computers never went away they just changed names. There's
nothing stopping you from going back to a personnel computer. Just
pull out the network connection and turn off the password protection.
I don't recall having to book a terminal recently.

> >> Everything else is more specialised.
>
> > Hmm. A computer running simultaneously three versions of Windows (all
> > server versions, so MS think servers are computers) and I think about 5
> > versions of Linux as well as the native OS is more specialised than a
> > computer only running one OS and far fewer applications?
>
> 3 versions of Windows and 5 of Linux, and you think it's not specialised?..

I suggest you look up "specialised" in a dictionary.

> >> There might be some consumer gadgets that are getting close though.
>
> > You mean like the netbook PCs running Linux? Or the PDAs on which you can
> > run word processors, spreadsheets, terminal emulators, games and loads
> > more are not computers?
>
> All I'm saying is that my world is dominated by computers running MS
> products

but your world isn't The World

> and I don't think that's an uncommon situation. (Not all of us are
> lucky to have been given cool jobs developing for all these other systems
> that are always mentioned.)

but you are aware they exist

> If I had to write a utility, let's say in C, to be sent to half a dozen
> people I know, then if I compile it for x86-32 under Windows, I know they
> will be able to run it. Compiled for anything else, they won't.

great. I'd do the same for friends and family.

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.buildingcontrols

Quality fake passports / id cards / driving licence available

monogina

(Edward G. Nilges)

(Edward G. Nilges)

(Edward G. Nilges)

(Edward G. Nilges)

(Edward G. Nilges)

Richard Heathfield

Seebs

Nick Keighley

Tim Streater

Nick Keighley

x Login to ForumsZone