This has got to be the highest percentage of users with a UID less than mine to have posted in a single thread in a long time. I haven't counted, but over half of the posts as of the 60 post count mark were by users with a UID less than mine, which is WILD!
Yeah, I'm quite aware that this post was OT, I was just looking to get it pretty high up on the discussion. I know how to game/. well enough too!
As far as the article, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Yonaguni civilization and what may have been lost from even back then!!?!?!! Well, of course, there is no guarantee that there actually was a civilization, but when it comes to how the ancients thought about machines, I'm more interested in the older civilizations and how they may have spread around the world into the civilizations that we all "know". Here's a clickie for those that don't know about Yonaguni (sorry for the paranoid site reference, but it's informative and has lots of viewables): http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
But perhaps we'll have machines on our desks that will help us add two numbers together, such as 2008 and 40. It's so unfortunate that we continue to make manual mistakes when we add common numbers in like bases. Then again, I suppose we could've all RTFA and realized that the author was not talking about 50 year cycles... </flame off>
You can't get better (or worse) than native resolution on an LCD, it is physically impossible. Lower resolutions can be approximated in a number of ways, but the actual number pixels lit by the LCD does not change. Yeah, I quite get the diff between a CRT and it's ability to change the amount of info it displays as it's a matter of analog values being used to control a motor, more or less. Of course an analog system can make small changes without breaking. I realize that LCDs are manufactured to have a specific screen resolution and that the controller expects to receive data in a particular format. No big deal.
LCDs display a fixed set of pixels regardless of the image being fed to them. When a non-native image is fed to the LCD, it's up to the LCD to map the virtual pixels in the image to the real pixels on the screen itself. In the case of an image in native resolution, this is trivial, as it is simply a 1-1 mapping. In the case where the resolution of the fed image is less than the native resolution, (assuming the entire screen is to be filled,) each virtual pixel will be mapped to more than one actual pixel (typically some fractional amount, except for a few special cases, like an 800x600 image on a 1600x1200 LCD). As far as displaying a larger resolution than the native resolution on an LCD, it's theoretically possible, but you'd basically just be making everything smaller and less detailed (say goodbye to readable text!).
Except for my text on Windows is not unreadable at higher than native resolutions, and except for the fact that X.org already displays at lower than native just fine, what I want to know is how do I increase the apparent resolution, thus reducing the quality in the aforementioned manner? I may not be concerned about reduced clarity, if the clarity lost is so minimal that it is unnoticed. You still seem to ignore what I originally posted about, which was that ATIs drivers are not to fault, obviously, as they are releasing the proprietary for Linux as well as the proprietary for Windows, as well as using Windows on this same laptop, the resolution goes higher than it does with X.org. Or is it really ATIs fault?
Remember that it is only a qualitative difference that most people can visually see, so the true quantity of information is usually lost on the visual sense of the individual. Yes, it is true that many computer experts, such as those found on slashdot, are going to notice a loss of quality on an LCD, but when they force that upon themselves knowlingly, will they complain?
Windows may use their own drivers for some hardware, but more often than not, ATI and nVidia provide their own drivers to MS to be included with the OS. Especially so for ATI cards on Win2k. Therefore, when the Windows GDI will display video on a native 1024x768 at 1280x1024, then the question has to be asked, wtf is any linux distro not able to do the same? I have personally seen stock drivers from ATI on my laptop push WindowsXP to 1280x1024 with my laptop, but I cannot figure out how to get non-virtual-scrolling desktop resolution up to 1280x1024. I don't know if there's a config I've overlooked or what, but...
Does this make sense? What we're after is not an Ubuntu solution, but if they can figure it out, hey, I'm all for it. I just want better than native resolution on my monitor. And don't tell me native's all I can get ever, as I have used too many LCDs at too many different resolutions per to believe that each LCD will only display one resolution. If it's X, say, that's X.org's fault. If you know how to hack vid, can you tell me what to do?
-- Posted as I sit at work and contemplate cleaning the lab. And I was just starting to like the dust bunnies. Ah well, the server's'll be happy in the AM*
-- *not really, I keep them babies cleaner than my own self, which is impressive to those who know me and my shower schedule. For those who don't [everyone here], I shower in the AM, and whenever else I need one, but I'm not OCD or anything, I just don't like to sit around dirty or sweaty. I also wash my hands a lot; them's some germy places man.
No, I don't ignore the fact that you know the underlying theory, you state that it is impossible to match screen color to print color, but that is just not true. There are so many screens, screen configurations, printers, ink-types, etc, that it is merely really difficult to match it. However, that does not make it impossible. In a Windows environment (or Mac, for that matter), as much graphics development that is done on that platform series, there are several devices which have been implemented specifically to the target goal of having the print and the screen match identically. Often, this causes looking at uncalibrated screens to seem painful. Btw: How much does your monitor cost? That's a pretty good indication (in some regards, not all) of the quality of Black that you're going to see, as well as the actual Color reproduction. Yes, some shitty monitors are marked really high, so that you want to buy the most expensive, but professionals know all the tells to look at.
Now, having established that you state that it's impossible to match the screen to the print, you then point out that it is impossible to trust the printer, as the printer does it's own color correction. So now we've got machines that don't do what they're told. These must be inexpensive machines for people who don't understand color theory, and print layout, and the like. Hell, the machines in reference probably don't even print all the way to the edge of the paper, silly cheap printers. Okay, let's forget about the cheap printers and focus on Print quality printers. Do these printers still "adjust" your image for you, or do they print the color that you provide? Do several models from several vendors all print the same when provided with the same color code? Why would you choose to "print on whatever printer you have" if you are going to be serious about Print quality? Graphics artists purchase much nicer equipment than the cheap PoS by my desk, so keep that in mind when you advise someone to continually recalibrate their printer, because they'll need to recalibrate at a minimum of once per new cartridge.
Now, I agree that this conversation is not really about CMYK support, and that Gimp should not do color correction, it should be a function of the video subsystem, such that the entire system is corrected. I also agree that fanbois who scream GIMP DOESN"T SUPPORT CMYK!!!on2!!!22!@!@# are people who haven't tried to do any CMYK work in Gimp lately, but I also firmly believe that there are very few worthwhile graphics artists shops that have attempted to go over to any solid *nix system (ignoring BSD -> Mac or whatever other spurious argument coming this way) in the past ten years, because the industry is mostly geared towards paying the Adobe tax and being quite thoroughly familiar with the interface. Notice that I said BELIEVE. It is a belief, because I don't work for most worthwhile graphics artists shops, and don't claim to. But I do know several graphics artists, and they are quite happy with their tablets, Macs and Adobe.
The same goes for architects. The number that I know only, I repeat, the number of architects that I know ONLY, use AutoCAD with the prerequisite Autodesk pacakages. Then they use custom software that has been long integrated with AutoCAD to calculate stresses and all sorts of other wonderful things that I've watched them use, but which I'm not a PE and don't pretend to be. I can follow the math, but that's not my forte, and I won't pretend that it is.
In order to cut off the "Ooooh, look at me" crowd, I realize that companies like SGI have been putting out CAD based high-quality systems for years (read, before I found my first keyboard) and that there are many longtime PEs that use SGI and the like to do their work. I don't know those engineers, so I don't know if they're still in large use, but SGIs website seems to indicate that it is still a profitable line. Yeah, they're mostly doing servers now, but they support the IRIX workstations and the like.
Sorry, I have to interject on this. He grossly mis-stated the steps necessary. Presumably he's talking about Ubuntu, as Synaptic is the front end for APT, which is Debian based, and of course n00b's as they are so affectionately known are not going to be running stable Debian (devel-cycle . . . does not appear to mean speed) and anyone suggesting an unfamiliar computer user to run anything not on the stable tree... anyways, I have a point. Besides, Ubuntu by default ships with FF, so wtf?
1) Go to the Applications menu in the upper left (by defualt on Ubuntu, not Kubuntu or Xubuntu), then down at the bottom of that menu is an option Add/Remove Programs (this should be the third thing a user on Ubuntu should be shown, first is turn it on, second is use the mouse, third, "here's the programs menu") 2) Type firefox when the screen loads (my cursor defaults to the search box immediately) 3) Check Firefox and click install at the bottom of the screen.
Now, depending on the configuration of the system, it'll probably ask for a password since it's modifying the system, and there might even be some dependency stuff. I've hacked my own box, so I forget how a base install acts. Anyways, then we have to understand the language that it shows on screen when it says "Done, click below to launch app, or close windows"
Granted, that was not so hard. But his windows analogies were fairly spot on. I'ld say that PEOPLE are complete idiots, although individuals are pretty damned smart. Just everyone forgets how to read when they use computers anymore.
I'm still at Uni, but I gave a presentation on this sort of material just today.
The main topic was regarding RS-232 I/O and input into various high-level lang's such as.NET, and the correlation between single device ports (serial, parallel) versus a multi-device bus. Trying to get across that, while serial and parallel are old-school and only currently used for legacy support, programmers should be aware of what it takes to program to those devices. (My motivation for this topic is that my current employer is a physical measurement sales agency, where most of the devices that we support are at a minimum of 10 years old and going strong, and most all of the communication is RS-232/RS-422/RS-485. The clients haven't heard of USB out in the field, so they don't want to buy that new-fangled-ness) I showed the pinouts and explained that you used to have to either program to the port directly (OLDER) or write to the port using one of a number of APIs (varied and many possibilities) which normally have to be licensed. Then I pointed out how.NET is so much more logical in it's approach (no really), and how the settings are exposed how you would think about it in all the settings dialogs, versus thinking of the serial port as a bi-directional file.
The prof, during my QA session, asked why students should worry about accessing the hardware directly, versus accessing the hardware through a API. I responded that of course high-level programmers should use the API, but everyone should understand what the devices were expected to do underneath. The fact that I was discussing the older ways of programming the serial port didn't mean that everyone had to use that method. I then reinforced the fact that that was why I discussed.NET and how useful it was to mainstream programmers. Then he asked me why I was concentrating on serial/parallel instead of the USB for programming. I explained that once again, you're either using the API provided by the developer or you're the developer (team member, whatever) writing the driver (and therefore API) for the device, you're not going to reach into the middle of the USB stream and twiddle bits like you can with a serial device and a breakout box. I don't think he heard me when I explained that USB is a BUS, much like PCI. You attach a device, and allow the O/S to handle communication. Another student asked me about how the USB determines who gets a chance to transmit data. How do people not know about stuff like bus mastering and DMA and IRQs, etc? I realize I read more than most my age, and I've an inquisitive mind, but if you want to work with computers, you gotta get serious about knowing what they are and how they work.
THE POINT
So while I'm still just Uni fodder, I get that we should be able to program to the hardware no matter our preferred environment, and I think the staff at the Uni's keep thinking we should all focus on Java or Java++ or whatever, instead of truly understanding the hardware.
Seeing as how AT&T and Yahoo! are so in bed together already, is this a way for Microsoft to get into the Telco/Wireless market? Ballmer may be looking to use the Yahoo! brand name to sell the MSN product, but not scrap MSN in the least.
Now that GoogleOS for phones is out, and Google is looking toward WiMax apparently, why would it be impossible for MS to want to get into the DSL business since it's already had Windows Mobile on the market for years now. I realize the discussion about the 700MHz auction looks like Google doesn't actually want to offer WiMax on 700MHz, but rather to reap the benefits of an open network. My point is they are doing a dance where each copies the other shortly after the first does something. (or sometimes not so shortly, but follows suit).
It looks to me like two big superpowers doing what it takes for each to get into the others market.
And now for a way to get modded troll, or whatever: My prediction is that Google purchases AskJeeves! next... [ha!]
No, it's that we're fragments of other peoples imaginations. Sadly, however, all others are a figment of my own imagination.
Now the question is who came up with who, and how do I get off this stupid ride?*
*Okay, so if we're a figment of "other peoples" imaginations, does everyone have to give up on us, or just one person? If just one, how do we find them and ensure that they never let us go?
If the compiler supports C#, it should compile VB.NET code as well. That's why I'm curious why it's not listed.
And you can't seriously expect me to believe that Mono won't have support for VB code but it will have support for C#. I mean, why not just use gcc for everything?
I love how they indicate which packages you'll need, WinZip and Perl. Perl. How did I miss that being included in the VS canon?
On Windows you will need: Windows XP SP2. Microsoft Visual Studio.NET 2005. Perl 5.8.7 (available from http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Downloads/ActivePerl/.) Archiving utility of choice--WinZip or other. 256 MB of memory. One gigabyte of free disk space.
And then there's this:
Features The Shared Source CLI archive contains the following technologies in source code form:
An implementation of the runtime for the Common Language Infrastructure (ECMA-335).
Compilers that work with the Shared Source CLI for C# (ECMA-334) and JScript.
Development tools for working with the Shared Source CLI such as assembler/disassemblers (ilasm, ildasm), a debugger (cordbg), metadata introspection (metainfo), and other utilities.
The Platform Adaptation Layer (PAL) used to port the Shared Source CLI from Windows XP to other platforms.
Build environment tools (nmake, build, and others).
Test suites used to verify the implementation.
A rich set of sample code and tools for working with the Shared Source CLI.
So it only does C# and JScript? WTF, hello, VB? Also, what other platforms? Vista? I thought that a platform was something that ran a different executable format, such as {PE | ELF | exe | A.OUT | &c.} not {Windows XP | Windows Vista | Windows Server}
Obviously by you wanting to repeat the same sort of code f*ups as posted to TDWTF, then I think it is safe that we let you see the code. We just don't want you to contribute. Thanks for playing "That's Not What I Meant To Say"
As CmdrTaco frequently reminds us, "You should have used preview"
The saddest part will be when they understand FFT and can perform them well within two weeks time. Most adults couldn't catch the point of an FFT in two days. I know, I've seen the deer in a headlights look.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to get notepad.exe to run on my system. It doesn't appear to be a valid filename. How about I use vi?
So then I try to describe my document. Hmm. I get:
This file has content and was created with vi.
Seems to fulfill your needs.
Ahh, but I suppose you want it to look more like this:
This file contains "..." and was created with vi and consumes +++ bytes.
With the two caveats of the ellipses should be replaced by the entirety of the body again (thus causing it to be completely recursive) and the +++ should reflect the actual consumption on disk of the file. Yeah yeah, we all get the point. But my first met your requirements, that's my point.
I may be reading too much into 3 words, but are you implying that was a bad thing to have him do the role, or are you merely trying to inform the GP of other roles that the gent who played Gandalf has undertaken?
If you were implying it was a bad thing, what about having Agent Smith become Elrond, from worst of enemies to best of friends, as well as V where we can't be sure if he was the good guy or the bad?
Bilbo was ~40 in The Hobbit, not 111+ yrs old as seen in LotR
His aging slowed, not stopped. Gollums had slowed then stopped (think long S-curve) until he lost the ring, but his body still needed food, which he was not able to get in ready supply, as he had before the first fall of Saruman, so he lost incredible amounts of body mass, but the ring caused his body to retain what it had to even when sustenance was not available. Therefore, Bilbo should look about 70-80 in LotR, which, suprisingly enough, he does. Or else my relatives who are 70-80+ look way too old. Also, who says Hobbits look like Men as they age? For all we know, that's what a 50 year old Hobbit looks like (the one in Elrond's House, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
42 cups worth, no less!
Or perhaps 42 oz? or maybe 42cc?
This has got to be the highest percentage of users with a UID less than mine to have posted in a single thread in a long time. I haven't counted, but over half of the posts as of the 60 post count mark were by users with a UID less than mine, which is WILD!
/. well enough too!
Yeah, I'm quite aware that this post was OT, I was just looking to get it pretty high up on the discussion. I know how to game
As far as the article, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the Yonaguni civilization and what may have been lost from even back then!!?!?!! Well, of course, there is no guarantee that there actually was a civilization, but when it comes to how the ancients thought about machines, I'm more interested in the older civilizations and how they may have spread around the world into the civilizations that we all "know". Here's a clickie for those that don't know about Yonaguni (sorry for the paranoid site reference, but it's informative and has lots of viewables): http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
But perhaps we'll have machines on our desks that will help us add two numbers together, such as 2008 and 40. It's so unfortunate that we continue to make manual mistakes when we add common numbers in like bases. Then again, I suppose we could've all RTFA and realized that the author was not talking about 50 year cycles...
</flame off>
Not intending to be rude, but I don't suppose he is correct in his definition, I know for a fact that he is.
This is indeed another of those unfortunate English idioms which should be used a little less frequently. Thanks!
Okay, here's a Wikipedia link for you then Wikipedia Entry
citations at the bottom as always...
k thanks
LCDs display a fixed set of pixels regardless of the image being fed to them. When a non-native image is fed to the LCD, it's up to the LCD to map the virtual pixels in the image to the real pixels on the screen itself. In the case of an image in native resolution, this is trivial, as it is simply a 1-1 mapping. In the case where the resolution of the fed image is less than the native resolution, (assuming the entire screen is to be filled,) each virtual pixel will be mapped to more than one actual pixel (typically some fractional amount, except for a few special cases, like an 800x600 image on a 1600x1200 LCD). As far as displaying a larger resolution than the native resolution on an LCD, it's theoretically possible, but you'd basically just be making everything smaller and less detailed (say goodbye to readable text!).
Except for my text on Windows is not unreadable at higher than native resolutions, and except for the fact that X.org already displays at lower than native just fine, what I want to know is how do I increase the apparent resolution, thus reducing the quality in the aforementioned manner? I may not be concerned about reduced clarity, if the clarity lost is so minimal that it is unnoticed. You still seem to ignore what I originally posted about, which was that ATIs drivers are not to fault, obviously, as they are releasing the proprietary for Linux as well as the proprietary for Windows, as well as using Windows on this same laptop, the resolution goes higher than it does with X.org. Or is it really ATIs fault?Remember that it is only a qualitative difference that most people can visually see, so the true quantity of information is usually lost on the visual sense of the individual. Yes, it is true that many computer experts, such as those found on slashdot, are going to notice a loss of quality on an LCD, but when they force that upon themselves knowlingly, will they complain?
no no no
...
Windows may use their own drivers for some hardware, but more often than not, ATI and nVidia provide their own drivers to MS to be included with the OS. Especially so for ATI cards on Win2k. Therefore, when the Windows GDI will display video on a native 1024x768 at 1280x1024, then the question has to be asked, wtf is any linux distro not able to do the same? I have personally seen stock drivers from ATI on my laptop push WindowsXP to 1280x1024 with my laptop, but I cannot figure out how to get non-virtual-scrolling desktop resolution up to 1280x1024. I don't know if there's a config I've overlooked or what, but
Does this make sense? What we're after is not an Ubuntu solution, but if they can figure it out, hey, I'm all for it. I just want better than native resolution on my monitor. And don't tell me native's all I can get ever, as I have used too many LCDs at too many different resolutions per to believe that each LCD will only display one resolution. If it's X, say, that's X.org's fault. If you know how to hack vid, can you tell me what to do?
Breasted?
He's found an environment with more than one woman who will talk to him for longer than seconds at a time? And he hasn't started there? Wow!
lol, so what's your non-work account uid?
--
Posted as I sit at work and contemplate cleaning the lab. And I was just starting to like the dust bunnies. Ah well, the server's'll be happy in the AM*
--
*not really, I keep them babies cleaner than my own self, which is impressive to those who know me and my shower schedule. For those who don't [everyone here], I shower in the AM, and whenever else I need one, but I'm not OCD or anything, I just don't like to sit around dirty or sweaty. I also wash my hands a lot; them's some germy places man.
No, I don't ignore the fact that you know the underlying theory, you state that it is impossible to match screen color to print color, but that is just not true. There are so many screens, screen configurations, printers, ink-types, etc, that it is merely really difficult to match it. However, that does not make it impossible. In a Windows environment (or Mac, for that matter), as much graphics development that is done on that platform series, there are several devices which have been implemented specifically to the target goal of having the print and the screen match identically. Often, this causes looking at uncalibrated screens to seem painful. Btw: How much does your monitor cost? That's a pretty good indication (in some regards, not all) of the quality of Black that you're going to see, as well as the actual Color reproduction. Yes, some shitty monitors are marked really high, so that you want to buy the most expensive, but professionals know all the tells to look at.
Now, having established that you state that it's impossible to match the screen to the print, you then point out that it is impossible to trust the printer, as the printer does it's own color correction. So now we've got machines that don't do what they're told. These must be inexpensive machines for people who don't understand color theory, and print layout, and the like. Hell, the machines in reference probably don't even print all the way to the edge of the paper, silly cheap printers. Okay, let's forget about the cheap printers and focus on Print quality printers. Do these printers still "adjust" your image for you, or do they print the color that you provide? Do several models from several vendors all print the same when provided with the same color code? Why would you choose to "print on whatever printer you have" if you are going to be serious about Print quality? Graphics artists purchase much nicer equipment than the cheap PoS by my desk, so keep that in mind when you advise someone to continually recalibrate their printer, because they'll need to recalibrate at a minimum of once per new cartridge.
Now, I agree that this conversation is not really about CMYK support, and that Gimp should not do color correction, it should be a function of the video subsystem, such that the entire system is corrected. I also agree that fanbois who scream GIMP DOESN"T SUPPORT CMYK!!!on2!!!22!@!@# are people who haven't tried to do any CMYK work in Gimp lately, but I also firmly believe that there are very few worthwhile graphics artists shops that have attempted to go over to any solid *nix system (ignoring BSD -> Mac or whatever other spurious argument coming this way) in the past ten years, because the industry is mostly geared towards paying the Adobe tax and being quite thoroughly familiar with the interface. Notice that I said BELIEVE. It is a belief, because I don't work for most worthwhile graphics artists shops, and don't claim to. But I do know several graphics artists, and they are quite happy with their tablets, Macs and Adobe.
The same goes for architects. The number that I know only, I repeat, the number of architects that I know ONLY, use AutoCAD with the prerequisite Autodesk pacakages. Then they use custom software that has been long integrated with AutoCAD to calculate stresses and all sorts of other wonderful things that I've watched them use, but which I'm not a PE and don't pretend to be. I can follow the math, but that's not my forte, and I won't pretend that it is.
In order to cut off the "Ooooh, look at me" crowd, I realize that companies like SGI have been putting out CAD based high-quality systems for years (read, before I found my first keyboard) and that there are many longtime PEs that use SGI and the like to do their work. I don't know those engineers, so I don't know if they're still in large use, but SGIs website seems to indicate that it is still a profitable line. Yeah, they're mostly doing servers now, but they support the IRIX workstations and the like.
Back to the
Not only were you *burn*d, you ignored the fact that he knows what he's talking about. Bravo!
Sorry, I have to interject on this. He grossly mis-stated the steps necessary. Presumably he's talking about Ubuntu, as Synaptic is the front end for APT, which is Debian based, and of course n00b's as they are so affectionately known are not going to be running stable Debian (devel-cycle . . . does not appear to mean speed) and anyone suggesting an unfamiliar computer user to run anything not on the stable tree... anyways, I have a point. Besides, Ubuntu by default ships with FF, so wtf?
1) Go to the Applications menu in the upper left (by defualt on Ubuntu, not Kubuntu or Xubuntu), then down at the bottom of that menu is an option Add/Remove Programs (this should be the third thing a user on Ubuntu should be shown, first is turn it on, second is use the mouse, third, "here's the programs menu")
2) Type firefox when the screen loads (my cursor defaults to the search box immediately)
3) Check Firefox and click install at the bottom of the screen.
Now, depending on the configuration of the system, it'll probably ask for a password since it's modifying the system, and there might even be some dependency stuff. I've hacked my own box, so I forget how a base install acts. Anyways, then we have to understand the language that it shows on screen when it says "Done, click below to launch app, or close windows"
Granted, that was not so hard. But his windows analogies were fairly spot on. I'ld say that PEOPLE are complete idiots, although individuals are pretty damned smart. Just everyone forgets how to read when they use computers anymore.
I'm still at Uni, but I gave a presentation on this sort of material just today.
.NET, and the correlation between single device ports (serial, parallel) versus a multi-device bus. Trying to get across that, while serial and parallel are old-school and only currently used for legacy support, programmers should be aware of what it takes to program to those devices. (My motivation for this topic is that my current employer is a physical measurement sales agency, where most of the devices that we support are at a minimum of 10 years old and going strong, and most all of the communication is RS-232/RS-422/RS-485. The clients haven't heard of USB out in the field, so they don't want to buy that new-fangled-ness) I showed the pinouts and explained that you used to have to either program to the port directly (OLDER) or write to the port using one of a number of APIs (varied and many possibilities) which normally have to be licensed. Then I pointed out how .NET is so much more logical in it's approach (no really), and how the settings are exposed how you would think about it in all the settings dialogs, versus thinking of the serial port as a bi-directional file.
.NET and how useful it was to mainstream programmers. Then he asked me why I was concentrating on serial/parallel instead of the USB for programming. I explained that once again, you're either using the API provided by the developer or you're the developer (team member, whatever) writing the driver (and therefore API) for the device, you're not going to reach into the middle of the USB stream and twiddle bits like you can with a serial device and a breakout box. I don't think he heard me when I explained that USB is a BUS, much like PCI. You attach a device, and allow the O/S to handle communication. Another student asked me about how the USB determines who gets a chance to transmit data. How do people not know about stuff like bus mastering and DMA and IRQs, etc? I realize I read more than most my age, and I've an inquisitive mind, but if you want to work with computers, you gotta get serious about knowing what they are and how they work.
The main topic was regarding RS-232 I/O and input into various high-level lang's such as
The prof, during my QA session, asked why students should worry about accessing the hardware directly, versus accessing the hardware through a API. I responded that of course high-level programmers should use the API, but everyone should understand what the devices were expected to do underneath. The fact that I was discussing the older ways of programming the serial port didn't mean that everyone had to use that method. I then reinforced the fact that that was why I discussed
THE POINT
So while I'm still just Uni fodder, I get that we should be able to program to the hardware no matter our preferred environment, and I think the staff at the Uni's keep thinking we should all focus on Java or Java++ or whatever, instead of truly understanding the hardware.
Thank you for sharing, that was nice information to learn about a different culture.
yep, bu-bye yahoo! games, such as spades or canasta (which my wife loves to play)
ah well, here's to WoW!
Seeing as how AT&T and Yahoo! are so in bed together already, is this a way for Microsoft to get into the Telco/Wireless market? Ballmer may be looking to use the Yahoo! brand name to sell the MSN product, but not scrap MSN in the least.
Now that GoogleOS for phones is out, and Google is looking toward WiMax apparently, why would it be impossible for MS to want to get into the DSL business since it's already had Windows Mobile on the market for years now. I realize the discussion about the 700MHz auction looks like Google doesn't actually want to offer WiMax on 700MHz, but rather to reap the benefits of an open network. My point is they are doing a dance where each copies the other shortly after the first does something. (or sometimes not so shortly, but follows suit).
It looks to me like two big superpowers doing what it takes for each to get into the others market.
And now for a way to get modded troll, or whatever: My prediction is that Google purchases AskJeeves! next... [ha!]
No, it's that we're fragments of other peoples imaginations. Sadly, however, all others are a figment of my own imagination.
Now the question is who came up with who, and how do I get off this stupid ride?*
*Okay, so if we're a figment of "other peoples" imaginations, does everyone have to give up on us, or just one person? If just one, how do we find them and ensure that they never let us go?
Wha?
If the compiler supports C#, it should compile VB.NET code as well. That's why I'm curious why it's not listed.
And you can't seriously expect me to believe that Mono won't have support for VB code but it will have support for C#. I mean, why not just use gcc for everything?
The Shared Source CLI archive contains the following technologies in source code form:
- An implementation of the runtime for the Common Language Infrastructure (ECMA-335).
- Compilers that work with the Shared Source CLI for C# (ECMA-334) and JScript.
- Development tools for working with the Shared Source CLI such as assembler/disassemblers (ilasm, ildasm), a debugger (cordbg), metadata introspection (metainfo), and other utilities.
- The Platform Adaptation Layer (PAL) used to port the Shared Source CLI from Windows XP to other platforms.
- Build environment tools (nmake, build, and others).
- Test suites used to verify the implementation.
- A rich set of sample code and tools for working with the Shared Source CLI.
So it only does C# and JScript? WTF, hello, VB? Also, what other platforms? Vista? I thought that a platform was something that ran a different executable format, such as {PE | ELF | exe | A.OUT | &c.} not {Windows XP | Windows Vista | Windows Server}Obviously by you wanting to repeat the same sort of code f*ups as posted to TDWTF, then I think it is safe that we let you see the code. We just don't want you to contribute. Thanks for playing "That's Not What I Meant To Say"
As CmdrTaco frequently reminds us, "You should have used preview"
The saddest part will be when they understand FFT and can perform them well within two weeks time. Most adults couldn't catch the point of an FFT in two days. I know, I've seen the deer in a headlights look.
I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to get notepad.exe to run on my system. It doesn't appear to be a valid filename. How about I use vi?
So then I try to describe my document. Hmm. I get:
This file has content and was created with vi.
Seems to fulfill your needs.
Ahh, but I suppose you want it to look more like this:
This file contains "..." and was created with vi and consumes +++ bytes.
With the two caveats of the ellipses should be replaced by the entirety of the body again (thus causing it to be completely recursive) and the +++ should reflect the actual consumption on disk of the file. Yeah yeah, we all get the point. But my first met your requirements, that's my point.
tools, workbench
I may be reading too much into 3 words, but are you implying that was a bad thing to have him do the role, or are you merely trying to inform the GP of other roles that the gent who played Gandalf has undertaken?
If you were implying it was a bad thing, what about having Agent Smith become Elrond, from worst of enemies to best of friends, as well as V where we can't be sure if he was the good guy or the bad?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0915989/ <-- clicky clicky for Hugo Weaving imdb entry
Ooooh, maybe we can get Peter Jackson to collaborate with the Wachowski's for The Hobbit
Yeah Yeah, responding to an AC
Bilbo was ~40 in The Hobbit, not 111+ yrs old as seen in LotR
His aging slowed, not stopped. Gollums had slowed then stopped (think long S-curve) until he lost the ring, but his body still needed food, which he was not able to get in ready supply, as he had before the first fall of Saruman, so he lost incredible amounts of body mass, but the ring caused his body to retain what it had to even when sustenance was not available. Therefore, Bilbo should look about 70-80 in LotR, which, suprisingly enough, he does. Or else my relatives who are 70-80+ look way too old. Also, who says Hobbits look like Men as they age? For all we know, that's what a 50 year old Hobbit looks like (the one in Elrond's House, etc)