How so? You write a piece of software on a "trusted" computer which acts as a transparent proxy. It accepts requests on one side, and then forwards them to the other, making it look like the requests came from itself. Thus, any upstream router will see the traffic came from a "trusted" computer and pass it on.
Hey, wait a sec... I just described NAT...
I suppose the only problem with this plan is if you can't install said proxying software on the "trusted" computer in the first place...
Funny, I noticed this show up on Freshmeat just yesterday, and I said to one of my co-workers: "You know, programming languages are slowly becoming a lot like IRC and FTP servers.... everyone has to write their own". Just on Freshmeat we have:
What do freedoms have to do with it? It really is fairly simple: cap campaign finance contributions. Of course, you can't stop "soft money" expenditures by companies (as that really is an encroachment on freedom of speech), but at least you can limit the amount of funds outright "contributed" to election campaigns.
Of course, the real reason this problem is difficult to fix is that the elected officials don't *want* to cap financial contributions, so it'll never actually happen, even if it is the will of the people.
Bah, this is called regression testing, and it was described in one book called "The Art of Software Testing" by Glenford J. Myers, which was published in 1978. *1978*! And that's probably not the first place it's shown up. The point is: Regression Testing ain't a new idea, so don't go crediting XP with it.
Frankly, I think you misunderstand TDD. My understanding is that TDD also dictates that you write your test cases *before* you write your code. In this way, the tests are supposed to act as a formalized specification. Of course, one has to ask if this practice is really feasible, but I'll leave that for another post.:)
Mishandling it would be, for example, bundling WMP with Windows and then leveraging the presence of WMP on desktops to push their own, proprietary media technologies (like WMA/WMV). Or leveraging the presence of IE on the desktop to push their own, proprietary server-side technologies.
The point is they're abusing their monopoly in the OS market in order to push their own technologies on people (I would argue that their.NET initiative is an even more obvious example of this... it sure seems like a convenient way to unseat Sun/Java).
You don't think it's a good idea, even though, in a truly catastrophic accident involving fire, the hydrogen had virtually no effect? Sounds like someone is unwilling to change their beliefs in the face of evidence and level-headed reason. George?
Presumably they mean a whisper you can just hear. ie, if you're whispering to someone 3 meters away, it's 30 dB. A whisper to someone 1 meter away is 20 dB.
How on earth could that be construed as an "unfair subsidy"? Honestly?
Moreover, as the US's behaviour regarding soft wood and Canadian wheat has shown, these "dispute resolution bodies" have, apparently, no teeth, anyway, so who gives a damn?
Bad, bad, bad. Is it so much to ask for due process here?
Yes! They need to stop terrorists now! Imagine if they had to wait for a warrant! A terrorist could blow up your car! Or your child's daycare! Think of it, all those children, dead! Think of the children! For god sake, won't somebody think of the children!
How is this insightful? Sure, the Canadian Recording Industry would love that, but there's no indication that the government is going to allow it (and if past behaviour is an indicator, the GC will probably just tell 'em to piss off), and all the ISPs in Canada, save one, are rejecting any attempts to open their records.
Then you don't know what you're talking about and, apparently, don't understand how X works.
The Gimp doesn't utilize multiple processes. It does use threads. Neither of these things has anything to do with the way the windows are aranged on the desktop or in the panel.
The Gimp *does* create multiple top-level windows. But, without using MDI, there is no other way to do things! You do *get* this, don't you? May be you don't.
Either way, The GIMP doesn't give a damn if there are icons anywhere on the desktop or not. In fact, it has no real idea *what* is running. It is the responsibility of the panel to do the right thing regarding icon placement, as, well, they're the *panels* icons in the first place! How is this difficult to understand??
Incidentally, X has the concept of a window Class. This class has two components. The first part is the application component ("Gimp"), and the second part is more specific (eg, "Fonts"). In the case of Firebird, it's "Mozilla" and "navigator". A panel can use the first part of the class to group multiple application windows under a single icon. It's quite simple, and it's far from a hack.
Re:Separate windows are fine
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Okay, you don't get it. That's okay, why would you? After all, you clearly don't understand how X works...
Implementing MDI is highly *non-trivial*. It requires Gtk to implement a full windowing toolkit, along with everything that entails. So, what you're saying is that you want the developers to waste thousands of man-hours implementing something that is, in the end, broken by design? Yeah, brilliant idea.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't *you* go and implement MDI in Gtk. Then, when you're done, fix up The GIMP to use it, and voila! You'll be the hero of those "thousands of users"! Have fun!
Actually, I'm not. The toplevel poster sure sounded like he was trolling the MDI topic. After all, he said this:
"But is there any way to get GIMP to fit into a single process"
Sure sounds like someone complaining about The Gimp's SDI interface (where, presumably, said poster meant "window" when he said "process", as the post, as it is, makes no actual sense).
Re:Separate windows are fine
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Your panel should provide an option to configure which apps are collected into single buttons and which aren't. If your panel doesn't have this feature, make a feature request... it should be quite trivial to implement. It's still not a Gimp problem.
Re:Separate windows are fine
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because, as you don't seem to understand, having a widget toolkit implement a friggin' *windowing subsystem* in order to fit your MDI world view is exceedingly stupid. MDI is broken. User case studies have shown that it confuses users more than it helps them. Get over it.
Only for people who don't understand how to use virtual desktops. MDI fscked, get used to it, move on.
Re:Separate windows are fine
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah, it's called turning on the feature in your panel that collects all the window buttons for a given app into a single button with a menu. Now quit trolling and move on. This issue has been beaten to death over and over and over and...
Meh. A decent computing science course will have an extensive class in data structures, usually implemented in C, in which you'll likely cover at least linked lists and trees, followed by a second, more extensive course on general algorithms, in which you'll cover heaps and other more advanced data structures. If it doesn't, it ain't worth enrolling in. *shrug*
Of course, after you've learned *how* a linked list is implemented, you should never have to roll your own. And if you do find yourself rolling your own, you should seriously question *why* before continuing, as there are many high quality, well tested implementations already floating around (for example, glib).
To some degree, yes. While I do favour legalization over prohibition in general (just look at what alcohol prohibition achieved... organized crime flourished, alcohol poisoning skyrocketted, etc), I was also trying to illustrate the double standards exercised by the government when deciding what substances are legal and which aren't.
Alcohol in moderation seems to cause no ill effects
Actually, for some, as the grandparent poster alluded, the same *can* be said for MDMA. The same applies to many other types of illegal drugs (mj, 'shrooms, etc). Of course, abuse is always a bad idea, no matter the substance... and it's impossible to make black-and-white statements about drug safety (eg, some people are allergic to alcohol).
but I think it is morally wrong to attempt to force an uninvolved party to pay the price for another's stupidity.
Interesting line to draw... 'course, in the US, with it's privatized healthcare system, this is easier to achieve. In my country, Canada, it's a tricky question... after all, obscenely obese people put a load on the healthcare system. However, we don't penalize them for their overuse of food...
Yup. Of course, if people were *educated* about this side effect, and thus had an idea about what was happening to them, these sorts of things might not happen so often. After all, we educate teens about the dangers of alcohol poisoning, so why not do the same for other drugs? Oh, right, because talking about them would appear to legitimize their use. Kinda like sex education.
Hmm, well, just to be Devil's Advocate (I've never taken ecstacy, nor do I ever plan to... mj is my only vice):
--
Alcohol has been linked to numerous problems. Abuse can cause damage to the liver, the heart, and worst of all, the brain (in particular, the cerebellum). Similar to many other types of drugs, alcohol also acts on the dopamine system in the brain. As a result, it's physically addictive, and excessive users develop tolerance over time. Moreover, some recent studies have shown that alcohol and similar compounds that act on the reward system in the brain can cause permanent changes which result in long-term physical dependence.
As for interactions, alcohol is just as bad as any other, and interacts with many drugs. For example, combined with aspirine, side effects can include liver damage, among other things.
Of course, unlike street drugs, the government sets standards for alcohol quality, in order to ensure public safety. This wasn't always the case, though, as during prohibition, the rate of alcohol poisoning increased dramatically, as people acquired illegal "street" alcohol. Of course, if you knew what you were doing, you could produce your own alcohol relatively safely.
So, sure, maybe you've consumed alcohol hundreds of times and had no problem. Good for you. But alcohol is not harmless... I've seen it go wrong and it's not pretty.
--
Of course, I would never personally use ecstacy, but that's my choice. However, if it were legal, it might be possible to properly *educate* people about it. After all, it's a little tough to teach your child about the dangers of ecstacy use if it's illegal:
"You really should be careful if you ever take ecstacy. Not that you should, because it's illegal! You see, it can cause hyperthermia, or overheating, so you should trying to keep yourself cool. Not that you should have to worry about this, because it's illegal! And if you have a friend who's consumed ecstacy, you should try to keep an eye out on them, to ensure that they don't overheat. Of course, they'd never be on ecstacy, because it's illegal! So, be careful with that stuff, as it's not harmless. And it's illegal!"
Which is not the case if you use "Plain Old Text" mode, which results in your newline being auto-translated into tags while still allowing you to using HTML where necessary. So, you can just hit newline twice
to start a new paragraph, or you can use <br><br>
or even <p>
if you prefer. But, you probably already new that. Right, Mr. Smart Guy?
You're making/repeating excuses for a relatively new phenomena. For example, the problem of making change is just not something that existed even 20 years ago - it's simple subtraction!
Bah, why even bother with subtraction? Typical change counting is done by *adding*, which is, for most people, even easier. Just start from 16.22 and grab 78 cents, you're now at 17.00. Now grab 3 bucks, and you're done. Why this is so difficult for some is beyond me...
Slashdot Mirror
How so? You write a piece of software on a "trusted" computer which acts as a transparent proxy. It accepts requests on one side, and then forwards them to the other, making it look like the requests came from itself. Thus, any upstream router will see the traffic came from a "trusted" computer and pass it on.
Hey, wait a sec... I just described NAT...
I suppose the only problem with this plan is if you can't install said proxying software on the "trusted" computer in the first place...
The US has had 1 case of Mad Cow Disease
It's hard to report numbers on something that could very well be going undetected due to lower beef production standards.
Funny, I noticed this show up on Freshmeat just yesterday, and I said to one of my co-workers: "You know, programming languages are slowly becoming a lot like IRC and FTP servers.... everyone has to write their own". Just on Freshmeat we have:
...
X, Nasal, Io, Emu, gbeta, Nickel, Iguana, Squirrel, XOTcl, Onyx, ICI, FPL, arfg, OpenJava, Felix, Small, Unicorn, Hush,
Well, you get the picture. Of course, the obvious question now is, why on *earth* is this a story on the front page of Slashdot?
What do freedoms have to do with it? It really is fairly simple: cap campaign finance contributions. Of course, you can't stop "soft money" expenditures by companies (as that really is an encroachment on freedom of speech), but at least you can limit the amount of funds outright "contributed" to election campaigns.
Of course, the real reason this problem is difficult to fix is that the elected officials don't *want* to cap financial contributions, so it'll never actually happen, even if it is the will of the people.
Bah, this is called regression testing, and it was described in one book called "The Art of Software Testing" by Glenford J. Myers, which was published in 1978. *1978*! And that's probably not the first place it's shown up. The point is: Regression Testing ain't a new idea, so don't go crediting XP with it.
:)
Frankly, I think you misunderstand TDD. My understanding is that TDD also dictates that you write your test cases *before* you write your code. In this way, the tests are supposed to act as a formalized specification. Of course, one has to ask if this practice is really feasible, but I'll leave that for another post.
Mishandling it would be, for example, bundling WMP with Windows and then leveraging the presence of WMP on desktops to push their own, proprietary media technologies (like WMA/WMV). Or leveraging the presence of IE on the desktop to push their own, proprietary server-side technologies.
.NET initiative is an even more obvious example of this... it sure seems like a convenient way to unseat Sun/Java).
The point is they're abusing their monopoly in the OS market in order to push their own technologies on people (I would argue that their
You don't think it's a good idea, even though, in a truly catastrophic accident involving fire, the hydrogen had virtually no effect? Sounds like someone is unwilling to change their beliefs in the face of evidence and level-headed reason. George?
Presumably they mean a whisper you can just hear. ie, if you're whispering to someone 3 meters away, it's 30 dB. A whisper to someone 1 meter away is 20 dB.
How on earth could that be construed as an "unfair subsidy"? Honestly?
Moreover, as the US's behaviour regarding soft wood and Canadian wheat has shown, these "dispute resolution bodies" have, apparently, no teeth, anyway, so who gives a damn?
Bah, that was a non-article. See this post and this article.
Bad, bad, bad. Is it so much to ask for due process here?
Yes! They need to stop terrorists now! Imagine if they had to wait for a warrant! A terrorist could blow up your car! Or your child's daycare! Think of it, all those children, dead! Think of the children! For god sake, won't somebody think of the children!
How is this insightful? Sure, the Canadian Recording Industry would love that, but there's no indication that the government is going to allow it (and if past behaviour is an indicator, the GC will probably just tell 'em to piss off), and all the ISPs in Canada, save one, are rejecting any attempts to open their records.
Then you don't know what you're talking about and, apparently, don't understand how X works.
The Gimp doesn't utilize multiple processes. It does use threads. Neither of these things has anything to do with the way the windows are aranged on the desktop or in the panel.
The Gimp *does* create multiple top-level windows. But, without using MDI, there is no other way to do things! You do *get* this, don't you? May be you don't.
Either way, The GIMP doesn't give a damn if there are icons anywhere on the desktop or not. In fact, it has no real idea *what* is running. It is the responsibility of the panel to do the right thing regarding icon placement, as, well, they're the *panels* icons in the first place! How is this difficult to understand??
Incidentally, X has the concept of a window Class. This class has two components. The first part is the application component ("Gimp"), and the second part is more specific (eg, "Fonts"). In the case of Firebird, it's "Mozilla" and "navigator". A panel can use the first part of the class to group multiple application windows under a single icon. It's quite simple, and it's far from a hack.
Okay, you don't get it. That's okay, why would you? After all, you clearly don't understand how X works...
Implementing MDI is highly *non-trivial*. It requires Gtk to implement a full windowing toolkit, along with everything that entails. So, what you're saying is that you want the developers to waste thousands of man-hours implementing something that is, in the end, broken by design? Yeah, brilliant idea.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't *you* go and implement MDI in Gtk. Then, when you're done, fix up The GIMP to use it, and voila! You'll be the hero of those "thousands of users"! Have fun!
Actually, I'm not. The toplevel poster sure sounded like he was trolling the MDI topic. After all, he said this:
"But is there any way to get GIMP to fit into a single process"
Sure sounds like someone complaining about The Gimp's SDI interface (where, presumably, said poster meant "window" when he said "process", as the post, as it is, makes no actual sense).
Your panel should provide an option to configure which apps are collected into single buttons and which aren't. If your panel doesn't have this feature, make a feature request... it should be quite trivial to implement. It's still not a Gimp problem.
Because, as you don't seem to understand, having a widget toolkit implement a friggin' *windowing subsystem* in order to fit your MDI world view is exceedingly stupid. MDI is broken. User case studies have shown that it confuses users more than it helps them. Get over it.
Only for people who don't understand how to use virtual desktops. MDI fscked, get used to it, move on.
Yeah, it's called turning on the feature in your panel that collects all the window buttons for a given app into a single button with a menu. Now quit trolling and move on. This issue has been beaten to death over and over and over and...
Meh. A decent computing science course will have an extensive class in data structures, usually implemented in C, in which you'll likely cover at least linked lists and trees, followed by a second, more extensive course on general algorithms, in which you'll cover heaps and other more advanced data structures. If it doesn't, it ain't worth enrolling in. *shrug*
Of course, after you've learned *how* a linked list is implemented, you should never have to roll your own. And if you do find yourself rolling your own, you should seriously question *why* before continuing, as there are many high quality, well tested implementations already floating around (for example, glib).
Were you making a legalization argument there?
To some degree, yes. While I do favour legalization over prohibition in general (just look at what alcohol prohibition achieved... organized crime flourished, alcohol poisoning skyrocketted, etc), I was also trying to illustrate the double standards exercised by the government when deciding what substances are legal and which aren't.
Alcohol in moderation seems to cause no ill effects
Actually, for some, as the grandparent poster alluded, the same *can* be said for MDMA. The same applies to many other types of illegal drugs (mj, 'shrooms, etc). Of course, abuse is always a bad idea, no matter the substance... and it's impossible to make black-and-white statements about drug safety (eg, some people are allergic to alcohol).
but I think it is morally wrong to attempt to force an uninvolved party to pay the price for another's stupidity.
Interesting line to draw... 'course, in the US, with it's privatized healthcare system, this is easier to achieve. In my country, Canada, it's a tricky question... after all, obscenely obese people put a load on the healthcare system. However, we don't penalize them for their overuse of food...
Yup. Of course, if people were *educated* about this side effect, and thus had an idea about what was happening to them, these sorts of things might not happen so often. After all, we educate teens about the dangers of alcohol poisoning, so why not do the same for other drugs? Oh, right, because talking about them would appear to legitimize their use. Kinda like sex education.
Hmm, well, just to be Devil's Advocate (I've never taken ecstacy, nor do I ever plan to... mj is my only vice):
--
Alcohol has been linked to numerous problems. Abuse can cause damage to the liver, the heart, and worst of all, the brain (in particular, the cerebellum). Similar to many other types of drugs, alcohol also acts on the dopamine system in the brain. As a result, it's physically addictive, and excessive users develop tolerance over time. Moreover, some recent studies have shown that alcohol and similar compounds that act on the reward system in the brain can cause permanent changes which result in long-term physical dependence.
As for interactions, alcohol is just as bad as any other, and interacts with many drugs. For example, combined with aspirine, side effects can include liver damage, among other things.
Of course, unlike street drugs, the government sets standards for alcohol quality, in order to ensure public safety. This wasn't always the case, though, as during prohibition, the rate of alcohol poisoning increased dramatically, as people acquired illegal "street" alcohol. Of course, if you knew what you were doing, you could produce your own alcohol relatively safely.
So, sure, maybe you've consumed alcohol hundreds of times and had no problem. Good for you. But alcohol is not harmless... I've seen it go wrong and it's not pretty.
--
Of course, I would never personally use ecstacy, but that's my choice. However, if it were legal, it might be possible to properly *educate* people about it. After all, it's a little tough to teach your child about the dangers of ecstacy use if it's illegal:
"You really should be careful if you ever take ecstacy. Not that you should, because it's illegal! You see, it can cause hyperthermia, or overheating, so you should trying to keep yourself cool. Not that you should have to worry about this, because it's illegal! And if you have a friend who's consumed ecstacy, you should try to keep an eye out on them, to ensure that they don't overheat. Of course, they'd never be on ecstacy, because it's illegal! So, be careful with that stuff, as it's not harmless. And it's illegal!"
tags while still allowing you to using HTML where necessary. So, you can just hit newline twice
to start a new paragraph, or you can use <br><br>
or even <p>
if you prefer. But, you probably already new that. Right, Mr. Smart Guy?
You're making/repeating excuses for a relatively new phenomena. For example, the problem of making change is just not something that existed even 20 years ago - it's simple subtraction!
Bah, why even bother with subtraction? Typical change counting is done by *adding*, which is, for most people, even easier. Just start from 16.22 and grab 78 cents, you're now at 17.00. Now grab 3 bucks, and you're done. Why this is so difficult for some is beyond me...