This is true. I forgot that it lacked that... I wonder if Mahogany implemented theirs as part of wx that could be reused in other projects? I vaguely remember hearing about a wx rich text control that was "in development", whatever that means.
Ah... this is much more reasonable than what I thought you meant. Still, I'm not sure how you could logically induce creation by God from observations of nature. I understand the intuitive idea that "all this complexity and apparent fine-tuning of the universe must have come from a creator", and I'm inclined to believe it, but it doesn't seem "scientific" in any strict sense of the word. Lots of people who are scientists do believe it, but that doesn't necessarily make it any less non-rational.
Unless I'm wrong. Are there any observations that directly point to creation by an intelligent designer, in any sense other than "we don't understand this, so it must be God"?
The "fine tuning" of the universe isn't convincing, I think, at least as it's presented by Hugh Ross ("The Creator and The Cosmos", etc). Superstring theory (which AFAIK hasn't been entirely confirmed, if at all) predicts the possible existence of many alternate universes with different fundamental constants. If this is true, and this "fine-tuning" is really as precise as Ross claims, our universe may merely be one out of an infinity that happens to have values that produced you and I. This is merely speculation, of course, but then it's also speculation that a universe with different fundamental constants wouldn't have produced some completely different form of life. Asimov wrote a book with that premise called "The Gods Themselves".
'Creationist' in this sense probably refers to the Henry Morris/Ken Ham crowd, who are not in any reasonable sense scientists, in that they don't have a theory that makes predictions or is falsifiable. All they really do (when in non-attack-dog mode) is make wild statements like "the earth was surrounded by a 'water belt' before the flood, which accounts for the water for the flood and (somehow) 900 year lifespans". They also claim that formations like the Grand Canyon and coal should be produced on very short time scales, although their evidence for this is silly at best. Most of their argument is based on assuming that evolution is "obviously" impossible, referring to the self-assembling 747 in a junkyard and all that.
If this sort of creationist is what you mean, perhaps you could elaborate on how someone would derive these ideas naturalistically?
I agree, using a cross-platform library is certainly the way to go. I recommend, though, using a library such as wxWindows that is not only cross-platform but also has multiple language bindings *and* looks and feels like the native system. One Wx::Windows app written in C++, Perl, or Python will compile and run natively on Windows, *nix, and Macintosh, and it will behave like a standard Win32, GTK+, Motif, or Mac (there's a port in progress to OS X) application, unlike Swing or Tk. It's also a hell of a lot more elegant than Tk, although I don't know much about Swing. I don't know what sort of project the poster is specifically considering, but it can almost certainly be done using a toolkit like this.
See Mahogany for a fairly large cross platform project implemented with wxWindows.
I wasn't there 10 years ago, but 3 years ago... well, if you're referring to the foul smell, the thick green muck, and the infinitely large clouds of midges and mosquitos, yes, it's probably at least as bad as it was then.:-)
Glad I wasn't there during last year's drought though. It was probably 10 times worse.
FWIW, the Klamath and the Deschutes are also rivers, and there is a mountain range called Klamath (although it's not in Klamath County or near the Klamath River. I take it you lived on the wet side of the mountains.:-)
That's freaky. I'm glad I majored in software. I've looked at 64HC11 assembly exactly once, helping a left-side-of-the-bell-curve computer engineering student, based on my more recent experience with x86 assembly and a vague memory of 6502 assembly from the C64. I think that was the last time I ever really thought about code at a lower level than C, at least until yesterday:-)
ooh... I'll remember that one. It never occurred to me. It's probably slower than using a temp, (there are still three assigns, plus three xors this way, and with the temp there are 4 array accesses compared to 6 with this method) but this is way cooler. And the lines form a nice square block:-)
well, this is a total waste of time, but I'm still trying to figure out how to use 100 lines of *any* language reversing a list. I would do this in (pseudo)assembly as follows:
initialize list with numbers
load dx with 0
load ex with length
dec ex
.label
load bx with list offset dx
load cx with list offset ex
load list offset ex with bx
load list offset dx with cx
inc dx
dec ex
cmp dx,ex
jl.label
; congrats, your list is reversed
or something along those lines. I think you have to use the bp register and maybe one of the general purpose registers to access the list offset. And there's probably a better way to swap the list values. My assembly is *really* rusty:-)
Here's 7 lines of C to reverse an array. The assembly would be more or less identical. I don't feel like dredging up my memories of 8086 assembler... it would probably end up screwing up my Perl for the next hour or so:-)
int list[] = {0,1,2,3,4,5};
int i,j,len=sizeof(list)/sizeof(int);
for (i=0; i < len/2; i++) {
j = list[i];
list[i] = list[len - i - 1];
list[len - i - 1] = j;
}
Reversing a linked list would be marginally longer, but a doubly linked list would be just as short or shorter than this. Only a real novice would take 100 lines of C to do it. BTW, how could you possibly learn assembly before learning what a stack is?
I don't know of anything quite like what you're talking about, but the QWK file format can be found at faqsys. It shouldn't be to hard to write a Perl decoder. Or you might be able to snag source from another project (search freshmeat for QWK, there's a couple relevant projects).
Re:Instability with the preempt patch?
on
Kernel 2.4.17 Out
·
· Score: 2
I'm using Xine to play, with the d4d and dvdnav plugins. Menus don't always work correctly, but I usually can play the movie decently, with subtitles and alternate soundtracks. I also have a Matrox G400 and XFree86 4.1.0.
It turns out the preemption patch didn't do much. I rebooted into a kernel without the preemption patch and I could play movies with the same reliability as with the patch. When I played through the Xshm driver (no acceleration) I got perhaps half a frame per second as opposed to one frame per second with the preemption driver enabled.
The tests I was doing to load the system were:
while (true); do tar -czv . >/dev/null; done (two of these on two different partitions)
gzip </dev/urandom >/dev/null
cat/dev/urandom >/dev/null
top reported the load as being around 4.0 with 60% user and 40% system.
Re:Instability with the preempt patch?
on
Kernel 2.4.17 Out
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I had similar problems with 2.4.14 and the kernel preemption patch, but I'm running it against 2.4.16 right now with spectacular results. I can play a DVD full screen when the system load (i/o bound) is greater than 3 on my single-Athlon 900. No skips, pops, jumps, anything. Smooth as silk.
... whatever they might be. You can't complain about a development team that includes the guy in charge of XFree86 *and* the developer of Mesa. This could definitely lead to some cool software:-)
I don't really remember the details (this was a couple years ago) but when I was doing the sound editing, I gave up after fiddling with all the sndrec options. I didn't have a very good sound card, though, or a particularly fast machine, so that may have affected it. This was also on NT 4.0.
Cool Edit, however, solved all my problems. Recorded without a hitch.
If you must sample the LPs, do *not* use Sound Recorder. It does not have the necessary granularity to record accurate sound, and you *will* end up with terrible skips and pops. Use a specialized audio editing program like SoundForge or CoolEdit. Trust me on this one.
Yes, I'm well aware of the Any Browser campaign. I had their banner on my own web site when I had one up. BTW, it doesn't render correctly in Mozilla. (although it's perfectly readable, of course.)
HTML 4 was released by the W3C in December 1997 and updated in April 1998. That's three and a half years ago. CSS level 1 was released in December 1996 and CSS2 was released in May 1998. I think three years counts as "many" in the context of a browser that's 6 or 7 years old.
"Use my browser or don't view my webpage" is braindead web design. Period.
Hey, I wrote this browser where the [IMG] tag makes images blink unless you use the NOBLINK attribute, and the [TABLE] tag turns the rest of the text yellow. I'm the only person using it, but you now have to write web pages to conform to my choice of browser! Ha ha! Bet you didn't see that one coming! Also, I drive a train, and I demand that the highway department install tracks on all the roads I might drive on.
How about "use one of the browsers which work correctly and are freely available for every OS or don't view my webpage (or half a billion other ones)". "Correctly" being defined as "conforming to standards defined many years ago."
In particular, this almost always includes things like disk i/o, and tty i/o.
Is this true? Seems to me processes waiting on i/o would be blocked (in fact this is almost the definition of "blocked"), and therefore not in the run queue, and not affecting the load average.
The load average represents the number of processes waiting in the run queue over the last x amount of time. I think the three numbers reported in "uptime" are the last minute, five minutes, and ten minutes, but I could be wrong. It sounds like yours is fairly low, because you have more than one processor (a load average of 2 or more would be 100% usage for a dual proc machine, at least on Solaris).
The Solaris server where I work has 16 processors and the load average usually sits around 10-15. I'd be worried if my single-proc linux workstation had that high of an average, though...:-)
Damned psychotic moderators. This is not redundant. My comment was redundant. Actually all the comments saying "this was written by Brooks" were redundant, but this one was posted first. This should therefore be rated Informative, and *my* comment should be Redundant, even though I posted at +2.
If you're a moderator, read at 0 or at least +1, and think about what you're moderating, dammit!
And for that matter, the parent shouldn't be overrated, as he was entirely correct, except for the author of The Mythical Man Month. </rant>
Slashdot Mirror
This is true. I forgot that it lacked that... I wonder if Mahogany implemented theirs as part of wx that could be reused in other projects? I vaguely remember hearing about a wx rich text control that was "in development", whatever that means.
GPL
Unless I'm wrong. Are there any observations that directly point to creation by an intelligent designer, in any sense other than "we don't understand this, so it must be God"?
The "fine tuning" of the universe isn't convincing, I think, at least as it's presented by Hugh Ross ("The Creator and The Cosmos", etc). Superstring theory (which AFAIK hasn't been entirely confirmed, if at all) predicts the possible existence of many alternate universes with different fundamental constants. If this is true, and this "fine-tuning" is really as precise as Ross claims, our universe may merely be one out of an infinity that happens to have values that produced you and I. This is merely speculation, of course, but then it's also speculation that a universe with different fundamental constants wouldn't have produced some completely different form of life. Asimov wrote a book with that premise called "The Gods Themselves".
If this sort of creationist is what you mean, perhaps you could elaborate on how someone would derive these ideas naturalistically?
See Mahogany for a fairly large cross platform project implemented with wxWindows.
I wasn't there 10 years ago, but 3 years ago... well, if you're referring to the foul smell, the thick green muck, and the infinitely large clouds of midges and mosquitos, yes, it's probably at least as bad as it was then. :-)
Glad I wasn't there during last year's drought though. It was probably 10 times worse.
FWIW, the Klamath and the Deschutes are also rivers, and there is a mountain range called Klamath (although it's not in Klamath County or near the Klamath River. I take it you lived on the wet side of the mountains. :-)
Ah... I understand. Sorry I asked :-)
:-)
That's freaky. I'm glad I majored in software. I've looked at 64HC11 assembly exactly once, helping a left-side-of-the-bell-curve computer engineering student, based on my more recent experience with x86 assembly and a vague memory of 6502 assembly from the C64. I think that was the last time I ever really thought about code at a lower level than C, at least until yesterday
ooh... I'll remember that one. It never occurred to me. It's probably slower than using a temp, (there are still three assigns, plus three xors this way, and with the temp there are 4 array accesses compared to 6 with this method) but this is way cooler. And the lines form a nice square block :-)
well, this is a total waste of time, but I'm still trying to figure out how to use 100 lines of *any* language reversing a list. I would do this in (pseudo)assembly as follows:
.label
:-)
initialize list with numbers
load dx with 0
load ex with length
dec ex
.label
load bx with list offset dx
load cx with list offset ex
load list offset ex with bx
load list offset dx with cx
inc dx
dec ex
cmp dx,ex
jl
; congrats, your list is reversed
or something along those lines. I think you have to use the bp register and maybe one of the general purpose registers to access the list offset. And there's probably a better way to swap the list values. My assembly is *really* rusty
Here's 7 lines of C to reverse an array. The assembly would be more or less identical. I don't feel like dredging up my memories of 8086 assembler... it would probably end up screwing up my Perl for the next hour or so :-)
int list[] = {0,1,2,3,4,5};
int i,j,len=sizeof(list)/sizeof(int);
for (i=0; i < len/2; i++) {
j = list[i];
list[i] = list[len - i - 1];
list[len - i - 1] = j;
}
Reversing a linked list would be marginally longer, but a doubly linked list would be just as short or shorter than this. Only a real novice would take 100 lines of C to do it. BTW, how could you possibly learn assembly before learning what a stack is?
That takes me back.
I don't know of anything quite like what you're talking about, but the QWK file format can be found at faqsys. It shouldn't be to hard to write a Perl decoder. Or you might be able to snag source from another project (search freshmeat for QWK, there's a couple relevant projects).
I'm using Xine to play, with the d4d and dvdnav plugins. Menus don't always work correctly, but I usually can play the movie decently, with subtitles and alternate soundtracks. I also have a Matrox G400 and XFree86 4.1.0.
/dev/null; done (two of these on two different partitions)
/dev/urandom > /dev/null
/dev/urandom > /dev/null
It turns out the preemption patch didn't do much. I rebooted into a kernel without the preemption patch and I could play movies with the same reliability as with the patch. When I played through the Xshm driver (no acceleration) I got perhaps half a frame per second as opposed to one frame per second with the preemption driver enabled.
The tests I was doing to load the system were:
while (true); do tar -czv . >
gzip <
cat
top reported the load as being around 4.0 with 60% user and 40% system.
I had similar problems with 2.4.14 and the kernel preemption patch, but I'm running it against 2.4.16 right now with spectacular results. I can play a DVD full screen when the system load (i/o bound) is greater than 3 on my single-Athlon 900. No skips, pops, jumps, anything. Smooth as silk.
... whatever they might be. You can't complain about a development team that includes the guy in charge of XFree86 *and* the developer of Mesa. This could definitely lead to some cool software :-)
I don't really remember the details (this was a couple years ago) but when I was doing the sound editing, I gave up after fiddling with all the sndrec options. I didn't have a very good sound card, though, or a particularly fast machine, so that may have affected it. This was also on NT 4.0.
Cool Edit, however, solved all my problems. Recorded without a hitch.
If you must sample the LPs, do *not* use Sound Recorder. It does not have the necessary granularity to record accurate sound, and you *will* end up with terrible skips and pops. Use a specialized audio editing program like SoundForge or CoolEdit. Trust me on this one.
Yes, I'm well aware of the Any Browser campaign. I had their banner on my own web site when I had one up. BTW, it doesn't render correctly in Mozilla. (although it's perfectly readable, of course.)
HTML 4 was released by the W3C in December 1997 and updated in April 1998. That's three and a half years ago. CSS level 1 was released in December 1996 and CSS2 was released in May 1998. I think three years counts as "many" in the context of a browser that's 6 or 7 years old.
Lynx, apparently, on this minix port. Okay, so it won't position CSS. :-)
http://minixsh.tripod.co.jp/MinixSH.html
Hey, I wrote this browser where the [IMG] tag makes images blink unless you use the NOBLINK attribute, and the [TABLE] tag turns the rest of the text yellow. I'm the only person using it, but you now have to write web pages to conform to my choice of browser! Ha ha! Bet you didn't see that one coming! Also, I drive a train, and I demand that the highway department install tracks on all the roads I might drive on.
How about "use one of the browsers which work correctly and are freely available for every OS or don't view my webpage (or half a billion other ones)". "Correctly" being defined as "conforming to standards defined many years ago."
I wish *I* could visit my grandparents over a Bluetooth network. :-)
Is this true? Seems to me processes waiting on i/o would be blocked (in fact this is almost the definition of "blocked"), and therefore not in the run queue, and not affecting the load average.
The Solaris server where I work has 16 processors and the load average usually sits around 10-15. I'd be worried if my single-proc linux workstation had that high of an average, though... :-)
Damned psychotic moderators. This is not redundant. My comment was redundant. Actually all the comments saying "this was written by Brooks" were redundant, but this one was posted first. This should therefore be rated Informative, and *my* comment should be Redundant, even though I posted at +2.
If you're a moderator, read at 0 or at least +1, and think about what you're moderating, dammit!
And for that matter, the parent shouldn't be overrated, as he was entirely correct, except for the author of The Mythical Man Month.
</rant>
The Mythical Man Month was written by Fred Brooks.