// Object Oriented Programming CmdLin cl = new CmdLin(argc, argv);
Why do they always insist on this bad syntax? Why can't they write CmdLin cl = CmdLin.new(argc, argv); This way you can think of CmdLin as an object, new is just a method that returns a new instance. Voila, one keyword removed, and much cleaner syntax. This would not even offend the Java people because they can have the same syntax with a static method.
According to Wikipedia the EU has a population of 496,000,000. 0.37% of that are more than 1.8 million people, which is approximately the population of Slovenia. Would you tell Slovenia that they will be ignored because they are just a minority?
What do you expect from Global Warming? Here are the results from a survey in Germany:
3.8 % Bananas 12.0 % The sinking of America
8.1 % lower heating costs
5.9 % a bigger penis
2.1 % browner politicians
5.0 % time off due to excessive heat
5.0 % interesting new interessante neue diseases 51.9 % more naked vixens
2.3 % less social coldness
4.0 % Samba the whole night
There are a lot of techniques available that can make software reuse possible. One of them is Test Driven Development. When every bit of your functionality is checked with automated tests you can easily put your sourcecode into another contexts, rerun all the tests, and if they are ok it is a good indicator that it will work.
We also need a paradigm shift to concurrent programming. This will IMHO inevitable happen, as the processors are becoming more and more multicore. The currently used threading model is totally infeasible, we need something like the Erlang model.
7z does not do so well, I think because not so much tuned for text compression, it is much better at compressing binaries. For text compression PPMD and the variants are quite good, so I guess you will see good results with WinRK, Compressia, PAQ and the like.
There might be a statistical link between obesity and low IQ, but that not mean it is directly related. Here is another example: it is a statistical fact that people with large feet earn more than people with small feet. The simple reason for this is that woman have smaller feet than men and earn less on average.
Unfortunately, the survey everything but a a success. From the many questionnaires sent out by NASA, none of the black holes returned a completed form. Fortunately, NASA seems to learn from its mistake. The next questionaire will have much less and easier questions which should dramatically increase the response ratio.
When I switched to Linux I have noticed an instant productivity gain. Not because it is better, more secure, faster or anything, but because of the lack of Counterstrike et al. This effect should not be underestimated, especially in schools.
If you care about safety, you absolutely have to see this great lift truck safety video. Unfortunately it is in German, but you will definitely get an idea why safety regulations are so important:-)
I believe the big winner will be Linux, regardless of what happens: If Vista is released late, Microsoft looses credibility and companies start to switch to something else. If Microsoft releases Vista, companies have to ask themselfs if they switch to Vista or something cheaper.
Your problem is not XP, your problem is lack of management buy-in. No matter how you develop software, if your management does not support it, you have a problem.
You may make the source code for your Project available under the license of your choice. However, we encourage you to make the source code available under a license that offers users very broad use rights, with few restrictions, and so would enable a larger community to come together for learning, collaboration, and reuse based on your Project. For an example, see the Microsoft Permissive License.
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Sorry, but your statement is too general to be true. For example, let ants build an anthill. Does the likelihood of defetcs increase whenever you add an ant? not at all! In fact, the more ants you add the quicker they will build the anthill.
Imagine you have got 12 marbles. They all have exactly the same weight, except one. Using a balance, try to find this marble with only 3 weightings and also determine if it is heavier or lighter!
Easy as it looks, it took me two days to find out the solution to this problem. And don't give up, it is possible without any tricks:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, the environmentalists are right. I have finally found the proof.
Why do they always insist on this bad syntax? Why can't they write
CmdLin cl = CmdLin.new(argc, argv);
This way you can think of CmdLin as an object, new is just a method that returns a new instance. Voila, one keyword removed, and much cleaner syntax. This would not even offend the Java people because they can have the same syntax with a static method.
According to Wikipedia the EU has a population of 496,000,000. 0.37% of that are more than 1.8 million people, which is approximately the population of Slovenia. Would you tell Slovenia that they will be ignored because they are just a minority?
What do you expect from Global Warming? Here are the results from a survey in Germany:
3.8 % Bananas
12.0 % The sinking of America
8.1 % lower heating costs
5.9 % a bigger penis
2.1 % browner politicians
5.0 % time off due to excessive heat
5.0 % interesting new interessante neue diseases
51.9 % more naked vixens
2.3 % less social coldness
4.0 % Samba the whole night
There are a lot of techniques available that can make software reuse possible. One of them is Test Driven Development. When every bit of your functionality is checked with automated tests you can easily put your sourcecode into another contexts, rerun all the tests, and if they are ok it is a good indicator that it will work.
We also need a paradigm shift to concurrent programming. This will IMHO inevitable happen, as the processors are becoming more and more multicore. The currently used threading model is totally infeasible, we need something like the Erlang model.
Erlang seems to be on the right track. The thesis Making Reliable Distributed Systems in the Presence of Software Errors should be a must read for everyone who cares about reliable software. We are going to have to live with the fact that software will never be error free.
Another concept for reliable software could be multi agent systems, that have similar ideas like in Erlang but go a far step forward.
All in all, reliable software and reliable software reuse definitely is possible. Just not with mainstream technology.
I have tested some of the standard compression tools, here are the compressed sizes:
100000000 | original size
36445241 | gzip --best
29008758 | bzip2
28860178 | rzip -9
24864529 | 7zr -mx=9
24753293 | rar a -m5 -mdG
7z does not do so well, I think because not so much tuned for text compression, it is much better at compressing binaries. For text compression PPMD and the variants are quite good, so I guess you will see good results with WinRK, Compressia, PAQ and the like.
There might be a statistical link between obesity and low IQ, but that not mean it is directly related. Here is another example: it is a statistical fact that people with large feet earn more than people with small feet. The simple reason for this is that woman have smaller feet than men and earn less on average.
Unfortunately, the survey everything but a a success. From the many questionnaires sent out by NASA, none of the black holes returned a completed form. Fortunately, NASA seems to learn from its mistake. The next questionaire will have much less and easier questions which should dramatically increase the response ratio.
I have been using Ubuntu for a while and I have never, ever used the root password. You use sudo, and there you have to enter your user's password.
If you like computers like tripod do, for your personal safety I advise you not to use a laptop in the bedroom.
When I switched to Linux I have noticed an instant productivity gain. Not because it is better, more secure, faster or anything, but because of the lack of Counterstrike et al. This effect should not be underestimated, especially in schools.
If you care about safety, you absolutely have to see this great lift truck safety video. Unfortunately it is in German, but you will definitely get an idea why safety regulations are so important :-)
Can't wait to have a wristwatch with this. My atomic wristwatch is a bit too bulky.
I believe the big winner will be Linux, regardless of what happens: If Vista is released late, Microsoft looses credibility and companies start to switch to something else. If Microsoft releases Vista, companies have to ask themselfs if they switch to Vista or something cheaper.
Your problem is not XP, your problem is lack of management buy-in. No matter how you develop software, if your management does not support it, you have a problem.
Scotty: Captn, it will take 1 year to make the movie
Kirk: Scotty, I give you six months.
Scotty: Captn, I'll do it in two!
Watch it here.
Do you keep falling asleep in meetings and seminars? What about those long and boring conference calls? Bullshit Bingo is a way to change all of that!
http://www.bullshitbingo.net/cards/bullshit/
You are mixing up weather with climate. Read this for enlightenment:e rvsclimate.html
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/pjw_class/weath
I think the most influental software is ls. Where would we be without this command?
Here I present you The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your
kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this
sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical
evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Sorry, but your statement is too general to be true. For example, let ants build an anthill. Does the likelihood of defetcs increase whenever you add an ant? not at all! In fact, the more ants you add the quicker they will build the anthill.
Imagine you have got 12 marbles. They all have exactly the same weight, except one. Using a balance, try to find this marble with only 3 weightings and also determine if it is heavier or lighter!
:-)
Easy as it looks, it took me two days to find out the solution to this problem. And don't give up, it is possible without any tricks
You do not need to use wine, there is also a native linux port for 7zip.