I think this is great motivation for someone to make an ethernet adapter that uses the IDE interface, and write a linux driver for it. Then you'd just chain it after your hard drive and go.
Now, what about IDE 21" monitor, or maybe an IDE-USB convertor to go with it
They already did that. What's more, they decided to backdate it so that you wouldn't have to read the first post rubbish when reading old articles. But this deleted the message that called for the first-post ban, so in fact the ban was never called for and never existed.
This is typical of why Linux is so backwards in the global market. Your attitude may be appropriate for writing applications on a 1Mb 386, but these days computers have power.
"In the Linux world it is not acceptable to have this extra 1.3 MB of redundant code just to save yourself some effort. "
Not acceptable to you perhaps. I accept this because I realize that a 1.3Mb file size doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference, but the fact that I have this great functional application *now* rather than 2 years down the track, does make a difference.
"True Linux coders understand the need for small, tightly coded applicaions and will therefore eschew Delphi as being an evil Windows tool not suitable for Linux coding."
I think you mean "True 1970s coders".
"If people start to program their applicaions under Delphi it will be the start of a slippery slope, the end of which will see Linux becoming a Windows clone."
You would deny Linux the huge range of applications that Windows has (and in fact, as we all know, one of the major reasons Linux does not have as wide usage as Windows is because it doesn't have the application base) merely because you don't like code bloat? You could label any OS with a GUI and lots of code a "Windows clone". You seem to do this, and decide you would rather be crippled than risk that someone might apply this name. Oh dear..
Of course they're not going to release Delphi for Linux anytime in the near future. The reason is that Linux is simply too crap to handle RAD. The Win32 API is wonderful, and all the VCL and OWL and MFC are wrappers for it, with the odd bit of custom graphics. The Win32 API supports multi-byte character sets and Unicode, and many other things (COM+, threads, network, etc.) Until there is a Linux GUI with a large, flexible and powerful API like the Win32 API, you can kiss Linux RAD goodbye. I wouldn't be surprised if this merger involves Corel actually developing a decent API for their distro, which their newly-acquired Delphi will then be able to run on, and they will get the jump on the rest of the field.
You seem to have some ideas which you haven't thought through.
If you want your destructor and destructor to have different names, define your functions New() and Delete() or whatever, and make the constructor and destructor call them. Your suggestion seems rather cosmetic than functional.
Of course they have no return values - C++ syntax allows for no capturing of a 'return value' at the point either of these functions is invoked.
How do you intend to go object.New() when the object doesn't exist?
Calling the destructor isn't the same as destroying the object; rather, the destructor is called during the destruction process. Other things go on too, before and after (eg. freeing memory, calling base class destructors). Tying all this to a function call would be misleading as well as pointless.
>Technological heretics - anyone hear from Sir Clive Sinclair, lately?
Since when was Sinclair a heretic? He did pioneering work in the electronics field, forming the basis for modern computers, and we all love him. He also wisely sold out when his products were becoming obsolete. We probably haven't heard from him because he's off sunning himself on a tropical beach.
How would anyone claim that burning someone at the stake invalidates belief in Jesus? For starters, a non-believer can hardly pontificate about what believers should and should not do.
>The actions of misguided people abusing Jesus' name 400 years ago have nothing to do with my faith now
But the actions of people 2000 years ago have everything to do with your faith. How do you justify crediting certain events and discrediting others? And why did you mention 400 years as seemingly the remote past, if you centre your beliefs on events five times as old? This looks like a case of selectively interpreting events, according to what fits your preconceived belief.
2: That means that ONE DNA-sample compared to ONE other DNA-sample has the chance to in 1 of 37000000.
3: If You have TWO other DNA-samples to match against you have a chance of match in 2 (TWO!) of 37000000 ! </BLOCKQUOTE> For a bunch of supposed geeks, you lot are fucking useless at mathematics. Here we have a classic example of no logic skills at all. I hardly need to point out that taking "i"'s logic a bit further, If You have 37000000 other DNA-samples to match against you have a chance of match in 37000000 of 37000000 ! ie. a definite match. However this is blatantly false.
The guy who replied to this message has a bit of sense, although his calculation is irrelevant.
Now, time for another piece of using your brain instead of being a dick. It is blatantly false that the DNA database has a failure rate of about 1/56. I think it is safe to conclude that the 1/37,000,000 chance has <I>already taken into account</I> the fact that there are 660,000 people in the database.
I don't know how the locus check matches (perhaps we need to find a genetics expert here), but it is reasonable to suggest that if there were a 1/37*10^6 chance of a match on six loci, then the chance of a match on one locus is the sixth root of this, ie. about one in eighteen. It seems highly likely to me that each locus check would be more definite than this low chance.
Here's another piece of reasoning: If the chance of two DNA sets matching is 1 in 37,000,000, then the chance is <I>almost certain</I> that two in a pool of 660,000 will match. (Recall the birthday example; if there are 23 people in a room, then it is more than even chances that two will have the same birthday). The formula here is: chance = 1 - (37000000! / 36340000! / (37000000^660000)) which I can't really be bothered calculating, but would wager highly (based on my arithmetic intuition) that it's rather close to 1.
Anyhow, my purpose here was to show that one should reach sensible conclusions by using your brain and looking at different angles on a problem; and CHECK THAT YOUR ANSWER IS SENSIBLE before blindly trusting it. Perhaps the court judges could follow that principle. I know that if school students did, then the average marks on exams would be a lot higher.
More interesting is the case of Siamese twins, joined at the hip or something. One of them commits a serious crime.. but according to US law he cannot be imprisoned because it would not be fair on the other twin!
Although if one got the death penalty, perhaps they could cut one head off or something
You can write a C++ file on windows, then copy it to a unix system and compile and run it. Then the binary runs on unix but the source was written on windows. Or you can go even further and use a windows->unix cross-compiler.
(PS. No pedantic comments like "you lamer you mean intel->sun or whatever" please, my meaning should be clear)
now, my main point is, why did that totally redundant, pedantic and lame message about 16:19 and 16:18 get "2, Informative" ? It wasn't informative at all. Or was the moderator feeling guilty about the "0, Redundant" and decided to make up for it?
Polymorphism involves run-time decision of which function to call. No such thing can possibly happen with function (ie. function or operator) overloading.
Firstly, the plural of the English word 'virus' can only possibly be 'viruses'. In English, -us words derived from Latin form the plural by appending -es, and -us words derived from Greek form the plural by exchanging -us for -i.
However, the Latin word 'virus' (from which the English 'virus' is derived) is not subject to English pluralisation rules.
There is a lot of doubt on the issue of the Latin plural because: i) Latin 'virus' was a mass noun, meaning 'some poison', so was never actually used as a plural. ii) in Latin, the same word can have different plurals depending on its usage. (This is where the terms 'genitive', 'accusative' etc. come in). iii) It's thousands of years since the language was natively spoken anyway; and in those days no-one cared about standardisation of the language, so who the hell knows what it should have been!
(It is also relevant that using a Latin plural in English for 'virus' is inappropriate, as the Latin meaning of 'virus' is different to the English meaning of the word).
Notwithstanding the three reasons just given, there are a few tries at forming a Latin plural for 'virus', each of which is arrived at by applying 'rules' of Latin grammar which were deduced by reading ancient works (which had fairly loose grammar anyway).
i) virii. Note that this is viri with a macron over the 'i' (indicating long vowel sound), and not a diphthong as in English. It is infact pronounced like the English word 'wiry' (just to confuse things more). Similar Latin nouns occur in the 'troll' that I am replying to. ii) virora, vire, viruus. These come from attempting to classify 'virus' as a different declension ('declension' is the technical term for what sort of noun a noun is, for the purposes of pluralisation; there are five groups), and applying that declension's pluralisation rule. Note that the 'uu' in 'viruus' is a long vowel sound, like the 'ii' in 'virii'.
Conclusion: when writing English, use the English plural 'viruses'. When writing Latin, you will never need a plural of the word.
These figures from a chess-computer programmer: There are 4,865,609 different 5ply chess games There are 119,060,324 different 6ply (3 moves) chess games
Now, continue on this scale of increasing.. calculating all 10ply positions would take a long time.
Now, for my real point. Doing it by brute force misses the point. The enjoyment of chess problems is the effort and lateral thinking expended in solving them. I don't want to see a solution - I want to work it out for myself. (Big bad nasties to those who have posted lines on slashdot - I've tried to not read them).
For chess aficionadoes, here is a related problem by Sam Lloyd (which a computer would solve quickly, incidentally, but which I enjoyed finding): 1. f3 ??? 2. Kf2 ??? 3. Kg3 ??? 4. Kh4 ??? mate Fill in the four missing black moves
The only way I can think of to get 1024x768 in Windows is to switch in my trusty old Trident 8900C,
Heh, if you want to wait five seconds for it to draw each frame
Anyhow, NT display properties is different to that in 95 (s/95/98 if you like). In NT, you choose resolution and refresh rate. If you get refresh rate too high and the picture screws up, you can try again with a lower refresh rate after waiting 5 seconds. Horizontal frequency doesn't matter because (if you care) you can work it out from the resolution and vertical frequency. If you know your monitor's h-freq range then you are probably geeky enough to work out a safe refresh rate to enter.
In 9x however, you don't get to choose a refresh rate, and it figures out some sort of value to use based on your monitor setting, and this value usually sucks. However, there are tools around for 9x that allow you to manually specify refresh rates etc. (but I think they need a reboot. Ugh.)
Did they choose Guy Fawkes day on purpose for this? (For you Americans, this marks the day in history that conspirators tried to blow up the repressive British Parliament in the 13th century, by using large amounts of gunpowder; and this is the day we have our annual fireworks display)
I must say this is the biggest load of irrelevance I have seen since I last turned on my TV..
I see BSOD's with NT all the time.. I have been running linux and my system has NEVER crashed; however, X did restart one time while running gnome.
Disregarding hardware failures [which cause both NT and Linux to crash], I've had three bluescreens in three years on my NT box. So what? Some people have no probs with NT but have probs with Linux, and vice versa.
And I don't reboot unless I upgrade my kernel (which unfortunatly is a rare occurance), when was the last time you upgraded your NT kernel?? Shows you how fast NT is developing.
The time between kernel updates isn't a direct indicator of development. For example, perhaps MS like to make sure their new kernel is stable [and necessary] before they release it, something which has not happened with a few Linux kernel releases. Also, how many features of the new kernel releases do *you* use that weren't there in previous kernels? None, perchance?
My school uses NT on their networks, perhaps its the stupid system admins, but the security is HORRIBLE. The bios restricted boot from removeable media, however NT was installed on fat16 and a simple edit of boot.ini with the proper bootimage and command.com (and other dos files), I had a fully bootable dos extention to the boot manager which I used to grab the password file and gained admin on the entire network. Lets see a properly secured Linux machine get fscked that bad.
Let's see a properly secured NT system get fscked that bad. You've just told us your school doesn't know how to set up NT securely. Now what's their IP address?:]
True, the system should have used NTFS, but unfortunatly NTFS is slower then fat16,
I find NT to run much faster when installed on NTFS than on FAT16
When is NT gonna come with a compiler, non-qbasic script interpretor (such as perl, python, tcl). How about a fully functional firewall.
Feel free to install any of these tools. microsoft.com has a great page with loads of useful free NT software. You seem to be hassling Windows because it doesn't come with all the tools you want already installed. Yet Windows gets hassled for coming with Internet Explorer already installed....
How great do you think IIS is ?? Even MS admits that it blows chunks.. it killed at rendering my page littered with Server Side Includes...
URL for this MS admission please? Apache didn't display my ASP page very well, gee, Apache is awful. [That was sarcasm, BTW]
Get a life, get real.. NT is going out and Unix (probally Linux) is going in.
Being a linux geek means you have a life?:] Why do you think NT is going out?
My entire FAMILY uses my linux-equipped computer fine, and understands it better then any Nt machine
So they've learned to use Linux rather than NT. How does this mean Linux is better?
(however my dad still can't operate the login screen for NT)
He must be pretty stupid then, since it's a matter of pressing a few keys and typing in the username/password. Or are you saying that he is unable to understand a GUI?
I have thrown every configuration possible at this computer, moving from console to X with fvwm2 to fvwm95... [guff deleted]
And?
If Windows has it, Linux has it.. faster, prettier, and with a simplier interface (on a properly configured system)
'Faster' is still debatable (for example, IE5 on my NT box runs a hell of a lot faster than Netscape on my flatmat's RedHat box). 'prettier' is in the eye of the beholder (I like my background picture) and I find NT simpler to use (probably because I'm more used to it and DOS)
Btw.. how much did you pay for your software? haha
I've gotten my money's worth out of it, as far as I am concerned Now I'm just waiting for them to port Linux to that leech computer...
Slashdot Mirror
What does "dino pretending" mean?
Well, I'm glad I'm it. I've achieved my main purpose of losing karma, and made a point at the same time. Hoorah *pops open champagne*
Wow why didn't i think of that!
...
RUN LINUX ON YOUR TOILET!
# ifconfig ass0
# man "Reader's Digest"
# sleep 300
# modprobe toilet_paper
# flush
# ziptool
# echo 'Have a pleasurable day'
Hate those core dumps though *grunt*
I think this is great motivation for someone to make an ethernet adapter that uses the IDE interface, and write a linux driver for it. Then you'd just chain it after your hard drive and go.
Now, what about IDE 21" monitor, or maybe an IDE-USB convertor to go with it
50m? There are plenty of cavities in Earth that are bigger than that. My local underground carpark, for example.
They already did that. What's more, they decided to backdate it so that you wouldn't have to read the first post rubbish when reading old articles. But this deleted the message that called for the first-post ban, so in fact the ban was never called for and never existed.
Hmm, I don't seem to be replying to anything..
This is typical of why Linux is so backwards in the global market. Your attitude may be appropriate for writing applications on a 1Mb 386, but these days computers have power.
"In the Linux world it is not acceptable to have this extra 1.3 MB of redundant code just to save yourself some effort. "
Not acceptable to you perhaps. I accept this because I realize that a 1.3Mb file size doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference, but the fact that I have this great functional application *now* rather than 2 years down the track, does make a difference.
"True Linux coders understand the need for small, tightly coded applicaions and will therefore eschew Delphi as being an evil Windows tool not suitable for Linux coding."
I think you mean "True 1970s coders".
"If people start to program their applicaions under Delphi it will be the start of a slippery slope, the end of which will see Linux becoming a Windows clone."
You would deny Linux the huge range of applications that Windows has (and in fact, as we all know, one of the major reasons Linux does not have as wide usage as Windows is because it doesn't have the application base) merely because you don't like code bloat?
You could label any OS with a GUI and lots of code a "Windows clone". You seem to do this, and decide you would rather be crippled than risk that someone might apply this name. Oh dear..
Of course they're not going to release Delphi for Linux anytime in the near future. The reason is that Linux is simply too crap to handle RAD. The Win32 API is wonderful, and all the VCL and OWL and MFC are wrappers for it, with the odd bit of custom graphics. The Win32 API supports multi-byte character sets and Unicode, and many other things (COM+, threads, network, etc.)
Until there is a Linux GUI with a large, flexible and powerful API like the Win32 API, you can kiss Linux RAD goodbye.
I wouldn't be surprised if this merger involves Corel actually developing a decent API for their distro, which their newly-acquired Delphi will then be able to run on, and they will get the jump on the rest of the field.
You seem to have some ideas which you haven't thought through.
If you want your destructor and destructor to have different names, define your functions New() and Delete() or whatever, and make the constructor and destructor call them. Your suggestion seems rather cosmetic than functional.
Of course they have no return values - C++ syntax allows for no capturing of a 'return value' at the point either of these functions is invoked.
How do you intend to go object.New() when the object doesn't exist?
Calling the destructor isn't the same as destroying the object; rather, the destructor is called during the destruction process. Other things go on too, before and after (eg. freeing memory, calling base class destructors). Tying all this to a function call would be misleading as well as pointless.
>Technological heretics - anyone hear from Sir Clive Sinclair, lately?
Since when was Sinclair a heretic? He did pioneering work in the electronics field, forming the basis for modern computers, and we all love him. He also wisely sold out when his products were becoming obsolete. We probably haven't heard from him because he's off sunning himself on a tropical beach.
How would anyone claim that burning someone at the stake invalidates belief in Jesus?
For starters, a non-believer can hardly pontificate about what believers should and should not do.
>The actions of misguided people abusing Jesus' name 400 years ago have nothing to do with my faith now
But the actions of people 2000 years ago have everything to do with your faith.
How do you justify crediting certain events and discrediting others?
And why did you mention 400 years as seemingly the remote past, if you centre your beliefs on events five times as old?
This looks like a case of selectively interpreting events, according to what fits your preconceived belief.
What the fuck is IMNAL.
More interesting is the case of Siamese twins, joined at the hip or something. One of them commits a serious crime.. but according to US law he cannot be imprisoned because it would not be fair on the other twin!
Although if one got the death penalty, perhaps they could cut one head off or something
You can write a C++ file on windows, then copy it to a unix system and compile and run it. Then the binary runs on unix but the source was written on windows. Or you can go even further and use a windows->unix cross-compiler.
(PS. No pedantic comments like "you lamer you mean intel->sun or whatever" please, my meaning should be clear)
I always thought it was shorthand for STUFF YOU
oh well
now, my main point is, why did that totally redundant, pedantic and lame message about 16:19 and 16:18 get "2, Informative" ? It wasn't informative at all. Or was the moderator feeling guilty about the "0, Redundant" and decided to make up for it?
LOL @ LAMERS
Polymorphism involves run-time decision of which function to call. No such thing can possibly happen with function (ie. function or operator) overloading.
Firstly, the plural of the English word 'virus' can only possibly be 'viruses'. In English, -us words derived from Latin form the plural by appending -es, and -us words derived from Greek form the plural by exchanging -us for -i.
However, the Latin word 'virus' (from which the English 'virus' is derived) is not subject to English pluralisation rules.
There is a lot of doubt on the issue of the Latin plural because:
i) Latin 'virus' was a mass noun, meaning 'some poison', so was never actually used as a plural.
ii) in Latin, the same word can have different plurals depending on its usage. (This is where the terms 'genitive', 'accusative' etc. come in).
iii) It's thousands of years since the language was natively spoken anyway; and in those days no-one cared about standardisation of the language, so who the hell knows what it should have been!
(It is also relevant that using a Latin plural in English for 'virus' is inappropriate, as the Latin meaning of 'virus' is different to the English meaning of the word).
Notwithstanding the three reasons just given, there are a few tries at forming a Latin plural for 'virus', each of which is arrived at by applying 'rules' of Latin grammar which were deduced by reading ancient works (which had fairly loose grammar anyway).
i) virii. Note that this is viri with a macron over the 'i' (indicating long vowel sound), and not a diphthong as in English. It is infact pronounced like the English word 'wiry' (just to confuse things more). Similar Latin nouns occur in the 'troll' that I am replying to.
ii) virora, vire, viruus. These come from attempting to classify 'virus' as a different declension ('declension' is the technical term for what sort of noun a noun is, for the purposes of pluralisation; there are five groups), and applying that declension's pluralisation rule. Note that the 'uu' in 'viruus' is a long vowel sound, like the 'ii' in 'virii'.
Conclusion: when writing English, use the English plural 'viruses'. When writing Latin, you will never need a plural of the word.
These figures from a chess-computer programmer:
There are 4,865,609 different 5ply chess games
There are 119,060,324 different 6ply (3 moves) chess games
Now, continue on this scale of increasing..
calculating all 10ply positions would take a long time.
Now, for my real point. Doing it by brute force misses the point. The enjoyment of chess problems is the effort and lateral thinking expended in solving them. I don't want to see a solution - I want to work it out for myself. (Big bad nasties to those who have posted lines on slashdot - I've tried to not read them).
For chess aficionadoes, here is a related problem by Sam Lloyd (which a computer would solve quickly, incidentally, but which I enjoyed finding):
1. f3 ???
2. Kf2 ???
3. Kg3 ???
4. Kh4 ??? mate
Fill in the four missing black moves
The only way I can think of to get 1024x768 in Windows is to switch in my trusty old Trident 8900C,
Heh, if you want to wait five seconds for it to draw each frame
Anyhow, NT display properties is different to that in 95 (s/95/98 if you like). In NT, you choose resolution and refresh rate. If you get refresh rate too high and the picture screws up, you can try again with a lower refresh rate after waiting 5 seconds. Horizontal frequency doesn't matter because (if you care) you can work it out from the resolution and vertical frequency. If you know your monitor's h-freq range then you are probably geeky enough to work out a safe refresh rate to enter.
In 9x however, you don't get to choose a refresh rate, and it figures out some sort of value to use based on your monitor setting, and this value usually sucks. However, there are tools around for 9x that allow you to manually specify refresh rates etc. (but I think they need a reboot. Ugh.)
Did they choose Guy Fawkes day on purpose for this?
(For you Americans, this marks the day in history that conspirators tried to blow up the repressive British Parliament in the 13th century, by using large amounts of gunpowder; and this is the day we have our annual fireworks display)
Yeah, Pluto's existence is quite unlikely...
When attempting to follow the links from this article to mozillazine.org, I get the unceremonious result:
;)
Unable to connect to SQL server
Didn't even bother with a {HTML} or anything. Maybe Netscape aren't really all that anti-Microsoft after all