I am talking right clicking, and selecting preview size > small. The dialog boxes *CAN* all be made more compact. Or they can be made bigger, in case you have bad eyesight
No, right clicking doesn't show a context menu that says "preview size". Which version of GIMP are you using? Sure, in "File/Preferences" dialog you can change theme to make icons and text smaller. But the waste of screen real-estate has to do with the particular way that GTK+ lays out the UI elements. You can make the icons and font just 1px in size and there would still be wasted space.
On the other hand, although you don't have the flexibility to theme Photoshop, you get a default interface that is pleasing to work with.
Those companies have a whole team of usability specialists who scrutinize every single pixel on the screen. Are you saying they're all idiots?
So are you trolling, or just ignorant and don't know that it can be changed? And I am not talking about downloading the source code, editing some lines ov programming, and recompiling.
So I'm thinking you're just full of yourself, arrogant, and can't take any criticism. I'm fine if open source developers don't want to improve their program. I'll personally tolerate these deficiencies as a user (or go out and buy the real thing when I can afford it), but please don't take issues when I defend someone else who thinks the program sucks. Because it does, and you just don't want to acknowledge that. What's so hard about it?
What's horrible about GIMP's interface, you ask? It's the non-judicial use of screen real-estate that annoys me the most. For example, what justifies the 5 pixel gap between the tool icons? That window could totally be made 20 pixels narrower. The dialog boxes could all be made more compact. Five pixels every here and there could save about 100 pixels, which is still a non-negligible amount of screen real-estate.
GIMP developers must have designed the UI for old people who need reading glasses. I happened to have used GIMP on a 30in monitor at 2560x1600 resolution once, and only on that monitor I find GIMP practically usable.
The irony is that threads are only practical (from a correctness/debugging point of view) when there isn't much interaction between the threads.
It might seem ironic, but think about it. If threads interact with each other all the time, that means most of them will stay blocked just trying to synchronizing access to some data. That's using thread for concurrency (I/O bound tasks), not using thread for parallelism (computation bound tasks).
It's a theorem which states that if a graph is strongly connected and aperiodic, then there exists a road coloring. It was conjectured by Weiss and proven by Trahtman 30 years later, which is what the article is about. A graph that is periodic may still have a road coloring, but that's not the scope of the theorem.
Most roads are strongly connected but periodic (not aperiodic), in the sense that you can drive around a block in 4 segments, and drive around 2 blocks in 6. The period in this case is 2. You can't guarantee a computer network to be aperiodic either. These graphs may still have a road coloring, but the theorem doesn't apply. Therefore, this theorem has little application in practice.
I haven't read the paper, but there are generally two ways to prove the theorem: (1) show a coloring algorithm that makes only the assumptions of strong connectivity and aperiodicity, or (2) show the contraposition, that if there is no road coloring, then it implies either the graph is not strongly connected or there is period. Only (1) is useful in practice because you have a method to generate road coloring and instructions to reach all vertices, but it's harder to verify that (1) is correct. (2) is not very useful because although you have a proof, but you don't end up with an algorithm that generates road coloring.
In practice, algorithms get things done. Proofs are only certificates.
every year RAM access has gotten slower and slower relative to the CPU. when you bought a 486 computer, the RAM and Processor were running essentially at the same speed
In the old days, it used to be faster to do table look-up for some simple math expressions with a small domain. Nowdays it's better to do the math instead for precisely the reason you mentioned. However, I still see this old mentality in new code. One example is the code I just looked at last night, h264.c from libavcodec. It still uses various look-up tables defined in h264data.h that can be computed as trivially as i*c+j, with i and j row and column of the table and c some constant. I was shaking my head as I read the code. O what vanity!
I think they don't use the fact you clicked on the hyperlink to incriminate you, but it's a probable cause for a warrant because you're likely to possess other child porn. It would be interesting, what would they do if they don't find any possession of child porn? Take off their hat and apologize for the inconvenience?
And you regard this as proof that Windows is superior to Linux?
Man, you have to loosen up. I never mentioned Windows anywhere. I'm typing this on a CentOS 5 box, so you bet I've used yum. My distro of choice is Ubuntu, and I also use Fink on Mac OS X, so I have plenty of apt-get experience.
Haven't touched Windows for the past 8 years.
All the reasons I listed (except #4, regrettably) are personal experiences, and I thought sharing these would be amusement to someone who has suffered the same. You're apparently too new to Linux. I'm never a fanboy of anything, but you're obviously a Linux fanboy, and you're picking a fight with the wrong person.
These idiots want to have their cake and eat it - on one hand they want to rubbish scientific thinking and deny evolution on the other they want bluray discs, microwaves and nuclear tipped bombs. Get real.
Granted, compact discs were invented by Philips (Netherlands) and Sony (Japan), with Blu-ray a refinement over compact disc design. However, microwave oven was invented by Percy Spencer, an American engineer, while working at Raytheon. Nuclear weapon was developed for the Manhattan Project, a joint effort by U.S., U.K. and Canada.
Who says you can't have your cake and eat it?
By the way, I accept climate change because it has well-understood model and genuine scientific evidence to support the model. On the other hand, I reject evolution because it is rubbish. Rubbish, rubbish, *rubbish*!
Reason 1: getting software to work on Linux can involve compiling it from the source (this is obviously not a requirement nowadays, but you're not required to have fun by all means). What is a better way to feel the adrenaline rush than watching 'configure; make -j8; make install' output fly on in the terminal window? This is the only way we can convince ourselves we have a fast computer, and that it's doing something useful.
Reason 2: tired of mundane things? Try to solve the mysteriously convoluted dependency puzzle. Your reward of accomplishment is by having software that eventually works and stays working until the next software update. Then you get to experience the joy again.
Reason 3: when you download a source tarball, chances are it won't work, and you have to edit some source code to make it work for you. What is a better ego boost than thinking that you've outsmarted those who can do CVS/SVN commit and can't get it right?
Reason 4: it's the only operating system where you can use a filesystem designed and implemented by a suspect murderer. What character!
Reason 5: for the ex-warez addicts, it gives us a peace of mind to be able to rip off software legally.
I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.
Well, before everyone gets all in a tizzy,
Why do you say before everyone gets all in a tizzy?
let me just say that I'm already on the case to return the favor.
Is it because you are already on the case to return the favor that you
came to me?
As a mathematician and computer scientist, I'm working on a computer program using some pretty heavy-lifting math to allow people to psychoanalyze themselves.
You have your mind on computers, it seems.
I call it the ELIte analyZing mAchine, or ELIZA for short.
Eliza? Hah! I would appreciate it if you would continue.
How does that make you feel, Mr. Psychologist Person?
Parent is a well known troll since 2003 or perhaps earlier. Search on Google for "gnu protective license" and you'll see it show up in the first few results.
Troll, please correct yourself. GPL stands for GNU Public License. If you're going to repost this stuff again, I want to see it corrected. Understand?
You're wrong. We know enough about the climate model to prove causation, and correlation just happens to support it. Be careful not to go into the extreme believing that correlation disproves causation, or you will not see this fairly.
Streisand effect applies when some private information is leaked about a public figure, and the person tries to protect his/her own privacy while inadvertently making that information more popular. It has to do with people's curiosity to peer into someone else's private life, but anti-censorship is most often used as an excuse.
In the case of horror movie ban, there is no person's private life involved, so Streisand effect doesn't apply. It is perhaps more similar to public ban of pornography in some countries, where people still try to stealthily distribute pornography by various means. However, pornography is fueled by people's curiosity about sex. I don't think horror movies incite people's curiosity about anything.
My own feeling is that there will still be a small percentage of people who are fatally attracted to spirituality, psychic, voodoo, and witchcraft. They will continue to smuggle these horror movies and perform cult worship. However, most people will live happily without being bothered with annoying horror movie advertisements.
Speaking of which, I was eating at a food court that has some television, and it showed a trailer of a horror movie with green slime, deteriorated tissue, fermented blood, and all this crap. Though I didn't react outrageously about it, it really disturbed my appetite. Such a dining experience!
Because it gives their SO at home an idea of how long they'll be, so they know when to put the food on.
You never know how many hidden words are in a conversation like that.
Translation: "Honey, I know you've been seeing somebody, but I don't want to know about it. Please get him out of our bed---MY BED---before I get home."
All in all, the movie does a good job using non-public IP addresses, like the 555- telephone number that the reviewer made an analogy of. However, 192.168.* are all class C networks, and not all addresses prefixed with 192.* are private. For example, 192.169.* is not private, and it belongs to someone in Hawaii according to its whois information.
If a number in the IP address has only 1 or 2 digits, we never zero-prefix it to make it three digits. The IP address 192.010.125.120 really hurts my eyes. It actually is a real IP address that belongs to "Symbolics, Inc." The address 127.131.101.180 is the same as 127.0.0.1. All 127.* prefixed IP addresses are reserved for localhost. The third one, 010.191.100.122 is a non-routable intranet IP address. Whether it's valid or not depends on where the computer is.
The biggest slip is that if you upload a trojan horse back to someone who was downloading data from your machine, there's still no way to force the remote criminal's computer to run it, as happens in the movie.
My first reaction was to make the password file a Word document, and write the trojan as VBA macro, but at this time and age I don't know if that's still feasible. The most plausible way would be to craft a malformed Word document that causes buffer overrun when Word reads the file, executing arbitrary code to launch the payload counter-trojan. You could also embed other OLE objects so the document leverages another application's flaw to exploit Word, which gives you more options.
Windows 95, 98 and ME are successors of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups with Win32s (a subset of Win32 API). All these are glorified DOS extender.
The NT architecture is developed from scratch, finally stopped being a DOS extender. The lineage is Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, and 2000 (which is NT 5.0 as you mentioned).
But doesn't that kind of representation still have inherent limits on the size of the integer ? You can't, after all, have strings which exceed the size of the computer's memory space, at least not in C.
Yes, though you can use two bigints to represent mantissa and the exponent (like floating point), i.e. use bigints x and y to represent integer z such that z = x * 10^y. This gives you arbitrary precision arithmetic. Again, the keyword is arbitrary, which is more or less true, but not infinite.
Looking at the solution, the question appears to be dividing a big integer by two. The big integer is represented as an arbitrary length string of base 10 digits in least significant digit first order (little endian). The Normalize() function probably trims any trailing zero-extended digits.
Slashdot Mirror
No, right clicking doesn't show a context menu that says "preview size". Which version of GIMP are you using? Sure, in "File/Preferences" dialog you can change theme to make icons and text smaller. But the waste of screen real-estate has to do with the particular way that GTK+ lays out the UI elements. You can make the icons and font just 1px in size and there would still be wasted space.
On the other hand, although you don't have the flexibility to theme Photoshop, you get a default interface that is pleasing to work with.
Those companies have a whole team of usability specialists who scrutinize every single pixel on the screen. Are you saying they're all idiots?
So I'm thinking you're just full of yourself, arrogant, and can't take any criticism. I'm fine if open source developers don't want to improve their program. I'll personally tolerate these deficiencies as a user (or go out and buy the real thing when I can afford it), but please don't take issues when I defend someone else who thinks the program sucks. Because it does, and you just don't want to acknowledge that. What's so hard about it?
What's horrible about GIMP's interface, you ask? It's the non-judicial use of screen real-estate that annoys me the most. For example, what justifies the 5 pixel gap between the tool icons? That window could totally be made 20 pixels narrower. The dialog boxes could all be made more compact. Five pixels every here and there could save about 100 pixels, which is still a non-negligible amount of screen real-estate.
GIMP developers must have designed the UI for old people who need reading glasses. I happened to have used GIMP on a 30in monitor at 2560x1600 resolution once, and only on that monitor I find GIMP practically usable.
It might seem ironic, but think about it. If threads interact with each other all the time, that means most of them will stay blocked just trying to synchronizing access to some data. That's using thread for concurrency (I/O bound tasks), not using thread for parallelism (computation bound tasks).
It's a theorem which states that if a graph is strongly connected and aperiodic, then there exists a road coloring. It was conjectured by Weiss and proven by Trahtman 30 years later, which is what the article is about. A graph that is periodic may still have a road coloring, but that's not the scope of the theorem.
Most roads are strongly connected but periodic (not aperiodic), in the sense that you can drive around a block in 4 segments, and drive around 2 blocks in 6. The period in this case is 2. You can't guarantee a computer network to be aperiodic either. These graphs may still have a road coloring, but the theorem doesn't apply. Therefore, this theorem has little application in practice.
I haven't read the paper, but there are generally two ways to prove the theorem: (1) show a coloring algorithm that makes only the assumptions of strong connectivity and aperiodicity, or (2) show the contraposition, that if there is no road coloring, then it implies either the graph is not strongly connected or there is period. Only (1) is useful in practice because you have a method to generate road coloring and instructions to reach all vertices, but it's harder to verify that (1) is correct. (2) is not very useful because although you have a proof, but you don't end up with an algorithm that generates road coloring.
In practice, algorithms get things done. Proofs are only certificates.
In the old days, it used to be faster to do table look-up for some simple math expressions with a small domain. Nowdays it's better to do the math instead for precisely the reason you mentioned. However, I still see this old mentality in new code. One example is the code I just looked at last night, h264.c from libavcodec. It still uses various look-up tables defined in h264data.h that can be computed as trivially as i*c+j, with i and j row and column of the table and c some constant. I was shaking my head as I read the code. O what vanity!
I think they don't use the fact you clicked on the hyperlink to incriminate you, but it's a probable cause for a warrant because you're likely to possess other child porn. It would be interesting, what would they do if they don't find any possession of child porn? Take off their hat and apologize for the inconvenience?
Man, you have to loosen up. I never mentioned Windows anywhere. I'm typing this on a CentOS 5 box, so you bet I've used yum. My distro of choice is Ubuntu, and I also use Fink on Mac OS X, so I have plenty of apt-get experience.
Haven't touched Windows for the past 8 years.
All the reasons I listed (except #4, regrettably) are personal experiences, and I thought sharing these would be amusement to someone who has suffered the same. You're apparently too new to Linux. I'm never a fanboy of anything, but you're obviously a Linux fanboy, and you're picking a fight with the wrong person.
Shoo. Get off my lawn or something.
Granted, compact discs were invented by Philips (Netherlands) and Sony (Japan), with Blu-ray a refinement over compact disc design. However, microwave oven was invented by Percy Spencer, an American engineer, while working at Raytheon. Nuclear weapon was developed for the Manhattan Project, a joint effort by U.S., U.K. and Canada.
Who says you can't have your cake and eat it?
By the way, I accept climate change because it has well-understood model and genuine scientific evidence to support the model. On the other hand, I reject evolution because it is rubbish. Rubbish, rubbish, *rubbish*!
Reason 1: getting software to work on Linux can involve compiling it from the source (this is obviously not a requirement nowadays, but you're not required to have fun by all means). What is a better way to feel the adrenaline rush than watching 'configure; make -j8; make install' output fly on in the terminal window? This is the only way we can convince ourselves we have a fast computer, and that it's doing something useful.
Reason 2: tired of mundane things? Try to solve the mysteriously convoluted dependency puzzle. Your reward of accomplishment is by having software that eventually works and stays working until the next software update. Then you get to experience the joy again.
Reason 3: when you download a source tarball, chances are it won't work, and you have to edit some source code to make it work for you. What is a better ego boost than thinking that you've outsmarted those who can do CVS/SVN commit and can't get it right?
Reason 4: it's the only operating system where you can use a filesystem designed and implemented by a suspect murderer. What character!
Reason 5: for the ex-warez addicts, it gives us a peace of mind to be able to rip off software legally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPgV6-gnQaE&fmt=18
Parent is a well known troll since 2003 or perhaps earlier. Search on Google for "gnu protective license" and you'll see it show up in the first few results.
Troll, please correct yourself. GPL stands for GNU Public License. If you're going to repost this stuff again, I want to see it corrected. Understand?
You're wrong. We know enough about the climate model to prove causation, and correlation just happens to support it. Be careful not to go into the extreme believing that correlation disproves causation, or you will not see this fairly.
Streisand effect applies when some private information is leaked about a public figure, and the person tries to protect his/her own privacy while inadvertently making that information more popular. It has to do with people's curiosity to peer into someone else's private life, but anti-censorship is most often used as an excuse.
In the case of horror movie ban, there is no person's private life involved, so Streisand effect doesn't apply. It is perhaps more similar to public ban of pornography in some countries, where people still try to stealthily distribute pornography by various means. However, pornography is fueled by people's curiosity about sex. I don't think horror movies incite people's curiosity about anything.
My own feeling is that there will still be a small percentage of people who are fatally attracted to spirituality, psychic, voodoo, and witchcraft. They will continue to smuggle these horror movies and perform cult worship. However, most people will live happily without being bothered with annoying horror movie advertisements.
Speaking of which, I was eating at a food court that has some television, and it showed a trailer of a horror movie with green slime, deteriorated tissue, fermented blood, and all this crap. Though I didn't react outrageously about it, it really disturbed my appetite. Such a dining experience!
Such as the sound of a chalk scratching the blackboard, or cutting a ceremic plate with a metal knife.
Unfortunately, many teenagers are annoyed by these sounds too, and only toddlers seem to enjoy that.
You never know how many hidden words are in a conversation like that.
Translation: "Honey, I know you've been seeing somebody, but I don't want to know about it. Please get him out of our bed---MY BED---before I get home."
All in all, the movie does a good job using non-public IP addresses, like the 555- telephone number that the reviewer made an analogy of. However, 192.168.* are all class C networks, and not all addresses prefixed with 192.* are private. For example, 192.169.* is not private, and it belongs to someone in Hawaii according to its whois information.
If a number in the IP address has only 1 or 2 digits, we never zero-prefix it to make it three digits. The IP address 192.010.125.120 really hurts my eyes. It actually is a real IP address that belongs to "Symbolics, Inc." The address 127.131.101.180 is the same as 127.0.0.1. All 127.* prefixed IP addresses are reserved for localhost. The third one, 010.191.100.122 is a non-routable intranet IP address. Whether it's valid or not depends on where the computer is.
My first reaction was to make the password file a Word document, and write the trojan as VBA macro, but at this time and age I don't know if that's still feasible. The most plausible way would be to craft a malformed Word document that causes buffer overrun when Word reads the file, executing arbitrary code to launch the payload counter-trojan. You could also embed other OLE objects so the document leverages another application's flaw to exploit Word, which gives you more options.
Windows 95, 98 and ME are successors of Windows 3.11 for Workgroups with Win32s (a subset of Win32 API). All these are glorified DOS extender.
The NT architecture is developed from scratch, finally stopped being a DOS extender. The lineage is Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, and 2000 (which is NT 5.0 as you mentioned).
(cue after 10 seconds) Just kidding.
So apparently he didn't make it, and I'm making this nth post on behalf of the would-be first poster.
Looking at the solution, the question appears to be dividing a big integer by two. The big integer is represented as an arbitrary length string of base 10 digits in least significant digit first order (little endian). The Normalize() function probably trims any trailing zero-extended digits.