|
"Instead, it mindlessly spat out biased and incorrect nonsense".
I think the criticism is unfair, sounds like its perfect for all social media. Would save significant time having to think up biased and incorrect nonsense while providing a self righteous position to argue from ('I have Science on my side!'). Meta should be lauded as forward looking geniuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Elon Musk's Nov. 4 Interview With Ron Baron at 38:30 - he talks about how badly advertisers are treating Twitter, and they hadn't made any changes to the platform... And those damn activist groups scared off the advertisers (not the fact that those advertisers saw more hate speech on Twitter) - First Amendment! Make the spend their money with us! 
Amazing to read all the comments there and contrast it to the current situation.
"If a social media company is not taking steps to make it positive to be on that social platform the people won't come, or they'll leave, you know. ... Who is going to stay on a platform if [antisemitism/racism is] prevalent?..." -vs- I'm all for free speech! Bring back everyone who has been banned! - more
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised by the results of straw poll.
I voted that "." was part of the extension.
How else would you know it was an extension?
I don't get it.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
That's the point 
|
|
|
|
|
exactly. If one saw ".for", one would expect that to be an extension reference without context, but "for" would be not be so clear as an extension. mycode.for Fortran code.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Consider, for instance, an open range, defined by
a < x < b Now, you know the range because you know both a and b, however, none of them is part of the range.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
You have the same problem with path separators: If the slash is not part of the preceding directory name, how do you know that it is a directory name?
So the slash (or backslash, depending on OS) must be part of the directory name.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, just delimiters which are added when the path/name is formatted as a string for a particular purpose, primarily as aids to human readability.
The delimiters do not exist in the file system itself -- definitely not in FAT at least, and probably not in any others.
If someone has first name John and last name Smith, you may see it expressed as a string as "Smith, John" -- the comma is not part of either name, it is just an artifact of that particular formatting. Asking which name it is part of is nonsensical.
And other purposes may require other formattings, such as: <Name First='John' Last='Smith' />
The situation is more obvious with all the various ways people format dates and times within their cultures.
If you split the parts of the path/name into substrings, one substring per part of the full path/name, then there is no longer any need for the delimiters.
A UNC path to a file may be: \\SMITH\COMMON\Data\Today\Myfile.dat
while on OpenVMS I may refer to the same file as: SMITH::COMMON:[Data.Today]MyFile.dat
It just formatting for a particular purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer: SMITHCOMMONDataTodayMyfiledat without any delimiters. Forces the file system to use black magick.
|
|
|
|
|
Why limit yourself to printable characters? There must be some non-printable Unicode characters that are acceptable to the file-system. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully not a null character
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Why to use characters? You can directly use 1s and 0s 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted it was not part of the extension based on the old 8.3 filename standard.
Also when describing a file I would say 'It's a PNG' rather than 'It's a .PNG'
The first time I used Path.GetExtension() I was wrong about what it returns. I suspect they applied the same rules to filenames as they did to TLDs (.COM, rather than COM) etc. Oh well, no big deal.
Technically it is part of the filename, but so is the extension. The bit before the last dot is the base filename.
All in all, file extensions are a bit of a head-scratcher. Having file metadata as part of the filename is plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
It is part of neither the name nor the extension. It is a delimiter, based on a format.
You might as well ask whether the decimal point is part of the whole number or the fractional of a floating-point value.
It is part of neither and its very existence is merely due to the application of a format.
For example 100.5 is just one way of formatting that particular value, with some others being: 100,5 , 100 + 1/2 , 1.005E+2 .
|
|
|
|
|
*nix file systems don't really have a concept of an 'extension', the way FAT and numerous other file systems have. A file named 'source.c' has an eight character file name, every character represented in the name field, including the dot.
Because so many other file systems have an explicit 'extension', 'type' or whatever it is called, field, even *nix people have started referring to the '.c' as the extension. Technically, it isn't. It is all part of the file name. If your *nix application wants to split up the file name to two pieces and call the second piece the 'extension', your code must search for the (last) dot - which is certainly present in the file name. The file system does not see it as a separator, but as a name character.
|
|
|
|
|
mixing apples and oranges. Not that important. just a way to understand file names.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I've been called out of retirement to deal with some legacy issues.
Got myself a stand alone computer with XPSp2 installed, and installed VS97, original version, bought on Ebay.
Two Issues:-
(1)
The Original VS97 version has "issues" such as hanging at building, dodgy resource Editor, etc. Does anyone know where to find the Service Packs to hopefully resolve these issues?
(2)
The Help Files do not work, because at the time of XPSP2 they had become a Security risk.
From memory, it was a matter of changing a Registry key to put them back into action. Does anyone remember which key, and what to change to.
Any help is much appreciated.
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you can ask someone who has (or had) an MSDN subscription, they used to deliver software on CD's in the past, but now it probably still can be downloaded.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a file called VisualStudio97 SP3.iso, 184MB. Point me to a site where I can upload it and I'll be happy to send you a copy. I've probably created that ISO from an MSDN CD I had at one point.
I remember the problem with the help files. Right-click on an .hlp, select Properties, and see if the Unblock checkmark is there. If it is, select it, click Apply. Or it might have to do with the file being stored remotely...something like that anyway. The other posters in this thread have probably already provided a better answer for that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't the obvious solution be to downgrade to Windows XP SP0 (base release)?
I have Visual Studio 97 in my archives. Not sure if I have the service packs. I might look, or I can finish this bottle of red wine.
Bram van Kampen wrote: The Help Files do not work, because at the time of XPSP2 they had become a Security risk.
The Internet Archive has the viewer.
Please consider donating if you find the archive useful. They are a valuable resource. 
UPDATE:
Yes, it's an hour or so later. I don't have the service packs archived. I'm sorry.
However I looked over on the Internet Archive and they do have it:
MSDN VisualStudio 97 SP3 December 1997 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Yeah, at this point I insist that someone reading this donate a few bucks. It's keeping 25 year old service packs available. That's really amazing. Even the MSDN subscribers downloads deleted it a few years ago.
modified 19-Nov-22 17:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We have two cats - a 2.5 year old named Simba and a 4-month old named Koko. Both are with us since kittens, and are used to our place and surroundings. They go out of house and attend their call of nature, and come back and sleep inside the house.
Now, a necessity is felt to relocate to a different house, about 5 km away, in the same city. Will both of our cats acclimatize to the new surroundings? What precautions should we take such that they dont get lost there? We don't want to lose them, or also endanger their lives.
All words of advice are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Keep them indoors for at least a few weeks/months at the new home.
So they realise this is home now, and they will get fed here, and you will be here.
Females are less likely to travel far.
Males may try and find their old home.
If you can afford it, look into GPS tracking devices? In case they escape... cause they will try.
When I relocated two cats, one Male, one Female, the female was fine, the male disappeared for over a week.
Then one day came back to the new house as if nothing had happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Both our cats are male, and so we've to be extra cautious in not letting them go away.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
