RyanJ

all up until I took the gloves off

there was a hole' date=' the skin came off down to flesh with a simple press of a fingernain, and the 2 fingernails were like gelatine, I put my hand in a bowl of vinigar after seeing this (nothing hurt at all up until this point, I didn`t feel a thing!!!!) a few days later the skin was all yellow and would crack and split with the slightest movement, took a good month to heal properly again

and the one nail has never been 100% right ever since.

 

so the warning here is to Check your Gloves TOO before messing with such chems![/quote']

 

 

OOO Nasty... I have only ever had mild contact with sodiun hydroxide, it made my skin go white and sort of line soap but no real damage I don't think.

 

Worst I have ever seen was when somebody in the chemistry class a year above us got sprayed with nitric acid... must have been quite bad because they rushed him to the hospital... then again thats probably standard for chemical injuries of any kind.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

Here are some more that add to what encipher has already said:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/csref/html/vcwlkunsafecodetutorial.asp

^ Simple tutorial from MS.

http://www.softsteel.co.uk/tutorials/cSharp/cIndex.html

http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tipstricks.asp

Last one is general .NET stuff but it may help

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Clearly BULL$hit' date=' any explosion capable of making a hole in the Side of an OPEN TOP Metal bucket, you`de have not only lost your hand and lighter, but your face too!

 

and so, either pedal your BS elsewhere or treat us with a little more respect as we`re NOT Fools nor born yesterday! and have little time for this brand of crap!

 

think about it, and Have a Nice Day [/quote']

 

I believe this is another myth...

 

 

Stay away from explosions or you'll end up missing parts of your body...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

'']Hmm anyone se Legend of Zorro how they exaggurated so much of Nitroglycerin's ablitiy. like how woulld a drop of NG explode on the top of the guys head, the worst thing that would do is give him rather a bad nitro headache as it gets absorbed in to the skin.

Or better a film called vertical limit, since when is NG red for one? Also, they say its so unstable that light would detonate it...

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Here is an idea, if you want to fake a file type, make your own and then assign it the icon you want. This can allow you to "fake" a zip file or anything else.

As for global hooks, I suggest you look at MSDN, something like this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/10/CuttingEdge/

There are loads of others there that explain how you could impliment them

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

I don't see how that works out. From this example' date=' you'd end up with 4! (or 24) over 4! (because (4-4)! = 0! = 1) * 4!

 

That would be 24 / 24 = 1, no? And there isn't 1 possibility here. I'm probably doing the problem wrong, though, because I don't deal with factorials often yet. Can someone tell me what's up?[/quote']

 

Maybe it should have been the permitation formula and not the combination formula.

 

[math]

\frac{n!}{(n - r)!}

[/math]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinations_and_permutations

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

I believe the equation you are looking for is:

[math]\frac{n!}{(n - r)!r!}[/math]

Where n is the number of objects (In your case 4) and r is the number of objects to be chosen (4 again)

Substitute the values and you'll have an answer

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

And you were wrong, because "open source" has no connotation on what the software costs to download at all (only the source code), contrary to what you said. That is the point drochaid and I have been making.

I was talking abut the source code and always have been talking about the source code.

I'm just going to give up trying to explain what I am saying and hit my head against the wall instead.

Yes I know you did and I agreed with you :S I simply replied to drochaid to point out what OS was

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

The GPL only restricts the charges on distribution for the source code itself, and not the program. I could charge people $50 for giving them a copy of a FF CD (as Firefox is now relicensed under the GPL) along with a note explaining how to get the source code for free.

... So whats the problem? the source is still free? My point exactly.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Suppose they didn't offer a Linux version. They could still charge money for the Windows version.

Yea they could but not for the code its self, the bandwidth or whatever yes but the code no otherwise its not accessible to anyone and everyone. Its like people who distribute Firefox on CD with the code, you pay for the disks but not for the code.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Then you accept that open-source licenses can and do put restrictions on redistribution and the cost of the software itself.

Its not really a restriction, notifying an author that your using a part of the code is not really a restriction as I see it. As for paying, shure its allowed but you don't have to... like your example you could simply download the other version and convert it yourself thus avoiding all costs but its easier to just pay for the code then to do it your self. As I said in one of my earlier posts, they can't charge you for the source but they can charge for work, bandwidth costs etc.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

The Reciprocal Public License, approved by the Open Source Institute, puts limits on what you can charge for your modifications and requires you to tell the original developer before publishing a modified version.

In that case I stand corrected on that part.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Ok so are you saying im right? That a missle that explodes a car would rip anyone in near vicinity to shreds before slamming you against a car?

 

Thanks

The explosion would cause pieces of car to be removed and thrown with a hell of a lot of force and energy shredding the person, then we have the shock wave that would tear the body appart inside... its like a crash, its not the actuall crash that kills you - its the stopping

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

No. The GPL is not the only open-source license, and even then, GPLed products can be sold. Take, for example, X-Chat for Windows. X-Chat is released under the GPL, but for Windows you must pay $20 due to the time it takes to port it. Others have taken the time to port it as well, and are free to give away their ports without violating the license.

Yes, as I said earlier it puts no limit on nwhat you can chanrge for it. As is the case with anything, you could download the Linux version and modify it to work under Windows yourself - you'r not paying for the code but the work that has been done.

They're not the only open-source software. You can't redefine open-source as "freely downloadable and redistributed" - copyleft clauses are not present in all of the open-source licenses.

Yup, I know that - I only know of a few that actually use it.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Oh wow' date=' a whole year. Well that certainly pales my two decades of knowledge and fifteen years of actively studying, selecting and using various commercial and non-commercial licenses. I'd better race out and alter all the software I've written and let the projects I've been involved in know what a big mistake we've all been making by following reality instead of your closed minded view of such a large and complex field.

 

Oh wait a minute, I've just been remembering some of the other false opinions you hold about computing and how much of a joke you come across as at times. I'm still laughing at your ability to use IP without actually using IP.

 

Ho hum, back to reality and people who know what they're talking about.[/quote']

 

I've written plenty of projects - I think the people who actually wrote the drafts for the original OS definitions known best about what it says you can and can't do. Put simply OS says that the code is freely accessible to everyone, can be downloaded and modified without restriction and can be re-used as part of other projects. Anything not following those is not open source even if they lable it as such. The Mozilla lisence for example is an extension to the lisence but it can't change the original definition.

 

There are lots of lisences that all do the same job with slight variations depending on the project but the idea remains the same.

 

- Ryan Jones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireproofing

May prove useful for you

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Nope, nope and tripple nope. ID is not a science and has no link to any science at all. Haven't we had this question lot of times before...?

Its not going to happen, ever. Religion and science should be kept apart and ID is not part of science at all.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

So the equations do not strictly forbid negative mass (and negative energy from existing)? I also agree with 5614, I don't think there is negative mass.

Too me it makes no sence that something can have less then no mass.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

Uh' date=' no. It ensures the code is available for the period of time the copyright holders choose to make it available for.

 

If you download and modify the PGP code, you are in breach of the license. This is theft.[/quote']

 

Then its not open source, open source puts no limits on its use at all, if it does then its not open source. (Not quite true but its close enough) Shure the developers can ask you to pay a price to download the code for bandwidth or whatever but they can't ask you to pay for the code its self. There are things like the copyleft clause that if invoked ask the user to contribute somehting back but thats about it.

 

As for Firefox and OpenOffice.org (I assume that's what you mean rather than Open Office which is actually a trademark owned by a German company and nothing to do with the popular office suite) you can edit the code in any way you see fit' date=' that's what THEIR license allows. Please stop confusing the issues.[/quote']

 

Actually I believe you are confusing the issue here. I know exactly what I'm taking about, open source is open source is open source, its ecactly what it says on the tin, software you can download, edit and contribute too without having to pay.

 

No' date=' free is free, Free is Free and FREE is FREE .. each is quite different in terms of legality and license allowances. While all of these are Open Source, not all Open Source is free (or Free or FREE). That is entirely down to the license (existing or custom written) the developers choose to release under. If you use Open Source software which is released under a commercial license which requires you to pay, and you do not pay, you are a thief.[/quote']

 

Again its not open source. By definition the open source lisence allows you to download / have the code freely available. There is no room for argument here, the legality of open source is clear. Firefox and Open Office are clear examples of open source software, software you can download, modify and use parts of as and where you like given credit.

 

Yes, I'm well aware of Perens attempt at defining Open Source (more than two decades late). Sadly, choosing to define OS from an FSF viewpoint (even tho Stallman rejects Perens OS view) does nothing to diminsh the very strong existing and common OS use and legality. Perhaps a little more research would be advised before you offer such a blatant and easily dismissable source next time.

 

It wouldn't actually be that difficult. They would only need to buy AOL and remove all the funded developers from the project. Same option if they bought Sun and removed their funded developers from OOo. Or Skrix and removed their funded developers from OGo. The simple fact is' date=' in many of the most high profile projects out there, the "community involvement" at code level is apallingly small. The OOo OSX is just 4 people, because Sun have no interest in OSX.

 

Oh, and don't forget MS now operates an Open Source option to certain select clients, but with the expected end point of those clients being unable to do anything except look.[/quote']

 

Yes where it suits them... they are too damn greedy to make everything open source because they fear competition and thats one reason why they will fail in the end.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license

 

An open-source license is a copyright license for computer software that makes the source code available under terms that allow for modification and redistribution without having to pay the original author. Such licenses may have additional restrictions such as a requirement to preserve the name of the authors and the copyright statement within the code. One popular (and sometimes considered normative) set of open source licenses are those approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) based on their Open Source Definition (OSD).

 

I know enough about the open source lisences because I spent a year of study in ICT studying the effects, uses and benefits of open source software.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

OOOOOOOOH no it doesn't. Open Source has absolutely NO connotation on cost whatsoever. It also has no connotation on the software actually being available. Admitedly Free sotware doesn't need to be free, but at least it does need to be available (with the odd exception).

It does not say anything about costs, no-one ever said it did. it does however enshure that the source code is always available to anyone that wants it without question.

Two specific examples of Open Source software that goes against your beliefs:

 

1. PGP. The PGP code license allows you to view the sourcecode to ensure peer review is possible' date=' but you are not allowed to use that code, only view it.[/quote']

 

Only if you want to contribute the project as a whole. You can download the code and modifty it yourself if you were so eager This is for a good reason, don't want people injecting evil code into the mix. Firefox and Open Office use the same method.

 

Open source is free... do you see me paying to use Firefox and get a key to make it work...? Nope. Same for open office. They can choose to make you pay, there is no law against it but why pay when you can download and compile yourself anyway?

 

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

 

^ Read it any time you like, if its open source then it follows those rules, if it does not then its not open source. The code must be freely downloadable (or distributed with the product) and as its open source you can use any part of the code as and how you like as long as you say where it came from (and if the copyleft clause is used then any changes must be sent back too).

 

People ask why MS don't simply buy mozilla and shut it down to stop Firefox... it would not work because the open source lisence says it will remain open source in any case so anotehr group of developers could take up the job without any problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

I've never seen one of those yet. Would be nice tho..

What do you mean? Anything open souce for one gives you the right to do just that.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones

A team of researchers at Washington University in St. Louis has found a protein that has been found to play a major part in the deactivation of genes. We understand how these are disabled but the question of how the genes to be disabled are chosen is unknown.

If we can ever find the choice mechanism could we then harness this to disable faulty genes in people? Only time will tell but it looks promising.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060505114437.htm

- Ryan Jones

We have all heard the theory that life may have originated somewhere else in the universe and then came to Earth on the back of a comet -- well, this may be partially true.

Researchers used a microscopic imaging technique have shown that some meteorites can and do contain simple organic compunds, some up to 7%!

Could this mean life came from or was kick-started by an asteroid? This we don't yet know but the possibility is there.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060505192530.htm

- Ryan Jones

I prefer license agreements that say "You may freely redistribute this software, with proper credit given to the original author" and nothing else.

Yup, anything along those lines... MS are just money hungry and greedy... Long live free software and better still open source software.

Cheers,

Ryan Jones