|
Happy Birthday Paul
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey - urine luck! Fill a large bucket for them and turn it in - Tell them you could make up your minds as to which the important bits were and which weren't so important.
Should they say you really have a lot a gall - point out that it would probably require a different test.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few problems with this concept, appealing though it is. The primary concern is that Herself is going to complain - vociferously - during the initial "accumulation" phase long before the large bucket is full, and continually - with increasing stridency - during the remaining period.
Regrettably, this flaw is going to be unsurmountable, so the project will have to be abandoned.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: the project will have to be abandoned.
Whether at home, or at the NHS offices, that particular aspect was a given.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Happy birthday! 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm late to the party as always.
I'll stick a candle in an entrecôte and raise a glass of red in your general direction
|
|
|
|
|
Happy Birthday Griff!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Perusing articles, I came across Prime Number Distribution Sequence, first posted back in 2015. It currently has a score of 1.0 from 10 voters, even though the article seems well laid out, and a quick glance indicates it may contain a bit of interesting info, even if some points are invalid.
Is it really worth a score of 1.0, or is this a sign of SO-type action? Based on the biggest comment against it being a disagreement with why 2 is considered to be a prime number (although the article does treat 2 as prime, even if for the wrong reason), wouldn't a score of 2 or 3 make more sense? The article seems to have at least some meat on it for mental pondering.
I have seen articles that were complete crap that were treated better than this. It appears the author has closed their account in response to their treatment. (Although how this was updated today with what is now an inactive account is another perplexion.) This is not the only example I've seen of accounts closed because of responses the author received.
Can anyone see a reason not to vote the article a 5, to give a little offset to the score? Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
OMG!
For a moment I feared your name was Gunter! 
|
|
|
|
|
 I have missed the reference, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
I realised, afterwards, that it was very tenuous....
It's the "O'" you see. As in, "Gaunter O'Dimm". The scariest antagonist in any video game I played in a long while.
It's from the Witcher 3 DLC, Hearts of Stone.
|
|
|
|
|
It really scared the bejeezus out of me... even if I didn't like the expansion at all. Blood & Wine on the other hand is better than the base game imho.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like some cool powers! Want to make a pact?  
|
|
|
|
|
Rating systems tend to go that way. When anybody can rate something, it appears to end up in a binary mode: Perfect rating or nothing, often enough with immediate consequences for anything less than a perfect score.
I think that this sort of behavior is a sign that there is some sort of competition between users is going on. The rating system has become a 'weapon' in the competition, a means to promote 'friends' and harm 'oppnents'. The problem is, that this behavior makes the ratings worthless for anybody who is interested in the subject, not in the competition between the users.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
The voting system has the problem of going that way, because of anonymity... the probably worst part of the online life we have here...
I do not think I would vote more than 3 (possibly 2 or nothing) as the article has elementary errors (in some places it seems author try to build a private version of the numeral word)... However if you feel it worth a 5 - vote it...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the 2 or 3 verdict. To bring it up, I voted.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: (Although how this was updated today with what is now an inactive account is another perplexion.)
Because it was edited by CP-Staff.
David O'Neil wrote: It appears the author has closed their account in response to their treatment
After reading the message board... I think that most of the messages were respectful enough and the answers of the author were actually kind of arrogant and more "out of scope" than the messages he was answering.
A question: Do you think that Chris Mill deserved to be reported as he claims?
David O'Neil wrote: Can anyone see a reason not to vote the article a 5, to give a little offset to the score?
If you think it deserves it, vote it
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.
|
|
|
|
|
It starts with the rather pompous "and it also provides the first-ever analytical representation of prime numbers"
And goes on with: "our primes are 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9." I think people may be annoyed by things like that. [EDIT:] I realise that he means "our assumed primes in this case" but he is stretching the terminology beyond what I would think is academically acceptable, whilst the tone of the "paper" is trying to be academic (IMHO with not much success).
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
modified 27-Feb-19 5:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematician wars. Mathematician are even more aggressive than programmers. Well, at least, in the Internet.
There is another math/programming article in the Codeproject, where some theoretical disagreement caused mutual threats and attempt to find where the article author lives.
|
|
|
|
|
I originally voted 5 to counteract what appeared to be malicious votes.
Then I read the article. Then I read the messages. Then I removed my vote.
I won't have any part in encouraging anything from someone as arrogant as that author. Besides that, I can't recall the last time I saw an article as useless as that. It serves absolutely no purpose to anyone doing real-world programming. (Let's find prime numbers and we'll use floating point math to do it... right.) Possibly for academics but that is debatable. I don't think academics would accept "proofs" based on invalid assumptions. "Let's assume three is not a prime number ..."
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
A previous incarnation of the article was incorrectly reported as "plagiarised" back in 2014:
NOT plagiarized[^]
The author posted abusive comments to other articles, and was terminated back in January:
Abuse in article comments ... - gone[^]
(Not a reason to down-vote his article, though.)
The author appears to have gone on a targeted "down-voting" spree back in September 2014, dropping a "1" vote on all of Stefan_Lang's articles:
Latest Messages[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. His actions make me sad for him, but still not mad enough to spit on like that. Thanks for the additional info.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure he closed his account. It might have been closed for him and in my opinion that would be justified.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I’m using a RichTextBox.
How can I change the version of RichEdit in the RichTextBox?
I’ve overriden the CreateParams property.
The default values I see are as follows:
ClassName: "RichEdit20W"
ClassStyle: 8
ExStyle 512
Height: 96
Param: null
Parent: 0x00000000
Style: 1442906560
Width: 100
X: 0
Y: 0
How do I change the version of the RichEdit control?
Any Ideas?
I’m currently using VS Professional Version: 2017
.NET Version: 4.7.03062
Windows 10
Thanks
-Mike
modified 26-Feb-19 22:10pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
