Same happened to me the other week-end. It was about writing a custom iterator with Boost.Iterator. The reviewer was friendly but rejected, and no one could give me a direction to improve the article for which it would be accepted. The person also wasn't a c++ guy (his articles are more math oriented with vb and a little bit c#). Oth there is much 'spam' on this site, so if my article was in that category than it's probably best not to get published.

Thx, I experienced the same problem using CStatic::SetIcon with dynamically loaded icon thru LoadIcon. The LoadIcon function seems to scale down any icon dimension back to system defaults (e.g. (32, 32)).

Christian Graus wrote:

Yeah, unless you have a need for it, and unless you already know a few higher level languages really well, I'd say it's probably a waste of time.

I think it is great way to learn performance issues and debugging. By coding assembly one can get a feeling what is going around below the higher programming language. So any serious developper, I would advise to invest 3 months of study in assembly language. For development, that's another story. I think its counter productive to use assembly language for any project. Except for some small very critical performance parts (and maybe os development), mostly can be done in speedy languages like c and c++. And even then one can question the performance gain. Compilers are in general very good in making optimized code. Intel made its IPP library to program in higher functions and shield implementation (use of mmx variants and so)

I believe it's the glider with the highest landing speed. Of course Sojoez have crashed in the past. Space shuttle is built on technology which was hot in the 70's, which is always a risk since not all new technology prooves to be an improvement. There were plans to make the next generation space shuttles smaller. Cargo can then ben lifted with an unmanned rocket. In the mean time Atlantis has landed safely on Edwards. And now they have to get it back to Florida. Very difficult for a Boeing, for a space shuttle just postpone the descent for a few minutes.

If you have seen the documentaries on National Geographic about the disasters wtih Challenger and Columbia, you would probaly think twice if NASA flags conditions as 'no problem'. Anyway it will be turn out allright and hope that NASA final learned its leasons. Probably a complex machinery as the space shuttle with so many possible error conditions will statiscally crash once in the 100 flights on average... NASA is on track if you look at it that way.

You have your opinion and I have mine which is shared amongs a lot of scientist. I have read the article and it doens't convince me at all, although the author seems to be a professor. I hope however that I am wrong. That indeed the raise in temperature is not of human ause but some natural fluctuation. We 'll see. If I am right however there is no way back.

bryce wrote:

gee i dunno, NZ for example has been cooling in the last 10 years. Antartica is actually growing in mass, not melting.

That's exactly the greenhouse effect: locally the temperatures can actually drop, globally they are increasing. The north pole and Greenland are shrinking btw, for Antartica I do not have the numbers here.

bryce wrote:

also, The Greenhouse effect is not a fact it is a theory. An unproven theory. The is no "Consensus" on it, there is wide debate on it.

Well take a look at www.knmi.nl. Unfortunatley in dutch, but it says that scientist expect a global raise in temperature for about 1.4 to 5.8 °C the next century. I do not have to quote the whole internet and probably yourself can look up some counter arguments, but there is a common agreement about earth's raising temperature and even a common agreement that human's are the cause of it. I wish you a very nice christmas. Still I found it very disappointint that intelligent people are still living in denial.

As back as in the late 80's there were a lot of meteorologists who claimed that the rising of the earths temperature had possibly a cause in human activities. At that time the effect was ignored. 10 years later, the warming could not be ignored, and thus the argument shifted to denial of the human cause. But now it seems that everybody agree and you see the arguments are now of type 'it isn't so bad that the temperature is raising by one or two degrees globally'. How far do we have to go? Should real catastrophies break out? Remember that humans are still highly dependent on nature. All the food we eat comes from natural resources. The longer we wait for taking measurements, the harder they become. And Bush prefer to go to war instead of dealing the real issues of 21 century. The USA is the most energy consuming country and refuses to take real counter measures. They didn't even sign Kyoto, which is only about reducing the growth of emission, not even about reducing the absolute emission. About the second argument: of course there wer no weather services in the medieval period. But they can determine mean temperatures of the past. For example growth rings of trees (literal translation, I do not know the English word for it) are a clue for how warm it was in that days. This planet should be livable for humans even after our generation.

I don't know if you read newspapers, but the whole academic world is convicent of the greenhouse effect. So let all Chinese have the same car park as the USA have, and see how fast the earth will warm up then. Here in the Netherlands btw, we had the warmest year in the past 1000 year

Dear all, I have spent half an hour inventing some name for my class. Unfortunately I can not think of anything brilliant. Still a good class name is very important. Does anyone knwo if there is a class name dictionary? I have an artcicle "Naming classes - do it once and do it right" which is good but could be more elaborate. Wkr, me

#include #include "boost/assign.hpp" namespace { template struct complex_less : public std::binary_function, std::complex, bool> { bool operator()(const std::complex& rLhs, const std::complex& rRhs) const { //complex numbers don't have '<', force one here if (rLhs.real() != rRhs.real()) { return (rLhs.real() < rRhs.real()); } return (rLhs.imag() < rRhs.imag()); } }; } void TestMain() { std::list< std::complex > lst; lst = boost::assign::list_of(std::complex(1, 1)) (std::complex(2, 2)) (std::complex(2, 2)) (std::complex(0, 0)); lst.sort(complex_less()); lst.unique(); #ifdef _DEBUG std::copy(lst.begin(), lst.end(), std::ostream_iterator< std::complex >(std::cout, " ")); std::cout << std::endl; #endif }