Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

but RMS should be boycotted mostly because he is the original creator of emacs, which is an evil piece of software. Everybody should be using vim instead.

I sense good old flame war between the users of "very incomprehensible mess" and "Eight megabytes and constantly swapping" coming on :) (I swear by Emacs!)

Miszou wrote:

All of this stuff is sent in standard HTTP headers isn't it? But it doesn't matter, because "all they really need is your IP address".

That was exactly what I thought as well. For example, when I post this message my IP number, browser version and a bunch of other stuff is readily available for Code Project to read. It is only a matter of accessing the right variable in the script that reads my input, it is no more difficult that reading the words that I am typing in right now.

Jon Raynor wrote:

This would skip delete calls to items that no longer exist. The delete just deletes, it doesn't do a check on existance.

Not necessarily, unless item.contains() returns a reference (or the collection holds a reference to the last looked up element internally in some way or another) to the item it would not skip the second lookup for items that exist and will be deleted. To avoid the second lookup you would have to do something like this: ITEMREF ref = NULL; ref = list.contains(item); // NULL = no item found, non-NULL is ref to item if(ref != NULL) { BOOL bOK = list.delete(ref); if(!bOK) shoutOutErrorMessageToTheWorld(); } Maybe this is what you meant, but your pseudo code does not indicate that.

Christian Graus wrote:

How could removing an item from a list fail, so that the item is still there ?

The item could be locked in some way if your app is multi-threaded, that's one way. There could also be logical reasons for your failure, you could for example have a situation where the item you want to delete has a dependency to other items in other collections (or the same one, for that matter), and the current state would not allow for deletion of your element before the related elements have reached this or that state.

D`argo wrote:

Just a hint though: if you're using IE7 there was a bug with the Google Toolbar that stopped the "Open in new tab" feature working. I don't know if it's been fixed because I haven't downloaded the toolbar to try.

Just install it again, at least that worked for me. I guess there is something wrong with the GT you get bundled with the IE7 package, just surf your way on over to Google and get it yourself and install it and you should be fine.

Ernest Laurentin wrote:

- I started programming when I was 12yrs (w/ VIC-20 and commodore 64)(I still feel young though!)

BASIC on the C-64 at the age of 11 (may have been 10, I can't really remember), then moved on to Assembler on the same machine. It was my father who got me interested in programming, I think he realized what was about to happen in the computer industry even though he himself has never worked in that area. Today, having a job that I really, really like as a systems programmer, I am eternally grateful to him for talking me into trying to do something other than just playing Pitstop II on that C-64 :-)

Strictly speaking, it should be "these data". The word "data" is the plural form of the word "datum" (i.e, one datum, many data). However, as languages evolve over time, it is nowadays not considered to be an error to say "this data". I would never say "this data", though, since to me that is just the same as saying "this apples" or "this cars".

Why on Earth would you want to do that? (apart from some obvious reasons that are illegal, I mean...) And no, you can't bypass the login screen.

Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I have decided to not believe that gravity keeps us on this Earth. In fact, you are absolute right. It isn't gravity that keeps us on Earth. Then what is it? HELLOOOO! It is the weight of our bodies, of course! :-D

I am in no way whatsoever a Matlab expert, but what I do remember from when I was using it a couple of years back is that for-loops are generally considered to be a big no-no if you want your code to execute quickly. If you can't replace the loop with something else (what you usually do to avoid using a for-loop is to perform one or more matrix operations instead), most often you simply have to accept the slowness or compile your code. At least that's what I learned back then.

Megan Forbes wrote: But as movies, and the way they have been done, they have been excellent. Agreed. The movies aren't all that true to the books, but if they had been made to follow the books by the letter, each movie would have had to be about three times as long as they already are. As Peter Jackson (I think it was) said, just the part when the hobbits travel from The Shire to Bree could easily have been made into a three-hour movie itself. But if you want a story a bit more true to the books, get the extended versions (on DVD or VHS) which are rather much longer and (IMHO) much better. That goes especially for The Two Towers which is about 40 minutes longer than the big screen-version. With the first two parts in mind, I actually see the cinema-version of the Return of the King as a rather long trailer for the extended DVD version :)