Nathan Addy wrote: Does that work for both of us? Absolutely. But that makes both of us radical right wing extremists - once you add issues like abortion,gay rights, civil rights, prayer in school, etc, to the list of things that can be decided by the states and local communities. Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about

Looking at it, I guess it can be done that way. It's not that easy though. In preferences, you can globally select a dictionary. So I could make a copy of the dictionary, use that, and then switch back after I'm done. So that is totally possible, it's just a lot of work, and seems feels pretty "hacky" to me still.

In today's world I think there is a greater divide on the platforms for "application" programming as Windows is moving more to .NET WPF, WCF type systems, which is a vast change from old Windows API type development where even C++ looks alien. Developing platform independent code will grow harder in the near future. So, I probably would not worry about if compiling a program with tools on Windows will be a barrier their are much bigger fish to fry. That said though, the newer technologies available under .NET are really making it much easer to write software, although for most that means in another language (such as C# or VB.NET, C++ for most people - hey Nish, I said most people :) - does not cut it in .NET). C# for example keeps evolving and has become (3.0) quite a nice development lanaguage. I agree that you could pick up one of the free versions (Express editions) of Visual Studio and play around. For those that like the command line life, there are still command line tools on Windows, but many developers like myself, have became lazy and just use the GUI ;) Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: OpenID - More thought - Great system if.. Latest Tech Blog Post: Corel Lightning - what is the plan?

I am a licensed beagle. We don't know crap. We only think we do. Years ago my then-5-yr-old son asked me "Daddy, what do you do?" And I explained to him that as an attorney you go to school, then high school, then college, then three years of law school; then you take a reasonably tough exam where half of the people taking it usually don't pass (California, anyway). And then you take an identical set of facts (say a signed contract) and go argue about it with somebody else with at least as much training, trying to decide what those facts really mean, in front of a judge who's had as much or more training and generally more experience. Then after you get done and a decision is handed down, one side is usually unhappier than the other with the result, so you can file an appeal. And the cycle continues. Another caveat: the advice you get from an attorney today, even if reasonably accurate today, can change with political pressures, changing priorities (until recently, I never thought twice about bringing bottled water onto an airplane), the whimsical decision of an appellate court. And then the legislature (federal, state, even local) changes a law - and there are precious few attorneys who feel an ethical obligation to go back through their files and see what advice they've given might be impacted by the (literally thousands of) changes that come out over the course of a year. And we argue about legislative intent: what did the lawmakers really mean? And with all of the posturing today, what "I" meant when I drafted, sponsored and/or voted for a statute has a highly political component. It's just as bad on the enforcement side (I used to be a cop, too). Laws (apparently) passed to thwart terrorism have been used to charge people involved in incidents of domestic violence (with "use of terrorist threats") simply because the alleged (really "alleged" - a factually innocent person) perpetrator had gone through basic Marine Corps training. I could go on and on. Don't trust the legislators to pass wise (or good) laws. Don't trust John Law to enforce it (gun control, borders) or to use it "appropriately" (by whose definition?). Don't trust attorneys or the system to convict or acquit appropriately (the system found OJ legally not guilty, but do YOU believe he was factually innocent?). To the root question about crawlers: the common wisdom expressed by the folks posting here is probably close to the actual result you'll get in the long run. And if you get stung because some local, state or f

There's the C++ section at http://www.codeproject.com/cpp[^] cheers, Chris Maunder CodeProject.com : C++ MVP

Awesome. Responce has been pretty darn positive and I am very pleased. Thanks for all the great responses, everybody. I guess the only thing to do is fire up Ye Olde Microsoft Worde and get cracking...

http://www.brinkster.com/[^] Deepak Kumar Vasudevan Personal Web: http://vdeepakkumar.netfirms.com/ I Blog At: http://deepak.blogdrive.com/

If I remember correctly, MSDN Documentation writes out to the temp folder as you use it. So much so, that I have to clean out my Temp folder regularly while using MSDN Docs for development. Barry Etter

A rough guess: map1[0,1] = ? map1[0,2] = ? ... map2[0,1] = ? map2[0,2] = ? ... join(map1,map2); new_map1[0,1] = ? new_map1[0,2] = ? ... Possible Solution: void shift_keys(map_type& map, map_type::size_type amt) { // create new map with adjusted keys map_type new_map(map); map_type::iterator mi = map.begin(); for( ; mi != map.end(); ++mi ) new_map[std:make_pair((mi->first).first+amt,(mi->first).second+amt)] = mi->second; map.swap(new_map); } vod join(map_type& map1,map_type& map2) { map_type new_map(map2) shift_keys(map2,map1.size()); // join new_map to map1 map_type::iterator mi = new_map.begin(); for( ; mi != new_map.end(); ++mi ) map1[mi->first] = mi->second; } This is an incomplete solution (off the top of my head). It should successfully join the two maps. Example: join(map1,map2); map1[0,1] = ? map1[0,2] = ? .. map1[2,3] = ? map1[2,4] = ? ... I hope that helps you figure out the problem. Maps allow only one entry per-key; therefore, you have to change any key values in map2 that may be the same as a key values in map1 before you attempt to join them. It may be more complicated than that, but I have essentially used simular code to join two maps. INTP "The more help VB provides VB programmers, the more miserable your life as a C++ programmer becomes." Andrew W. Troelsen

an older method is the handshake method. That's how the old modems work if I'm not mistaken. Suppose Program A and B A writes a file to disk for B to read and waits until B replies with a file. In the meantime B picks up the file, reads the data and replies to A etc etc. The method is quite old and there are probably better ways, but it still works. good luck. No hurries, no worries.

Yes, it is possible with different hardware profiles. (It has been done at my previos workplace, one HW profile for development, and one HW profile for testing). At home I had dual-boot pc, with Win98 for my kids games and Win2K for working and all worked nice. (Dual boot is another solution) -- **Ricky Marek** (_AKA: rbid_) -- "Things are only impossible until they are not" --- Jean-Luc Picard My articles

:doh: Oh my, too early in the morning. Thanks.

I've been in and out. :) Actually, all the bickering in the Soap Box has kind of turned me off of chatting here, but I still read the articles (sheesh, I sound like I'm trying to explain away the Playboy in my nightstand), and I've been lurking around the Lounge regularly. BTW, congrats on your new position with CP. What are you doing? Jon Sagara "the good thing about hitting your head against a wall is when you stop" -- l a u r e n's Web page My Articles

Excellent advice, sir! That's exactly what I was looking for. Can't believe I've never stumbled on it beore. :cool:

jhaga wrote: The computer shuts down after some seconds so it can't be the processor fan. Even without a heat sink or a fan the computer should work for some minutes. One the computers here with Althlons, they only last about 10 seconds without a fan!! :(( I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe Jerry Davis http://www.astad.org http://www.jvf.co.uk

Rob Manderson wrote: Interestingly enough, Terry, I came away from this story with serious reservations. I read it to the end. I also read it to the end. While most here would agree that the society depicted in that story would be a neat way to live, we must realize that it ignores human nature. I know I would be bored shitless in such a place. I would prefer to fight my battles here in the decadent west and carve out my riches through my own effort than to live the life of a mediocre eunuch surrounded by a billion other eunuchs. The people who say they don't desire the thrill of conquest and the pride of the conqueror are the people too timid to make a name for themselves. And the last thing I want would be to live amongst such sheep for the rest of my life. Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats! What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!