That is a good book. I don't think you "have" to get the latest edition since the language really hasn't changed much (with the exception of Managed C++ which is not usually in Ansi C++ books). Since you already have programming experience, there is another book I recommend "C++ Nuts and Bolts". I still use that book as a reference when I'm asked to go back to C++.

Hi, It looks like if you're a profesionnal programmer (thus already having some experience), this book ('C++ Primer Plus') isn't quite the one you need. I think you should pick this book: 1. 'Accelerated C++ : Practical Programming by Example' It belongs to the 'C++ In-Depth' Series edited by Bjarne Stroustrup himself Of course the other books of the series are of very high quality too, but these two might well be what you're looking for. (Except maybe 'Essential C++', which isn't really recommended) Plus, the book doesn't take the dumb 'let's make it C-wise, then C++-wise' approach of way too many C++ books out there. Alternately, there's another good book, and this one's free... 2. 'Thinking in C++' - http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/ThinkingInCPP2e.html If you like to really understand C++ in long-term. The only 'issue' might be that this book is rather a book for people migrating from C to C++, but don't fear it. It doesn't cost too much to download it and see if it suits your needs ;-) And you might like the fact that the authors of these books teach you things like STL usage very early on. Have fun learning C++, 'cause if you don't do what you like, you have to like what you do :-)

Michael Martin wrote: Please, start up a company, I'll come work for you. Sorry don't understand what you want, can't do the job. But don't fire me and give me a raise, it ain't my fault I'm stupid, don't give a rat's arse and ain't half the worker Joe is. Don't compare me to everyone else, this ain't communist China you know. I'm trying my best. I never said to hire idiots. I said we shouldn't compare children to each other because that isn't what we do as adults. We should pick the best and smartest people for our companies however that in no way translates into "you can be a slacker all you want and not get fired". Parents and/or Teachers should teach children to live up to their potential not be slackers. Being smart would actually mean something then. Currently it just means "I memorized more useless facts than you." Michael Martin wrote: Lovely, so trailer trash can home school as well. Anyone and everyone should have the right to home school. If you put a limit on it based on the IQ of the parent then what stops you from putting a limit on it based on color of skin or religion? Michael Martin wrote: When the average child got what level of schooling? 3rd grage? 6th? And yet they were still "smarter" than most kids these days. It was those 3rd or 6th grade educated kids that were the great inventors of America. It was in there common sense approach that helped them solve problems and build our nation. Kids that are taught to conform don't have common sense and they can't problem solve. Kids need to be taught to think not just memorize facts. Home schooled kids actually learn to think while kids in schools just memorize facts long enough to take a test and then they forget them. If you are going to argue against my points please THINK about what you are typing first. Don't give some pre-programmed response. -Richard

Toasty0 wrote: Firefox pukes if you use a nested table (or at least earlier vversions did). I haven't seen that since it was called Firebird... Oh geez... the forum keeps spinning... you'll take care o f it i'm sure, c'ause ... yeah, i neede this. *cough* anyway good job finding the bug. -Shog9 on...a Firefox bug.

Good info, but it's not a SP site. It's an old ASP application that I'm working on rewriting.

I wont (and I dont) ;P xacc.ide-0.1.3.9 - Now with Language Designer

Hi there. In 2.0 you can use the MaintainScrollPositionOnPostBack attribute of the @Page declaration: <%@ Page Language="C#" MaintainScrollPositionOnPostBack="true" %>

:laugh: nicko

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I really get annoyed when people claim bad requirements. That is part of the developers job and UML is a good way to make the requirments clearer. Like i said, if you're really using 'em, great! It's when they're magic beans that things get ugly. :) ---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums

The poor folks who copied the ribbon from O12 beta 1 have got some work to do, since the ribbon's real final design looks much different. :doh: --Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | NEW!! PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ

It really depends on what you are going to do with the information. If all that will ever happen is that the phone number gets displayed on the screen for a customer services person to see and then dial the number then having phone1, phone2 etc. is probably fine. If you are storing more than just the phone number you might consider normalising it. e.g. for each phone number you are going to put what type of number it is (work, home, mobile, fax, etc.) and maybe a description, e.g. "Available between 9:00 and 18:00" Alternatively, if you are going to do any serious processing with phone numbers (and I really can't imagine what that could be outside of a telco or automated call centre scenario) then you would be better normalising the data otherwise the SQL will get horrendous. ColinMackay.net Scottish Developers are looking for speakers for user group sessions over the next few months. Do you want to know more?

I usually read through the material once or twice to get the jist of it. Then I take the book to the computer and go over the material again, coding as I go. --Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | NEW!! PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ

Only in the US. In the UK it's a five-letter word...

The are exceptions to every scenario, and it's good for you that you are capable of handling it. I dont think most people could (over a longer period)... especially if you have a family (which I do). I should point out that for a while (when I was doing the two job route) that I felt exactly how you are feeling now. The problem (in my case) is that it did not last. As I mentioned it eventually left me drained and unable to focus on the main part of my business. Quite conceivable it was because of the nature of the second job. It was engineering for land development (two different consulting type jobs). Problem was that the land development work got "hot" and deadlines were fierce. It always seemed that my 'main' job was getting second fiddle. I got great money but the main focus of my busineess was faltering. Perhaps if I worked as a security guard or a video store I might have been better positioned to handle the work. I still think my advise is sound but it is only a suggestion not a rule. Cheers, David

Why shouldn't they. The only products they earn money with are windows and office. Don't try it, just do it! ;-)

It was a state job, they said it was for secuity reasons that I could not be notified anymore than that. I wouldn't have complained so much if they would have given me a month notice or pay :) -Richard

Stan Shannon wrote: It is my understanding that it does not predict that. That, in fact, quantum mechanics and realativity contridict each other in ways significant enough that both cannot be valid. From wilipedia[^]: Mechanics can be subdivided into classical mechanics, relativistic mechanics, non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and relativistic quantum mechanics (quantum field theory). Dirac came up with the first successful relatvisic quantum wave equation, which not only required a particle with half integer spin like the electron, but predicted anti-matter before it was discovered in cosmic rays. Also, the entire field of particle physics is based on the mass-energy relationship and is one of the strongest validations of the principle. Also, decay times of particles and the energy to velocity relationship for particles going something like .999999999c are verified in particle accelerators all the time. Special relativity and qunatum mechanics agree to a level of precision unrivaled by any other physical science. In fact, all the units of measure except mass are based on relativistic quantum mechanics. Here is where the theory breaks down. Predicting the masses of particles, and quantum gravity. Field theory predicts that particles will have infinite mass, but if you replace the infities with the measured values, everything works out. So, it's predictive power is limited, but it agrees completely with the measured values. Which is ok because plain general and special relativity just accept masses as input values anyway. You need quantum theory to have "quantized" masses to begin with. As far as quantum gravity goes, we are somewhere in the ether stages. There are a number of competing theories, each one stranger then the last. I've only studied quantum mechanics for 4 semseters, which just got me to somewhere in the mid-1920's level of knowledge. Someone like John could tell you alot more about this stuff, but from the way I understand it, Quantum Mechanics only deals with particles in a space as distributions in that space. It doesn't have any way to treat changes to the geometry of the space that it is emeded in. General Relativity is a theory that couples the geometry of a space to the masses that are embeded in it. I think that is what must be overcome. What really suc

Hi Richard, As you superclass the Panel control, so if you use a designer for the control you either use the ReadWriteControlDesigner or a custom designer which inherits from the ReadWriteControlDesigner like PanelDesigner. At design time, you can drag/drop controls from the Toolbox onto your custom control, however, the control is not rendered properly in the design window because the GetDesignTimeHTML method is not called. If you use the ControlDesigner instead you can see the custom control displayed correctly as the GetDesignTimeHTML method is called, but you cannot drag/drop child controls any more. So there two things come to mind: + You don't programmatically add the label control in code, instead you can declare it in the ToolboxData attribute: [ToolboxData("<{0}:MyBar runat=server><asp:Label runat=server>Hello World</asp:Label></{0}:MyBar>")] public class MyBar : System.Web.UI.WebControls.Panel { ... } The downside of this way is clear when you want to add many child controls in your custom container control by default. + You may think of developing a template control.

if u have custom properties on that control property, be sure to use [DefaultValue(false)] on the properties if they are primitive types (int,string etc.). If u have object properties use the [DesignerSerializationVisibility(DesignerSerializationVisibility.Content)] attribute and go into that object and use the [DefaultValue(false)] attribute. etc. etc.