 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Adventures with digital painting
Date: 13 Mar 2008 16:54:38
Message: <47d9a29e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> But anyway, why worry? Just stop using Tcl. ;-)
For some reason that reminded me of...
<FarSide> i had a guide that told u to put the 1.1.3 firmware file on
the touch
<Brethil> It will be way faster even if you decrypt it on your computer
and put the decrypted.dmg file on your iPod (should work, but I'm not
100% sure
<FarSide> then run the upgrade
<PovAddict> FarSide: I did that to save myself from a hour-long download
<PovAddict> but the iPod still did decryption, extraction, patching, etc
<FarSide> i chose the ron popeal method...set it and forget it
<FarSide> i just went to bed
<FarSide> lol
<PovAddict> okay, time to try this again
<PovAddict> ah wait... to copy the firmware I need ssh
<PovAddict> to install ssh I need BSD subsystem
<PovAddict> BSD subsystem messes with Cydia (which I haven't installed yet)
<FarSide> yup
<PovAddict> or, I could install Cydia and get saurik's ssh
<Brethil> you can also use iPHUC
<Brethil> to copy over usb
<FarSide> i just suggest suicide
<FarSide> a lot easier
<FarSide> lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> With dd you could copy any section of the file into a new one.
But again, it would take a long time to copy that. The point is to not
slog a half a terabyte of data from one disk to another in order to do
the processing.
It works out OK. It just takes surprisingly long. :-) It's automated at
this point, unless I specifically take it off automation, so it's not
like I'm waiting for it. It just kind of surprised me that deleting a
big file could take over a minute. Must be the ext3 journaling or
something going on. Ext was never really optimized for big files.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> With dd you could copy any section of the file into a new one.
>
> But again, it would take a long time to copy that. The point is to not
> slog a half a terabyte of data from one disk to another in order to do
> the processing.
>
> It works out OK. It just takes surprisingly long. :-) It's automated at
> this point, unless I specifically take it off automation, so it's not
> like I'm waiting for it. It just kind of surprised me that deleting a
> big file could take over a minute. Must be the ext3 journaling or
> something going on. Ext was never really optimized for big files.
What do you do with the small section once you cut it? Can't you use
pipes to avoid so many temporary files?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Autoconf doesn't make C portable
>
> It only makes the C program to compile and work in a multitude of
> different architectures. Yeah, it doesn't make it portable, only portable.
>
That's the idea behind metaprogramming, after all. You write something
that gets turned into code for whatever your actual situation is :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> What do you do with the small section once you cut it? Can't you use
> pipes to avoid so many temporary files?
We don't know which ones we're keeping until some time later. Normally
about 10 hours later, if it's automated, or as much as a week if I let
it pile up while I'm doing something else.
As for what we're doing with it, I'll have to defer answering that until
our company goes "live" in a couple weeks.
http://www.skyclix.com/
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> That's the idea behind metaprogramming, after all. You write something
> that gets turned into code for whatever your actual situation is :)
And if the metaprogramming was built into the compiler, I'd agree that C
is nicely portable. :-)
C isn't portable. C + autoconf + the dozen tools that autoconf depends
on + knowing all the arcane invocations you need to include to use
autoconf is what's portable.
I mean, heck, 6502 assembler is portable, if you write a program to
interpret it on a bunch of other machines, yes?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47da9a40@news.povray.org...
> As for what we're doing with it, I'll have to defer answering that until
> our company goes "live" in a couple weeks.
>
> http://www.skyclix.com/
According to Google it's about delivering targeted ads based on
automagically recognised audio (rather than text) samples.
G.
--
*****************************
http://www.oyonale.com
*****************************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:28:04 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Tcl encodes all data types as strings. I've been bitten by this
>>> before... You write a Tcl script, it works fine, and then it
>>> encounters some input that happens to contain a curly-bracket or a
>>> dollar sign and Weird Crap happens...
>>
>> That's one of the potential pitfalls with most scripting languages.
>
> Now you know why I dislike scripting languages in general. ;-)
They work for what they're designed for - I use awk quite a bit, perl
occasionally, and shell scripts on rare occasions.
But if I wanted to write something that was usuable by a general computer
user, I'd look to develop in a compiled language, as a general rule.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now you know why I dislike scripting languages in general. ;-)
>
> They work for what they're designed for - I use awk quite a bit, perl
> occasionally, and shell scripts on rare occasions.
>
> But if I wanted to write something that was usuable by a general computer
> user, I'd look to develop in a compiled language, as a general rule.
The kind of tasks I typically want to do involve heavy number crunching.
Scripting languages aren't terribly suitable to this...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> According to Google it's about delivering targeted ads based on
> automagically recognised audio (rather than text) samples.
Damn. So much for "stealth mode." Even our partners are ratting us out. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
