Dave
-
Posts
5127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Dave
-
Yes, it's a protocol, but a very simple one. The client sends a message to the server, something along the lines of: "GET /path/to/htmlfile.html HTTP/1.0". The server then responds with something like: HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html Content-length: 1234 <html> <head> ... </html> The things at the top of the response are headers, and the "Content-type" header contains the mime-type of that file.
-
This has gone on long enough. Come on people, at least try and listen to what I'm saying here. I'll bring this thread up with the mods, see if we're going to issue warnings etc, since I'm pretty much sick and tired of closing threads that have descended into insults and worthless repetition of the same points. Thread closed.
-
This thread takes the biscuit, even for the Pseudoscience forum. Thread closed.
-
In the HTTP headers, before the main content of the page is sent.
-
I'll give it a go later. Can't seem to work out the problem with it. For everyone's info, it wasn't the new style that broke it, rather the first server change.
-
We've successfully completed a server update, and hopefully this means that you should see some sort of increase in server speed. Personally, I've noticed a fair difference in the speed of page loads, but if you're having particular problems, then send a PM
-
The mime-type of a file describes what the file is supposed to be. For example a HTML file has mime-type "text/html", and for a PNG image it's "image/png". A webserver will send this mime-type so that the client knows what it's supposed to be receiving. It's got nothing to do with HTML really, and they crop up in a lot of places. Meta tags are just extra information that is given with a HTML document. For example, some meta dags give search engines a list of keywords associated with the site, or tell the browser how often to reload a page. They appear inside the <head></head> tags.
-
As far as I'm aware (and I've not had zip experience with the Firefox api), extensions will have their preferences saved in various flat files. Plugins may or may not do different things, but I'd guess that things like Flash might use the registry. I'd assume that for the purposes of a simple move, that's not going to be a problem.
-
Firefox only uses local files (no registry settings etc). At worst, you'll have to re-install a few plugins. All of the extensions should work straight out of the box.
-
Java has useful applications, but I'd say it's just no comparison to a well-written C/C++ program in terms of speed and binary size. It's powerful, but not in the way that everyone makes it out to be.
-
If you need help with computer problems, post it here. If it's more computer science oriented, then it goes in the other forum. As for Firefox, all the profile data is stored in C:\Documents and Settings\youruser\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox - you can do a fresh install of the binary, and still keep all your user data by copying that folder over.
-
At one time I used to be quite an avid user of RealBasic. It was originally free, and it was designed specifically for creating Mac OS 8/9 applications. It's the only real alternative for Visual-Basic style programming on the Mac, as far as I'm aware, but with OS X comes Cocoa which isn't all that hard to learn and is about 97 million times more powerful. Anyway, I digress. I guess what they're trying to do there is say that it produces faster binaries than something like Java. However, to be honest with you it was never particularly fast when it was under OS 9, and I can't really see it happening. Plus, if I remember correctly, the application sizes are pretty damn big, and you need to have a couple of libraries installed as well. Of course, there's the added bonus that there are free compilers for Java, but RealBasic is propiatory. I'd say that they're just as bad as each other. So, my opinion is this: if you're an amateur programmer, then maybe it's easier to use something like Java or RB. However, it's pretty much useless for big applications.
-
I've not really found one that's free and that I like. The old Macs used to ship with something called Graphing Calculator, which was a great little program. However, beyond this, it gets a bit tricky. Most of the time, I use gnuplot because I plot a lot of data sets from things like numerical ODEs. However, you can plot ordinary graphs fairly easily. Beware; it's not particularly user-friendly, and you can sometimes spend ages trying to get it to plot something. Also, the classic octave+gnuplot combination (kindof like matlab, only under the GNU) is rather good for most plotting needs.
-
For some reason, I don't seem to have much of a problem with these types of problems. I can't do most of the other ones though, so it balances it out
-
Do we know what software?
-
Not a problem
-
Okay, I've implemented the new thing. New Posts has been replaced with Active Topics; you can see the posts from a variety of time intervals. Suggestions for new intervals/changing those ones are appreciated
-
I think it's more inferred than anything else (it doesn't say "pi = 3!!" explicitly), but from this site, the citation is 1 Kings 7:23.
-
I should probably add that you can integrate pretty much every function numerically, so even when it's not possible analytically, you can still obtain fairly good estimates. There's more on the various methods at MathWorld.
-
I'm pretty sure you're right, but I think you made a typo with the latex. Is the equation as you stated, or is it: [math]\tfrac{1}{3}pK^{\frac{1}{3}} L^{-\frac{2}{3}} = w[/math]?
-
Hmm, it appears it shows "New Posts" when you're a member. For the time being, you can get the list at: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/search.php?do=getdaily until I talk to blike about changing it on the toolbar and stuff.
-
Have a look at the "LaTeX Quick Start" thread in the General Maths forum (it's stickied).
-
I shall see what I can come up with. It should (ha ha) be a fairly simple mod, but it might take a while.
-
I'd just like to remind you that whilst lively debate is fine, this thread is pushing the boundaries quite a bit. I've already closed one thread on the same grounds, and I don't want to have to close another; inevitably, warnings will probably follow. I'd rather not have it come to that. Thanks.
-
