| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Comments:
<0> please explain
<0> me
<1> look up msdn on cfilefind its clearly explained
<2> i have this problem with WSACancelAsyncRequest... i call WSAAsyncGetHostByName and sometimes i have to abort the message post with WSACancelAsyncRequest
<2> WSACancelAsyncRequest return SOCKET_SUCCESS
<2> after i canceled it i call WSAAsyncGetHostByName
<2> but this time it doesn't work anymore
<2> i never get the message posted
<3> i declare in my .hpp a private : string tab[6][6];, i use it in my .cpp in many fonctions, but in one it says i didnt declare it :/
<2> if i don't have to abort it with WSACancelAsyncRequest i get all the message posts and it all works fine
<2> does anyone have any idea with that WSAAsyncGetHostByName/WSACancelAsyncRequest problem?
<4> Hmm... http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/02/08/527573.aspx
<4> That's interesting. I was never all that excited about writing poetry. I've always preferred the essay.
<4> I guess that's why I'm pretty good with specs.
<4> vawjrwrk would like this one...
<4> http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/02/08/527573.aspx
<0> dont explain very well and i dont see nothing about doc
<0> where is the mistake of my code
<4> vawjrwrk, I saw your question about Vista.
<1> poetry...
<0> only read 2 directories
<5> Solamente - hm, interesting
<6> Solamente nice comments re: code
<5> just got back from meeting with a consulting recruiter guy... seems to think they'll certainly be able to get me onto a project
<4> Raymond Chen is always a good read.
<6> I suspect his comment will be taken out of context as appreciating conciseness rather than clarity ... i.e. if you use only 1 character names many things become quite concise
<1> i always use a where thisloopcounter could have done it
<5> i think concise should imply clarity
<5> and it's not just 'short'
<4> d00d my hiku skillz r great / cuz i waste time / writing letters i dont need
<6> rdragon it does, but it will be misread by a lot of those code weenies
<4> ARRRRGH
<4> See, I even screwed that up.
<5> vawjrwrk - yeah
<4> / cuz i dont waste time /
<5> heh
<1> all those extra letter cause kode blaot
<4> Typing ****s. Typing really, / Really, really ****s. / Mavis Beacon can bite me.
<4> There's your haiku.
<6> Solamente so, any answer to the Vista question?
<5> mmmm, mavis bacon
<4> Word at the end of last year was that it would arrive in Feb.
<4> Now the scuttle butt is "Q2" with a Feb. CTP.
<5> 07 ?
<6> it's Feb now
<4> RC1 is "second half of '06"
<4> What I'm really anxious to see is Longhorn server, which is supposed to arrive in some kind of preview form in early '07.
<4> The server OSes are always more interesting to me.
<6> me also
<6> and the 64 bit stuff will be quite important to us
<4> Feb. CTP is supposed to be feature-complete. Beta 2 appears to have slipped to April.
<4> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_jimallchin.asp
<6> yeah, but when in Feb is the CTP going to be available
<4> That site is much, much more readable with Adblock.
<4> Dunno. There's never any heads-up from MS. It just appears on MSDN one day.
<4> Winsupersite occasionally gets early word.
<6> he says just after mid feb
<7> //server -m irc.chatw.net #chatw is the best new server ircd
<8> They're getting younger
<9> ****ing neurons....
<6> neurons ****? I thought they just, ummm, kinda divided
<9> they dont spike like I want them to spike
<9> actually
<9> they dont spike like I predicted they would spike
<8> dividing is the same as multiplying when you're rational.
<9> all I got to do now is go through the 30 parameters of my simulation :(
<9> I beginning to believe that this project might have been a bad idea
<9> welcome to the ****
<8> What's the project about exactly?
<9> investigating sub threshold potential of pyramidal neurons in the visual cortex
<9> as detected in sleep mode
<9> that prolly doesnt tell you a lot
<8> Well, it sounds like you have measurments of the real thing from that.
<8> humans?
<9> no
<8> What then?
<9> they are mathematically modeled
<9> based on real data
<9> but thats not important
<9> they are basically a list of something like 200 differential equations
<9> that represent real neurons
<8> Yes - thats what I thought (modeled) cause you talked about 'not spiking as expected' :p
<9> randomised by poisson distributions etc
<9> then the output of these equations together form the potential of a neuron
<9> (millivolt)
<8> Oh ok - so the real-life input is just those 200 differential equations?
<9> no the input are spikes which get fed into these equations
<9> and they result in output spikes
<8> I was talking about the measurements...
<8> not the simulation
<9> there are no real measurements
<9> I also simulate the inputs
<9> with a different set of equations
<8> You didn't do real measurements, but others did for you to be able to make this model.
<9> yes
<9> well
<6> I think Run is asking is where did you get the data for the model
<8> So... is this model based on measured on humans, or on animals?
<8> measurements
<9> right I understand what you mean
<9> basically
<8> 14 starts to get interesting.
<9> the models I am relying on arent brand new
<9> they are known models which were based on real data from animals
<9> usually at sleep
<9> what I did was simplify these models as much as I could
<9> which is new
<9> for what I am doing
<6> and, unfortunately, doesn't yet work
<9> quite :)
<9> basically if I enter correlated spike trains in the old model
<9> I get a bistable membrane potential
<9> ie. the histogram has two peaks
<9> when I enter it into my model I only get one peak like a normal neuron
<9> which is ****!
<9> cause my deadline is approaching
<9> 'dead'line
<9> my professor said he was glad with the progress I made
<8> whats on the horizontal axis of that histogram?
<9> horizontal is membrane potential, vertical is probability, or number of spikes seen in range
<6> maybe the old model was simply wrong
<8> Quantum``: if you're conclusion is that your simplified model doesn't work, then that is very important conclusion too - and one that is harder to achieve then one that says it does work.
<9> well that could have been, but its from a good source which published loads of papers and is a neuroscientist, wheras I am just a simple software engineering master student
<8> otherwise, just end with a Future Recommendation ;)
<9> I agree Run
<9> still
<9> I didnt want tosee it
<9> :)
<9> anyway
<9> my professor said he was happy with me
<8> Quantum``: sure - if you made a mistake, then it ****s. But if you can prove it doesn't work, then that is GREAT achievement.
<9> then I told my professor Im not happy with it
<6> Quantum`` about 30 years ago,I found a bug in a widely used biomedical statistics package... literally thousands of papers had been published using that package to do the analysis
<6> just because it's been around, and published widely doesn't make it right
<9> then he told me that I am not marking my own paper, he is
<9> and that he felt sorry for all my future student I would have to supervise as a phd
<8> Quantum``: excuse me?
<8> Can you repeat that so I understand it?
<9> ok
<6> I think his advisor is telling him he's too hard on people (himself right now)
<10> indeed
<11> Sometimes theories don't work
<8> oh... it sounded like a first cl***es insult and demotivation to me :p
<6> negative results are often more important than positive ones
<8> But you're probably right.
<9> basically I told him I wasnt happy with my work, after he said he was happy with it - then he told me to shut up cause he is marking the paper, not me
<11> Science benefits when you prove something or disprove it, not just when you prove something
<11> <6> negative results are often more important than positive ones
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
jaq saq
gp2x zydas
#AllNiteCafe
#teens
lasat problems skype
#skype
kwita ta
Where did the deposed Shah of Iran finally find refuge ?
Bad Cipher?
worlds largest town
|
|