@Saladin said:
I believe the OP is saying that his professor uses the word "fail" when he means to use "file." e.g., "data fail" instead of "data file."
So a "fail of fails" would be a "dairectory"?
@Saladin said:
I believe the OP is saying that his professor uses the word "fail" when he means to use "file." e.g., "data fail" instead of "data file."
So a "fail of fails" would be a "dairectory"?
[quote user="Grimoire"]On a somewhat unrelated note, at my old job I installed a screensaver from SysInternals that simulates a BSOD, followed by a reboot, followed by a BSOD, followed by a reboot, followed by a...ok, you get the idea. I come in one morning, and my machine is off. Apparently, one of my coworkers saw my screensaver running, and hit the power switch... :)[/quote]
A coworker once hit the power switch of a Linux server because it was displaying a Windows blue screen.
Yes, that was a screen saver.
[quote user="Grimoire"]On a somewhat unrelated note, at my old job I installed a screensaver from SysInternals that simulates a BSOD, followed by a reboot, followed by a BSOD, followed by a reboot, followed by a...ok, you get the idea. I come in one morning, and my machine is off. Apparently, one of my coworkers saw my screensaver running, and hit the power switch... :)[/quote]
Windows NT crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
It's only the screen saver, silly!
(Slightly adapted from Ponderables)
Oops, I meant to say "it occurred in similar circumstances."
Needless to say, my "Permission Expired: Post Edit Permission Expired."
[quote user="FraGag"]
OK, the HRESULT doesn't tell me much.[/quote]
Searching for your HRESULT value on Microsoft.com results in exactly one hit (alas, no answer as to what it might mean, but apparently it occurred in different circumstances):
VS.NET 2005 debugger hangs
It would seem that someone else may have run into the exact same problem you did. Or did you post that one yourself?
[quote user="Thalagyrt"]Also, with this, we can simply disable a person if they're causing trouble - before they become a liability to the school and themselves.[/quote]
Exactly how far do you go when you "disable a person"? Do you chop off their hands? Gouge out their eyes?
(Sorry, just couldn't resist.)
@The Hermit said:
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>system("rm $temp2\n"); # Remove temporary files
</FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>open (FTP, "|ftp -n -v $ftp_machine > $temp_file\n");</FONT>
What's with the \n at the end of some of the shell commands? Does it improve performance by 15 per cent or something? Should I adopt the practice of appending newlines to shell commands, too, when someone happens to want me to write something in Perl for a change, and I just can't seem to remember what the Perl equivalent of <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>rm</FONT> might be?
@SpComb said:
Wait... if they drew the rectangles in word, can't you just remove them yourself? It's almost like using background-color: black; to censor stuff in html documents (somehow I recall that this happaned in some US government document).
Why bother? If I remember correctly, he received the original log file in one of those CC'ed e-mail messages?
@asuffield said:
The real WTF here is that Windows Explorer has an arbitrary path length limit that is significantly less than the actual path length limit for Windows applications. Some utter moron at Microsoft used a static buffer that wasn't big enough, in the single most frequently used application that they ship!
This may not be just a matter of the size of a static buffer. If the length limit of about 256 characters is exceeded, you'll need to use Unicode versions of some API functions instead of straight ASCII path names. See Making Room for Long Filenames and search for CreateDirectory.
Oh, and by the way, arbitrary limits are a matter of course in standard UNIX command-line utilities ("too many arguments") so don't act like this symptom is in any way specific to Microsoft...
Finally, even if Windows had allowed the Netbeans IDE to create an infinitely long path, it probably would still not have been enough for what NetBeans apparently had in mind here, or at least it would have taken it an infinitely long time to create the directory tree. Remember, the real WTF here is the infinite recursion in NetBean's directory tree.
@Xenoveritas said:
Release 1.0
Element WSSecurityUtil.getSecurityHeader(Document, String, SOAPConstants) - deprecated
Element WSSecurityUtil.getSecurityHeader(WSSConfig, Document, String, SOAPConstants)Release 1.5 (there are no 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4)
Element WSSecurityUtil.getSecurityHeader(Document, String, SOAPConstants)
Well, you can probably guess what happened. Their development machine got wiped clean and repurposed when they needed a terminal server. The most recent backup they had was the source for version 0.7, which did not yet have the new method expecting the additional WSSConfig parameter.
Still, it's sort of amazing how a Release 1.0 can have deprecated methods in its interfaces...