The Daily WTF: Curious Perversions in Information Technology
Welcome to TDWTF Forums Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

Nobody shares knowledge better than this

Last post 04-21-2014 4:18 PM by joe.edwards. 2720 replies.
Page 5 of 55 (2721 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 12-03-2009 4:43 AM In reply to

    • tdittmar
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-14-2006
    • Hassia, Germany
    • Posts 182

    Re: No no tdittmar you're wrong so wrong

    SpectateSwamp:
    The indexing is what pissed off most people with Vista.

    And again, once more, you're wrong. The thing that pissed off people with Vista was not indexing, but a general performance loss compared to Windows XP and UAC asking permission very often.  If people had been pissed off with indexing, they wouldn't be happy with Windows 7 either, because Windows 7 contains mostly the same indexing mechanisms that Vista contained, too. Windows XP contained indexing, too - people were not equally pissed off with XP as they were with Vista.

    You should - really! - learn that indexing in general is not your enemy, but a very good thing. Most people do neither have time nor energy nor will to manually create the index as you have to do with SSDS. They want things convenient - and that's what background indexing provides.

    One thing, by the way, that was people's favourite function in Vista was that instead of going through the Start Menu to look for the program they wanted to run, they could just type the beginning of the name into the search bar and press enter. Guess what's behind that function: Indexing!

    spenk:
    Nope - searching is done to find things, end of story. If I wanted to find references etc. in source code then I would use the features of the IDE to navigate. All I want to do is know how to find a single fucking file from a folder structure based on the possible content.
     

    See Swamp? That's what we want!

    spenk:
    Only 20 years. I've been coding for 40 years and seen a lots of code.

    Sad to see that you haven't learnt anything from the lots of code you've seen... I've looked at your source code and I can proudly say (probably most people here on the forum could) that I wrote better code after 3 years of self-tought programming.

    I'm amazed that after 40 years of coding you do not realize how shitty your SSDS is and how its source code is an unmaintainable piece of junk, when even I, the "unexperienced newbie", only needs one glance at the source code to realize that.

    If I were you I'd stop right at this point and accept the fact that while SSDS may be exactly the right tool for everything to you, it is the worst tool for anything to everybody outside your small world. Also, I'd try to accept the fact that while you've been stuck with the same shit for 40 years, the world around you has moved on. There are now tools that anybody can use easily, which perform exactly the tasks the user needs. If even experienced people like spenk are not able to use SSDS, how good and useful can it be?

    Go back to your cave Swamp, enjoy SSDS on your own, but leave the rest of the world (especially the competent among us) alone. The only thing that makes me very sad is knowing that you've betrayed so many of your friends and family telling them that SSDS is THE way to use their computers. How productive could they be, how much fun could they have if they didn't have to use SSDS...

     

    SpectateSwamp - Fighting Open Source with ClueLessNess
  • 12-03-2009 12:59 PM In reply to

    tdittmar plays dumb - real dumb

    tdittmar:

     

    Go back to your cave Swamp, enjoy SSDS on your own, but leave the rest of the world (especially the competent among us) alone. The only thing that makes me very sad is knowing that you've betrayed so many of your friends and family telling them that SSDS is THE way to use their computers. How productive could they be, how much fun could they have if they didn't have to use SSDS...

     

    In a live search showdown SSDS would make your way look stupid and too complex. SSDS isn't that difficult. You are just playing dumb.

    In a showdown I'd show them the first 5 seconds of all the video clips in a folder. Windows and Google can't do that.

     

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-03-2009 2:24 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: tdittmar plays dumb - real dumb

    SpectateSwamp:

    In a live search showdown SSDS would make your way look stupid and too complex. SSDS isn't that difficult. You are just playing dumb.

    In a showdown I'd show them the first 5 seconds of all the video clips in a folder. Windows and Google can't do that.

    In that case could you reply to my post and explain the screenshot and what the hell I was supposed to be doing to get SSDS to index the .c files.
    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-03-2009 7:26 PM In reply to

    Spenk is my Fav

    spenk:

    In that case could you reply to my post and explain the screenshot and what the hell I was supposed to be doing to get SSDS to index the .c files.

     

    To merge .txt files and then append some .htm files to them.

     

    Prompt #1 (hit enter) taking the default file name. For a merge this prompt is meaningless

    Prompt #2 enter "merge" - this will combine all the .txt files into a single file

    Next enter "c:\search\" OR some other directory

    Next enter "txt" to select all to merge all the text file types

    Next (hit enter) as the default here is merge.txt (the output file / results file) or some other .txt file name

    Next (hit enter) for the default of (overwrite)

    -------------------------------- Give it a minute or two to complete - you'll see some progress details to let you know it is working.

     

    Then when that finishes and you need to add the "htm" files for searching to merge.txt

    Instead of "txt" enter "htm" for the (file type to merge)

    instead of the "o" for overwrite enter "a" for append.

    -------------------------------give it a minute to complete

     

    then at prompt #1 enter merge.txt

    then prompt #2 enter "c" for context search

    then at prompt #3 enter your search strings (up to 6) seperated by a "/"

    hit enter enter enter to see the various matches hilited and in context.

    Or at prompt #2 enter "s" to only display the line the match was on.

     

    Spenk - I still don't know if the directory stuff works on Windows 7 or Vista

    let me know if any of it works. Thanks

     

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-04-2009 5:31 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: Spenk is my Fav

    SpectateSwamp:
    To merge .txt files and then append some .htm files to them.
    Great, how do I merge .c, .h, .cpp and similar files though - the instructions you gave previously didn't let me use C as an extension at prompt 4. Please tell me how to merge file types other than the ones supported out of the box.

    SpectateSwamp:

    Then when that finishes and you need to add the "htm" files for searching to merge.txt

    Instead of "txt" enter "htm" for the (file type to merge)

    instead of the "o" for overwrite enter "a" for append.

    If I wanted to search multiple file types would I be expected to go through this process for every single file extension? What about files that have no extension?

    SpectateSwamp:

    then prompt #2 enter "c" for context search

    then at prompt #3 enter your search strings (up to 6) seperated by a "/"

    hit enter enter enter to see the various matches hilited and in context.

    Trying this on just some merged text files gives me


    which doesn't seem to highlight the search term 'delete' anywhere. The only way I can tell which files contain the search term is to page through looking for the file names being displayed and making a note - am I missing something obvious here?

    Also could you explain the results in my previous post as the screen shot in that one does have terms highlighted but still makes little to no sense.

    SpectateSwamp:

    Spenk - I still don't know if the directory stuff works on Windows 7 or Vista

    let me know if any of it works. Thanks

    Windows 7 has directories and SSDS appears to be able to read them so I guess that works.

    On the other hand I would like you to explain how the two screen shots of SSDS are better than  the following shot of WDS showing matching files

    I really fail to see why you think I should use WDS when I can't even get it to create a merged file of the original sources to then search, when creating a small merge file based on just .txt I have no idea what the results mean either. There doesn't appear an easy way to just list the matching files, or even open the original files without having to navigate to the original location manually either. SSDS's window seems immovable when displaying results so I can't even drag it to one side while using explorer on the other side of my monitor. 

    The more I attempt to use SSDS the more I find it awkward, confusing, disorganised and fundamentally at odds with how I would expect any windows based piece of software to behave. Even if I could make the merge work I would need to go through the process after any source file changes (at a minimum I would be looking at merging .txt, .h, .c, .cpp, .java, .sql and .sh every time), once the merge file exists it offers less useful functionality than windows explorer any way. It is a search tool that seems unable to simply locate a file on my hard drive, supports a very limited number of file extensions (and seems unable to be extended to support more), produces results that are incomprehensible and doesn't even work properly on a first run. I am at a total loss as to what benefit this is supposed to offer.

     

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-04-2009 8:18 AM In reply to

    • tdittmar
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-14-2006
    • Hassia, Germany
    • Posts 182

    Re: tdittmar plays dumb - real dumb

    SpectateSwamp:
    In a live search showdown SSDS would make your way look stupid and too complex.
    Hm, let me think - we don't even need to do it live. You gave Spenk a step-by-step manual on how to merge files. The merge process needs to be done for every single file I want to search in, right? So for a folder full of source code as mine at work, which contains more than 5000 source code files, how long would that take? Give a rough number in minutes. I can tell you already: There's no work required on my part - indexing runs automatically for me. Assuming that indexing needs as long as SSDS to read the file, I save lots of time, because I do not need to do the manual process of merging over and over if I make changes to one of the merged files. Then, you say that there's a limit of 6 search terms in SSDS - no limits with WDS. With SSDS I have to go through a series of undocumented, cryptic and easy to mix-up commands that I have to enter manually. In WDS I simply enter the search terms (no limit here) and press enter. With SSDS I get a total mess of content of the merge.txt file, while WDS - as Spenk illustrated alread - I get a neat and clean list of files that contain my search words. I can open them directly. SSDS can not do that - I have to write down the file name and then click through my folder tree to find the file and open it. So, you are telling me that WDS is too complex? Maybe it's not my way that's stupid but you, who's stupid for not admitting (or even realizing) that SSDS makes things over-complex, lacking basic and required functionality!
    SpectateSwamp:
    You are just playing dumb.
    No, I'm not playing dumb. After all your postings I have a pretty good idea how I'd have to "work" with SSDS without having tried it once. I just consider it stupid, unnecessary and restricting to use a tool that is so much worse than even the most basic Windows functionality. Why would I want to download the source code for and compile a program, which requires me to spend about 50% of my day feeding in the information it needs to do the most basic work, when I can just rely on what's already there, which - as outlined above - works so much smoother and faster? You said that the average user can not only understand SSDS, but can also understand its inner workings just by looking at the source code. How can it be that Spenk is not even able to create the merge file required to search? All in all he's been trying it for two days or what, you've not been able to support him properly. He asked a question you did not answer, he's not been able to perform the search he was trying to perform. In that time, he'd been able to open each file in notepad and search it!! So how much of an advantage does he gain from SSDS? And don't come me with that "play video and audio" shit again. He's simply trying to perform a text search and SSDS can't do that easily.
    SpectateSwamp - Fighting Open Source with ClueLessNess
  • 12-04-2009 10:24 AM In reply to

    Spenk is right but I'll fix that

    spenk:

    Going to prompt 2 and typing merge and then re-entering the folder path as it has reset to 'c:' asks me for a file extension again if I enter C it just resets itself to TXT and I seem to be stuck....

    Spenk. I'll fix that asap. In the source.txt search for "19 november 2006" A line of code needs to be entered so that file types other than those 2,3 and 4 long can be entered. I never used C or had anything on my computer with a 1 character file extension.

    I'll put a "thank you spenk" right beside the change.

    I'm glad to see that the directory stuff in Windows 7 works.

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-04-2009 10:36 AM In reply to

    Re: Spenk is right but I'll fix that

    SpectateSwamp:
    I'll put a "thank you spenk" right beside the change.
    Congratz spenk!
    SpectateSwamp:
    I'm glad to see that the directory stuff in Windows 7 works.
    Directories worked in DOS, too. Just because you don't use a feature doesn't mean it doesn't work.
    I hate tags

  • 12-04-2009 12:50 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: Spenk is right but I'll fix that

    SpectateSwamp:
    Spenk. I'll fix that asap. In the source.txt search for "19 november 2006" A line of code needs to be entered so that file types other than those 2,3 and 4 long can be entered. I never used C or had anything on my computer with a 1 character file extension.
    How about no extension at all? How about longer than 4? How about multiple extensions? How about addressing my other concerns or answering any of my questions?

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-04-2009 1:44 PM In reply to

    Very few users code in C maybe .01 of a percent or less

    spenk:

    SpectateSwamp:
    Spenk. I'll fix that asap. In the source.txt search for "19 november 2006" A line of code needs to be entered so that file types other than those 2,3 and 4 long can be entered. I never used C or had anything on my computer with a 1 character file extension.
    How about no extension at all? How about longer than 4? How about multiple extensions? How about addressing my other concerns or answering any of my questions?

    longer than 4 and none. 99% of users never ever need extensions like this. I never did. That's called feature creep.

    Windows can't play a few seconds from each video. or song. Believe me it's very handy if you have video files. It's best to know early if any of them won't play and it's a great way to refresh yourself on your own content. Flashing through your pictures is way better than looking at thumbnails, expecially for us older techies.

    Windows and the rest have a file size limit. and no match counts. These are important too.

    For those who worry about source files changing. Don't. Most places book out program for changes. Everybody should do a final check when making their changes.

    When explaining the search to people their eyes don't glaze over like they would if you tried to explain indexing.

     

     

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-04-2009 2:05 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    SpectateSwamp:
    longer than 4 and none. 99% of users never ever need extensions like this. I never did. That's called feature creep.
    But they do exist- your call though as only you use the thing.I am not even going to argue with the figure 99% as this is so obviously made up it isn't worth the effort. I suppose one could also make a joke about the fact we can hide our secret information in a file called secret.stuff and SSDS will not see it - just as useful an argument as your argument about file sizes and indexed based tools was really.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Windows can't play a few seconds from each video. or song. Believe me it's very handy if you have video files. It's best to know early if any of them won't play and it's a great way to refresh yourself on your own content. Flashing through your pictures is way better than looking at thumbnails, expecially for us older techies.
    Toss all to do with searching though - this is what a media player is for. Media players do allow you to do these kind of things though.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Windows and the rest have a file size limit. and no match counts. These are important too.
    This is meaningless as no sane person uses massive files but chooses to keep the files as separate files not as one big merged file. Then again it has been proven SSDS fails on large files - you choose to ignore this fact. What is a match count anyway? If you mean the number of files that match then windows offers this in explorer anyway.

    SpectateSwamp:
    For those who worry about source files changing. Don't. Most places book out program for changes. Everybody should do a final check when making their changes.
    Source files change, it is a fact of life. I may want to search my source without the rigmarole of merging. If I get the latest version from the central code repository I want to be able to search without merging. I would like to search the word, excel, pdf, one note, text, htm, html files I may have as well - all without this merge and remerge fiasco SSDS entails. I was only using source code as an example anyway, I have many documents in many formats of which source code is only part. I may be looking for a technical term and wish to search all of these documents in one go. Merging will be nothing but a chore and eat into the time I would rather be doing something useful with, WDS would have just quietly and unobtrusively indexed the whole lot in the background and let me search directly.

    SpectateSwamp:
    When explaining the search to people their eyes don't glaze over like they would if you tried to explain indexing.
    You don't need to explain indexing to a user - the indexing happens behind the scenes automatically. They can just type search terms directly into the start menu or explorer and get the results. To use SSDS they need to know about merging (i.e. creating an index by hand) as well as a myriad of meaningless poorly documented prompts with utter meaningless results being generated. How is that easier than typing a word and it just working?

    Again you have failed to explain the two screen shots and what the hell I was supposed to have found in them. You have again failed to comprehend what indexing means. Again you have spouted crap about video playback as if it excused all the deficiencies in SSDS when it comes to searching. 

    If you can't answer direct questions with an decent and direct answer or admit the fact SSDS may not be the best tool for that job at least have the decency to not spout shit about video / random / flashing / jam as if that was a suitable response.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-04-2009 6:44 PM In reply to

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    spenk:
    Again you have failed to explain the two screen shots and what the hell I was supposed to have found in them. You have again failed to comprehend what indexing means. Again you have spouted crap about video playback as if it excused all the deficiencies in SSDS when it comes to searching. 
    But SSDS can show the first 5 seconds of each video! Windows can't do that!
    I hate tags

  • 12-04-2009 7:00 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    derula:
    But SSDS can show the first 5 seconds of each video! Windows can't do that!
    I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-07-2009 8:39 AM In reply to

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    spenk:

    I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently.

     

    Wait.

    All this time you were being serious in debating with that cartoon character and his ragtag bunch of code?


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 12-07-2009 9:40 AM In reply to

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    spenk:

    derula:
    But SSDS can show the first 5 seconds of each video! Windows can't do that!
    I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently.

    Ah, sounds like you've moved to stage 4 of SSDS grief.  For the record, they are:

    1. Denial: "Nobody can be this stupid!  This is a hoax." 
    2. Anger: "THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE, YOU RETARD!"
    3. Bargaining: "Can you at least agree that Google is fast?  Surely you can admit that Windows does some of this stuff without SSDS?"
    4. Depression: "I am going to go sit in the corner and cry. The sounds you hear are just me sobbing gently."
    5. Acceptance: "What other crazy theories do you have?  Do you have any videos of them?"
    Sorry, I was afk. What'd I miss?
  • 12-07-2009 10:11 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    dhromed:

    Wait.

    All this time you were being serious in debating with that cartoon character and his ragtag bunch of code?

    More of a morbid fascination really, the sheer consistency of Spectate's madness is amazing to behold.
    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-07-2009 11:07 AM In reply to

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

     There's a sixth stage, pity, which is the stage in which you realize you're making fun of a certified nutcase and start feeling bad for him.

  • 12-07-2009 1:03 PM In reply to

    99% of users aren't programmers

    RHuckster:

     There's a sixth stage, pity, which is the stage in which you realize you're making fun of a certified nutcase and start feeling bad for him.

    Funny. I'm feeling badly for you poor sods. Stuck in your old complex ways. We badly need a showdown. Just so you all can see how wrong your search knowledge is. Pick on the code if you like. When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as Stups, DumDums and Know-nothings. Criticizing what is probably the greatest program of all time. Extremely useful, fast and simple.

    Unlike the other Desktop Search engines, SSDS will just get faster and faster in step with the processor speeds.

    .

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-07-2009 1:55 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

     The greatest program of all time will be the one that can bring me chips and beer to the couch and change the tv channels for me.

    The Obama Administration: Chicago thugs confiscating your liberties, one smile at a time.
  • 12-07-2009 1:56 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers but SSDS is no good for them either

    SpectateSwamp:
    Funny. I'm feeling badly for you poor sods. Stuck in your old complex ways. We badly need a showdown. Just so you all can see how wrong your search knowledge is. Pick on the code if you like. When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as Stups, DumDums and Know-nothings. Criticizing what is probably the greatest program of all time. Extremely useful, fast and simple.
    There never will be a show down as you cannot even get SSDS to perform simple tasks tasks like searching .files and you have been unable to explain the results I posted in the two screen shots; SSDS is just plain useless to everyone but yourself.

    The code is a mess and unmaintainable while the application itself is confusing and useless. It is neither fast nor simple or even vaguely useful. It is merely a random collection of pointless functions that you seem to be basing your computer usage around but nobody else is willing to change their practices to suit your bizarre way of working.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Unlike the other Desktop Search engines, SSDS will just get faster and faster in step with the processor speeds.
    Merging files is not going to be cpu bound but rather limited by disk i/o and memory speed. Any search engine will benefit from increased performance if the disks get faster so this is just another meaningless statement in a long list of meaningless statements you love to spout. Grow up and move on, the world has changed for the better - please keep up.

     

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-07-2009 3:28 PM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,837

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    bob171123:

     The greatest program of all time will be the one that can bring me chips and beer to the couch and change the tv channels for me.

    Isn't that called a MOTAS? Works for me....
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • 12-07-2009 4:16 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    SpectateSwamp:
    We badly need a showdown.

    We had a showdown... this is like the 5th time we've told you in this thread. Your showdown failed because you failed to even come close to what was required in the terms of the showdown. YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY, SIR.

    Honestly, you keep touting a showdown like it's actually difficult to organize one. If you want a rematch, just DO IT, dammit.

  • 12-07-2009 4:31 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    SpectateSwamp:
    Funny. I'm feeling badly for myself. Stuck inside all day because of the daystar. I badly need a blowjob.  Just so I can see how it feels, once. ... When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as right all along. Criticizing what is probably the most worthless program of all time. Extremely convoluted, slow and complicated.
    FTFY

    SpectateSwamp exposing aliens. Obviously the World needs SSDS


    [10:07] <fatdog> so from now on.. be sure to wear nice clean underwear
    [10:07] <mps> fatdog: That is simply not going to happen
  • 12-07-2009 9:11 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

     

    SpectateSwamp:

    Funny. I'm feeling badly for you poor sods. Stuck in your old complex ways. We badly need a showdown. Just so you all can see how wrong your search knowledge is. Pick on the code if you like. When the final bell rings on the ShowDown SSDS detractors will be seen as Stups, DumDums and Know-nothings. Criticizing what is probably the greatest program of all time. Extremely useful, fast and simple.

    Unlike the other Desktop Search engines, SSDS will just get faster and faster in step with the processor speeds.

    .

     

    I'm not a programmer (I have a very loose grasp on some styles of coding) and I don't understand how SSDS works

    Your instructions suck balls. I would much rather use WDS. Even though I'm a Mac user now.


  • 12-07-2009 9:41 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    belgariontheking:

    SpectateSwamp:
    Stuck inside all day because of the daystar.

    Damn that daystar. I can't wait until we pump so much smog into the atmosphere that we can't see it anymore, and the robots then use goons like SpectateSwamp to power their virtual worlds.


    The Obama Administration: Chicago thugs confiscating your liberties, one smile at a time.
  • 12-08-2009 11:18 AM In reply to

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    RHuckster:

     There's a sixth stage, pity, which is the stage in which you realize you're making fun of a certified nutcase and start feeling bad for him.

    Isn't that somewhere between steps 4 and 5?
    I hate tags

  • 12-09-2009 9:17 AM In reply to

    Re: Very many programmers code in C, C#, VB maybe 90 percent or more.

    As those drug commercials say, your results may vary. Generally, I think as soon as stage 6 arrives, they start to lose interest in the thread and move on. For me, though, it's not coming soon enough.
  • 12-09-2009 9:25 AM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    SpectateSwamp:
    Stuck in your old complex ways
     

    1. Hit Start button.
    2. Type something.

     

    ZOMG COMPLEX


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 12-09-2009 11:22 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    dhromed:

    1. Hit Start button.
    2. Type something.

     

    ZOMG COMPLEX

    How can you claim this is easier than SSDS? As far as I have been able to follow SSDS would only require the following simple steps.

    1. Run ssds
    2. Type X and enter and X again to quit (doesn't work first run)
    3. Run ssds again
    4. Ignore prompt #1
    5. Type merge at prompt #2 although it isn't mentioned in the prompt message.
    6. Type the full path to the folder containing the files to be merged (no namby pamby directory browser here!)
    7. Type the extension of the file type you want to merge (as long as the extension is 2,3 or 4 characters long and the file actually has an extension and it's contents are plain text but not unicode)
    8. Enter the name of the file to merge these into
    9. Type A to append or O to overwrite the file - this being the first time O would be the choice.
    10. If the folder contains multiple file types (e.g. vb, cs, doc, xml) repeat steps 4 through 9 once for each file extension remembering to answer A at step 9 from now on though..
    11. At prompt #1 again enter the name of the file we merged everything into (step 8 above)
    12. At prompt #2 enter apparently C or S to search although again neither are mentioned in the prompt message.
    13. At prompt #3 enter the term to search for.
    14. Look at the results in bewilderment and assume you made the wrong choice at step 12.
    15. Go back to step 11 and make alternate choice at step 12.
    16. Look equally bemused at the results as you did in step 14 (although one of the two options may have highlighted some words) but realise there are no other choices.
    17. Be amazed at how easy and simple the whole process is! 
    See, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-09-2009 2:49 PM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,837

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    spenk:

    dhromed:

    1. Hit Start button.
    2. Type something.

     

    ZOMG COMPLEX

    How can you claim this is easier than SSDS? As far as I have been able to follow SSDS would only require the following simple steps.

    <snip 14 steps>

    See, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
    You're either making that up, or you have far too much time on your hands to compile and run that abomination.

    I hope it's the former.
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • 12-09-2009 3:32 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    PJH:
    spenk:

    dhromed:

    1. Hit Start button.
    2. Type something.

     

    ZOMG COMPLEX

    How can you claim this is easier than SSDS? As far as I have been able to follow SSDS would only require the following simple steps.

    <snip 14 steps>

    See, I think the evidence speaks for itself.
    You're either making that up, or you have far too much time on your hands to compile and run that abomination.

    I hope it's the former.
    Of course he made it up.  At no point did he jam any noodles.
    Sorry, I was afk. What'd I miss?
  • 12-09-2009 3:44 PM In reply to

    • PJH
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-14-2007
    • Newcastle, UK
    • Posts 3,837

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    bstorer:
    PJH:
    You're either making that up, or you have far too much time on your hands to compile and run that abomination.

    I hope it's the former.
    Of course he made it up.  At no point did he jam any noodles.
    I lost interest in (all of) the thread(s) a while back and only bother reading the more interesting (FSVO) posts that hit my inbox n this one.

    Where do the noodles need to be jammed?
    "Because you watched 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar,' we recommend 'The Human Centipede.'"
    --
    UED - Countryside: To kill Piers Morgan
  • 12-09-2009 4:50 PM In reply to

    Re: 99% of users aren't programmers

    PJH:

    Where do the noodles need to be jammed?
     

     

    ...I can think of a few places...

     

     

  • 12-09-2009 9:54 PM In reply to

    SpaghettiSwamp coding style reborn

     

    The best search Knowledge shared

    For those of you that think this code is complex. Part of it is. So complex I had to do a flowchart, to get it to work properly. For the Hi-Lite and LineWrap logic.

    see the flowcharts at:
    http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/pict01.jpg
    http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/pict02.jpg
     
    Compare that to the source code at:
    http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan/source.txt

    HINT. The numbers attached to the flowchart objects, are the line numbers that I have added in to the program. Who ever took out line numbers should be shot. Those coding purists must have taken over. Big meanies. Were they trying to rid the world of spaghetti code? Computers are fast enough to handle the overhead.

    eg. the number "12050" in pict01.jpg corresponds to the code found at "line_12050" in "sub_12000"

    So don't be worry, we have the SpaghettiSwamp coding style, with line numbers added back in. Hooray!

    The rest of the code is complex enough for me too. But I have the benefit of having VB and can rebuild a new version to test changes and logic steps (jamming it). There is plenty of "print / progress display lines" that I can activate to see what is going where. I can leave the source code for long stretches and come back and make changes without too much trouble.
     
    As for useless options. The GPS location can be dangerous. If your camcorder has this option and you unknowingly video your crop; look out. There should be a warning or something. My camcorder has it and I haven't had the need to read up on it. Boo useless options.

    As for the 3 prompts being too complex. BS. If I had a hall filled with the hundreds and hundreds of users I have worked with over the years and spent 15 minutes showing some of the more interesting features to them. They would all get it. If this group started crying No NO too complex, bad coding habits, inefficient. The halls would ring with laughter. Any showdown in front of users would be a blowout.

     

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-09-2009 10:16 PM In reply to

    Re: SpaghettiSwamp coding style reborn

     Argh, that source code fits on 200 A4-sized pages.

    SpectateSwamp:

    The rest of the code is complex enough for me too.

     

    Then start again. Make it so even YOU can understand it.

    SpectateSwamp:

    But I ... can rebuild a new version to test changes and logic steps (jamming it).

     

    Here, have some definitions (take note of the ones in bold):

    jam 1  (jm)

    v. jammed, jam·ming, jams
    v.tr.
    1. To drive or wedge forcibly into a tight position jammed the cork in the bottle.
    2. To activate or apply (a brake) suddenly. Often used with on: jammed the brakes on.
    3. To cause (moving parts, for example) to lock into an unworkable position: jammed the typewriter keys.
    4.
    a. To pack (items, for example) to excess; cram: jammed my clothes into the suitcase.
    b. To fill (a container or space) to overflowing: I jammed the suitcase with clothes. Fans jammed the hallway after the concert.
    5. To block, congest, or clog: a drain that was jammed by debris.
    6. To crush or bruise: jam a finger.
    7. Electronics To interfere with or prevent the clear reception of (broadcast signals) by electronic means.
    8. Baseball To throw an inside pitch to (a batter), especially to prevent the batter from hitting the ball with the thicker part of the bat.
    v.intr.
    1. To become wedged or stuck.
    2. To become inoperable: The computer keyboard jammed.
    3. To force one's way into or through a limited space.
    4. Music To participate in a jam session.
    5. Basketball To make a dunk shot.

    I fail to see how you can use the word "jam" in regard to making something work. That's pretty much the opposite of the definition.

     


  • 12-10-2009 5:12 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: SpaghettiSwamp coding style reborn

    SpectateSwamp:
    The best search Knowledge shared
    You are a moron.

    SpectateSwamp:
    The code is a mess and it would take more than two flow charts to explain wtf it does.

     

    SpectateSwamp:
    HINT. The numbers attached to the flowchart objects, are the line numbers that I have added in to the program. Who ever took out line numbers should be shot. Those coding purists must have taken over. Big meanies. Were they trying to rid the world of spaghetti code? Computers are fast enough to handle the overhead.
    Line numbers are a piss poor idea in a modern language because they change if you insert new lines - duh! Labels that have a meaning on the other hand are independent of their physical location in the file - this is a good think you moron. Spaghetti code is a derogatory term for code - it means the code is an utter fucking mess and the person who wrote it should have the decency to be ashamed and then either learn proper coding techniques or give up development. This is nothing to do with performance either you idiot but rather the effort involved in maintaining the code base.

    Changes in languages have been progressively making it easier to write clean, maintainable and understandable code yet you seem determined to keep every failing of previous languages while eschewing any of the useful features.

    SpectateSwamp:
    So don't be worry, we have the SpaghettiSwamp coding style, with line numbers added back in. Hooray!
    You really are beyond help and reason.

    SpectateSwamp:
    The rest of the code is complex enough for me too. But I have the benefit of having VB and can rebuild a new version to test changes and logic steps (jamming it). There is plenty of "print / progress display lines" that I can activate to see what is going where. I can leave the source code for long stretches and come back and make changes without too much trouble.
    Code doesn't need to be complex to follow even if it is doing a complex task, your code is just a mess however. If the code is so easy to work with why haven't you made any new releases or fixed any of the issues people have mentioned (like 1 character extensions not being supported). If it is so easy why do you keep asking other people to do your work for you?

    SpectateSwamp:
    As for useless options. The GPS location can be dangerous. If your camcorder has this option and you unknowingly video your crop; look out. There should be a warning or something. My camcorder has it and I haven't had the need to read up on it. Boo useless options.
    This makes no sense at all.

    SpectateSwamp:
    As for the 3 prompts being too complex. BS. If I had a hall filled with the hundreds and hundreds of users I have worked with over the years and spent 15 minutes showing some of the more interesting features to them. They would all get it. If this group started crying No NO too complex, bad coding habits, inefficient. The halls would ring with laughter. Any showdown in front of users would be a blowout.
    The prompts SSDS throws up are a series of meaningless and undocumented commands, even when the prompt message lists options this is often a non-exhaustive list and there is no explanation for what the listed options actually do anyway. Please stop going on about a showdown as you refuse any challenge put to you, SSDS cannot ever perform the basic tasks when I offered to do the comparison myself (index c files) and you have failed to explain the results in either of my posted screen shots. 

     

     

     

     

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-10-2009 8:26 AM In reply to

    This group makes me laugh. Thanks

     

    Spenk you poor line number deprived bastard.

    Name calling is stage 1 of learning. The frustration. Knowing your are wrong and have been for some time.

    The code is a lot simpler than any desktop search this group could come up with using their high high standards. Show me some simple code.

    It's not that your request isn't extremely valid. I have lists and lists of things I would sooner work on than yours. I checked my todo**vip notes and found over 300 hits. (probably 1/2 implemented) This program could do a lot more if this list of changes and enhancements were completed. If you were so smart and really wanted to use the search as is. You would put together a simple script that would copy all the *.c files to *.ccc  How tuff would that be? I know it's easier to sit there and whine. Get off your butt and do something. Come on Swampies write him a quickie in C. I could strip down SSDS and do it.

    Line numbers make it easy for me to know where the logic is within 10,000 lines of code. line 12000 should be somewhere near the middle of a 1 to 32767 range. They took line numbers out to be mean, no other reason.

    It was difficult to keep all the options in 1 program. On initial start up I wanted it to create every file needed to run. I didn't want to have anything other than the search.exe to be able to use this search engine. The only file that I haven't added is the cript.txt used in encryption. A set of 127 chr switched to other values for encryption. I have the help.txt creation code in there. I did it primarily for myself. Much quicker to use the search to make code changes and check values. Your way would be a house of cards system where SSDS is 1 Huge card that you can jam and jam again. Trial and error works if you jam your spaghetti code. Jamming probably wouldn't work for Your way of coding. Poor poor you.

    Spaghetti code chef. There would still be lots of it out there. It's pretty difficult to radically change program structure and still have it do things the exact same way.

    All your attempts and troubles have been appreciated. Spenk I could be showing you some SSDS code changes for 15 minutes and you would be saying. Get out of the way old man. I can do this.

     


     

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-10-2009 8:44 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: This group makes me laugh. Thanks

    SpectateSwamp:
    Spenk you poor line number deprived bastard.
    Line numbers are worthless, if you are going to use labels give them a meaning not an arbitrary number. Numbers mean nothing a label has meaning. Even better why not use functions and sub routines instead as these make the code even more organised and readable.

    SpectateSwamp:
    The code is a lot simpler than any desktop search this group could come up with using their high high standards. Show me some simple code.
    This isn't a desktop search application. I have a desktop search application built into the os so why would I waste time writing my own?

    SpectateSwamp:
    It's not that your request isn't extremely valid. I have lists and lists of things I would sooner work on than yours. I checked my todo**vip notes and found over 300 hits. (probably 1/2 implemented) This program could do a lot more if this list of changes and enhancements were completed. If you were so smart and really wanted to use the search as is. You would put together a simple script that would copy all the *.c files to *.ccc  How tuff would that be? I know it's easier to sit there and whine. Get off your butt and do something. Come on Swampies write him a quickie in C. I could strip down SSDS and do it.
    Why should I have to change my files to work with your application though? The c source files I have have worked perfectly well for years as .c - what is the point in renaming them other than requiring me to change everything else on my system that assumes a .c extension?

    SpectateSwamp:
    Line numbers make it easy for me to know where the logic is within 10,000 lines of code. line 12000 should be somewhere near the middle of a 1 to 32767 range. They took line numbers out to be mean, no other reason.
    If you are writing routines of 10,000 lines you have bigger problems than line numbers. Giving a label a name means you can identify the functionality by it's name! Simple and easy. Even better put the functionality into named functions and it is even easier to locate.

    SpectateSwamp:
    It was difficult to keep all the options in 1 program. On initial start up I wanted it to create every file needed to run. I didn't want to have anything other than the search.exe to be able to use this search engine. The only file that I haven't added is the cript.txt used in encryption. A set of 127 chr switched to other values for encryption. I have the help.txt creation code in there. I did it primarily for myself. Much quicker to use the search to make code changes and check values. Your way would be a house of cards system where SSDS is 1 Huge card that you can jam and jam again. Trial and error works if you jam your spaghetti code. Jamming probably wouldn't work for Your way of coding. Poor poor you.
    It is much easier to check and search code when the code is organised sensibly. Moving things into a config file is a good move but not when the config file isn't easy to edit or understand though.

    My way of doing this wouldn't have anything to do with being a huge card (whatever that means) but a series of well defined and tested functions - each doing a single discreet task with well defined parameters and error handling.

     

    SpectateSwamp:
    Spaghetti code chef. There would still be lots of it out there. It's pretty difficult to radically change program structure and still have it do things the exact same way.
    It is only difficult to do if the structure is inherently hard to maintain,spaghetti code is a mess and hard to maintain by definition. Clean organised code be it functional, structured or OO becomes easier to maintain and change by virtue of being well organised.

    SpectateSwamp:
    All your attempts and troubles have been appreciated. Spenk I could be showing you some SSDS code changes for 15 minutes and you would be saying. Get out of the way old man. I can do this.
    That doesn't mean anything.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-10-2009 9:09 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: This group makes me laugh. Thanks

    SpectateSwamp:
    You would put together a simple script that would copy all the *.c files to *.ccc  How tuff would that be? I know it's easier to sit there and whine. Get off your butt and do something. Come on Swampies write him a quickie in C. I could strip down SSDS and do it.
    Even easier just spent a couple of minutes playing with powershell and came up with

    get-childitem -recurse | where-object {!$_.PSIsContainer} | foreach-object {select-string -pattern "delete" -path $_ | Select-Object FileName,LineNumber, Line | Format-List}

    Apart from not highlighting wordst the above line will search the entire subfolder without merging or indexing (as you seem to be against indexing) or renaming of files. Every time it gets a match it will display the filename, line number and matching line from the file. Seems to do everything I was asking you to show SSDS doing in one line...

    So remind me again why I should be required to rename files to suit you, merge files to suit you just so I can use SSDS to suit you....

    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-10-2009 11:44 AM In reply to

    Re: This group makes me laugh. Thanks

    SpectateSwamp:
    If you were so smart and really wanted to use the search as is, you would put together a simple script that would copy all the *.c files to *.ccc.  How tuff would that be?
     

    Too tuff to be of practical use.

    SpectateSwamp:
    I know it's easier to sit there and whine.

    It's easier to use the built-in search, which works as advertised.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Get off your butt and do something.

    Search programs have the implicit purpose of keeping me on my butt. If a search program requires that I get off my butt, the program has no purpose anymore.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Line numbers make it easy for me to know where the logic is within 10,000 lines of code

    Show us how.

    If you know which line number to go to, you must already know what's there, which means you can use a meaningful label to search for, with the added benefit that this label, in a sense, "auto-updates" its line number as you add & remove code, removing the necessity for you to manually keep track of line numbers.

     


     

    Hey, Spenk, this is sort of fun, you know. Kind of like a shooting range.


    In complex analysis, a meromorphic function on an open subset D of the complex plane is a function that is holomorphic on all D except a set of isolated points

  • 12-10-2009 11:48 AM In reply to

    Re: This group makes me laugh. Thanks

    spenk:

    Even easier just spent a couple of minutes playing with powershell and came up with

    get-childitem -recurse | where-object {!$_.PSIsContainer} | foreach-object {select-string -pattern "delete" -path $_ | Select-Object FileName,LineNumber, Line | Format-List}

    Invalid; doesn't have line numbers or noodles, and VB5 won't compile it. And does it do random video? Hahaha you poor sod, no one can compete with SSDS.
    I hate tags

  • 12-10-2009 12:45 PM In reply to

    • Xyro
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-10-2007
    • Location location = new EnterpriseLocatorFactory() .newLocator(Locale.US) .getLocationFacade(this, true) .getLocation();
    • Posts 1,715

    Re: This group makes me laugh. Thanks

     

    spenk:

    get-childitem -recurse | where-object {!$_.PSIsContainer} | foreach-object {select-string -pattern "delete" -path $_ | Select-Object FileName,LineNumber, Line | Format-List}

    Whoa, is that really the only way to do a grep --recursive --line-number in Powershell?  Surely it has some sort of builtin search...

    grep -rn --color=auto for the cool kids.

    #!/usr/bin/perl

    ($_,@x,@y,$r,$o)=( "Xyro's signature!", 0xe4e10e9d0a4803ea, 0x92b0b7684cda510e,
    0x9d2a504b06a54c04, 0xb04804bca984dc0c, 0xea4889b4dadb1108, 0x90534665a4c79811)
    ;%_=map{$_,1}split//;%_=map{$o++,$_}sort keys%_;@x=map{sprintf'%x',$_}@x;for(@x
    ){$r.=$_{hex$_}for(split//)}$r=~s$Xa$xa$;$_=$r;s;(^|! )(\w+);$1\u\L$2;g;print#!
  • 12-10-2009 1:11 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: This group makes me laugh. Thanks

    Xyro:

    Whoa, is that really the only way to do a grep --recursive --line-number in Powershell?  Surely it has some sort of builtin search...

    grep -rn --color=auto for the cool kids.

    I have no idea, done virtually nothing with powershell before - just pieced a few statements together and that seemed to work.
    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-11-2009 7:22 AM In reply to

    More randomness makes Knowledge `fun'

    derula:
    Invalid; doesn't have line numbers or noodles, and VB5 won't compile it. And does it do random video? Hahaha you poor sod, no one can compete with SSDS.

    DerulaSwamp you move to the front of the class.

    To present random dumb responses by this Group using SSDS

    Change the font sizes in control.txt. Make it quite large maybe 72 point. Set the number of lines of context to 2. This will show 2 blank lines before the match because you'll put them there, in the file questions.txt The match line will have a specific search line ie "question #1" the search string will be "question" the Hilite color will be set to the same as the regular background so that the match disappears when displayed ie only the "         #1" will show on that line. The next couple lines will have the text of the question. Keep it fairly short because the font is large. Put a couple blank lines behind the question as well.


    Example of questions.txt file:

    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "question #1"
    "without randomness"
    "you have nothing"
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "question #2"
    "SSDS is the best "
    "desktop search ever"
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "     blank line   "
    "question #3       "
           .
           .

    Set the character display speed in the control file from disabled to enabled
    set the "rand" option on for random
    set the tt time delay option to "tt4" or "tt6"
    set the "pause" option on this will make it run by itself (no more prompts)
        check out the source code; this one is very simple.
        You will need a good search to display 10,000 lines of code. Luckily we have SSDS

    Now lets go searching at prompt #2 enter "c" for context search. The search string at prompt #3 is "question" and away it goes randomly displaying the large font questions in slowed print, with a few second wait after each dumb answer.

    This will run for days and lets you check the randomness. When restarting the only option that needs to be reentered is the pause (I should add it to the control file) then the "C" context search and select the previous search string (line 1) which is "question" and away it goes again.

    When testing the above you should create a new folder and put a copy of search.exe there. Do the quickie first build. Then make the above changes. and jam it.

    I could go and look at the control file and the source code to provide the control element numbers that need changing but I won't.

    This text randomness is almost as cool as random video with slow motion and freeze frame. Having the random last frame display for 4 or 6 seconds is quite interesting. Without randomness you got nothing.

    P.S. it's ok, that you arn't "all knowing" about search. Most Swampies were wrong about that once too.

     

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-11-2009 7:52 AM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: More randomness makes Knowledge impossible to find

    SpectateSwamp:

    When testing the above you should create a new folder and put a copy of search.exe there. Do the quickie first build. Then make the above changes. and jam it.

    I could go and look at the control file and the source code to provide the control element numbers that need changing but I won't.

    This text randomness is almost as cool as random video with slow motion and freeze frame. Having the random last frame display for 4 or 6 seconds is quite interesting. Without randomness you got nothing.

    P.S. it's ok, that you arn't "all knowing" about search. Most Swampies were wrong about that once too.

    Thanks for that, yet another post that answers none of the questions asked, addresses none of the issues people mentioned and ignores everything people would like you to say in favour of a response full of 'random' as if that has anything to do with searching. You really are a tit.
    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
  • 12-11-2009 10:02 AM In reply to

    Re: More randomness makes Knowledge `fun'

    SpectateSwamp:
    boondoggle

    Your most recent post pretty much sums up the few years you've spent here... completely miss the sarcasm in one's post, make a few paragraphs of nonsense that I can't figure out, then a big demonstration about how random is the coolest thing in the world... followed by this creepy "join us" sentence that sounds like a typical date Katie Holmes probably had with Tom Cruise before they got married.

  • 12-11-2009 10:19 AM In reply to

    Re: More randomness makes Knowledge impossible to find

    spenk:
    ignores everything people would like you to say
    Yeah, tell us about your holey stones again. Did you save the world yet, Swampy?
    I hate tags

  • 12-11-2009 12:14 PM In reply to

    Re: More randomness makes Knowledge `fun'

    SpectateSwamp:
    This text randomness is almost as cool as random video with slow motion and freeze frame. Having the random last frame display for 4 or 6 seconds is quite interesting. Without randomness you got nothing.
     

    Allow me to respond to your useless SSDS options with a quote directly from you:

    SpectateSwamp:
    As for useless options. <*snip bit about useful GPS feature for camcorder*> Boo useless options.

  • 12-11-2009 3:26 PM In reply to

    Jamming random music with SSDS

    spenk:

     Thanks for that, yet another post that answers none of the questions asked, addresses none of the issues people mentioned and ignores everything people would like you to say in favour of a response full of 'random' as if that has anything to do with searching. You really are a tit.

     I got to trumpet the really neat features that others don't have and can't touch. Oooh this is such a great great feature. How come the other dodos don't have it. What's up?

    Music randomness is good. I'm not much into music so I tend to overlook how fantastic SSDS is in this area.

    First do a "gf" for "Get Files" at prompt #2 This function will do an auto catalog looking for mp3 files You pick the folder you want or the entire c:\ drive. This won't take a minute or 2.

    Then at prompt 1 enter the output file from the above step ie songs.txt

    at prompt #2 enter "rand" so it will pick a random song.
    at prompt #2 enter "randa" so it will pick a random start point.
    at prompt #2 enter "thumb" so the song will stop after the number of seconds in the timer setting below
    at prompt #2 enter "tt8" so it will play a 8 second random sample 
    at prompt #2 enter "ww" to start screen saver mode
    at prompt #3 enter "photo" (the default search string) it exists on every catalog line.

    The random 8 second segments begin to play and play and play. Hit enter to hear the whole song. After the full play SSDS goes back to random sampling

    Kill it at any time and have the same settings remain when you restart. They are all in the control.txt file so on restart you just have to "enter enter enter"

    SSDS lets you jam your computer. See what your computer can do! start 3 rapid slide shows going, maybe random video as well. How fast can it search huge text files. from a USB device? your main drive? See how fast you can be in and see the last page in a huge text file (your merged text) and close out completely. Easily under 4 seconds. The defaults on the start up and the close-out makes it so fast. (enter enter enter (view) enter enter enter) its done

    Programs that aren't fast, won't be used.

    This group just isn't going to give up just yet, are you?

    Desktop Search - Computing's EASY button
  • 12-11-2009 4:07 PM In reply to

    • spenk
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-23-2005
    • UK
    • Posts 547

    Re: Jamming random music with SSDS - more effort than using built in tools

    SpectateSwamp:
     I got to trumpet the really neat features that others don't have and can't touch. Oooh this is such a great great feature. How come the other dodos don't have it. What's up?
    They aren't great features though, they are pointless crap nobody other than yourself wants.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Music randomness is good. I'm not much into music so I tend to overlook how fantastic SSDS is in this area.
    This is one of the few areas where random is good, any music player though can do this - it is called 'Shuffle' and it is best suited to a music player not a search tool.

    SpectateSwamp:
    First do a "gf" for "Get Files" at prompt #2 This function will do an auto catalog looking for mp3 files You pick the folder you want or the entire c:\ drive. This won't take a minute or 2.
    Why bother, WDS or WMP will index my mp3s automatically and will keep the index up to date without me needing to do this everytime I add, delete or rename or alter a file.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Then at prompt 1 enter the output file from the above step ie songs.txt
    No need to do this with WMP or WDS.

    SpectateSwamp:
    at prompt #2 enter "rand" so it will pick a random song.
    With WMP I press the shuffle button and press play.

    SpectateSwamp:
    at prompt #2 enter "randa" so it will pick a random start point.
    at prompt #2 enter "thumb" so the song will stop after the number of seconds in the timer setting below
    at prompt #2 enter "tt8" so it will play a 8 second random sample 
    at prompt #2 enter "ww" to start screen saver mode
    at prompt #3 enter "photo" (the default search string) it exists on every catalog line.

    The random 8 second segments begin to play and play and play. Hit enter to hear the whole song. After the full play SSDS goes back to random sampling

    Why would I want to listen to a song from a random point? I want to hear songs from the start (call me peculiar) and normally I will listen to the song most of the time and skip the odd one, I have never wanted to skip the majority and listen the odd one which seems to be what you are advocating.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Kill it at any time and have the same settings remain when you restart. They are all in the control.txt file so on restart you just have to "enter enter enter"
    WMP would remember the playlist as well...

    SpectateSwamp:
    SSDS lets you jam your computer.
    That makes no sense.

    SpectateSwamp:
    See what your computer can do! start 3 rapid slide shows going, maybe random video as well.
    I can do random video anyway and a random slide show, I have never had the desire to do 3 random slide shows however.

    SpectateSwamp:
    How fast can it search huge text files. from a USB device? your main drive? See how fast you can be in and see the last page in a huge text file (your merged text) and close out completely. Easily under 4 seconds. The defaults on the start up and the close-out makes it so fast. (enter enter enter (view) enter enter enter) its done
    I don't have many huge text files to search, however I can search from usb or my main drive. If I wanted to see the end of a large file I would just 'tail' it under unix or 'Tail-File' under powershell.

    SpectateSwamp:
    Programs that aren't fast, won't be used.
    Neither will programs that are utter crap, hence the user base for SSDS is you and you alone.
    SpectateSwamp:
    Don't let them shut you up even if you can't spell or type or think straight. That's how you Share Knowledge.
Page 5 of 55 (2721 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems