|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
php-general-digest-help
lists.php.net
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 22:56:51 CST
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
php-general Digest 13 Dec 2007 04:56:51 -0000 Issue 5178
Topics (messages 265750 through 265822):
Re: Generating Random Numbers with Normal Distribution
265750 by: tedd
265751 by: tedd
265752 by: Jochem Maas
265753 by: tedd
265754 by: tedd
265758 by: Daniel Brown
265762 by: Robert Cummings
265763 by: Robert Cummings
265764 by: Robert Cummings
265765 by: Robert Cummings
265766 by: Robin Vickery
265767 by: Robert Cummings
265768 by: Jay Blanchard
265769 by: Daniel Brown
265770 by: Daniel Brown
265772 by: Robert Cummings
265773 by: Daniel Brown
265775 by: Jason Pruim
265778 by: Jochem Maas
265780 by: Robert Cummings
265781 by: Robert Cummings
265783 by: tedd
265786 by: tedd
265788 by: tedd
265789 by: tedd
265790 by: tedd
265791 by: tedd
265792 by: tedd
265793 by: tedd
265794 by: Nathan Nobbe
265802 by: Robert Cummings
265803 by: Robert Cummings
265804 by: Robert Cummings
265805 by: Robert Cummings
265806 by: Robert Cummings
265809 by: Daniel Brown
265810 by: tedd
265812 by: tedd
265813 by: tedd
265814 by: tedd
265815 by: tedd
265817 by: Andrés Robinet
265822 by: Robert Cummings
Re: Incorporating a PHP/MySQL based search
265755 by: tedd
265785 by: Steve Finkelstein
Re: Regular expressions
265756 by: tedd
Re: running cmd via php
265757 by: Daniel Brown
Re: Mysqli support - test or complain? [SOLVED]
265759 by: Nathan Nobbe
265761 by: Robert Cummings
Re: How to install ISAPI version on Vista IIS 6
265760 by: SED
issues with imap_qprint()
265771 by: Max Frigge
determine date range
265774 by: slith
265779 by: Andrew Ballard
265784 by: slith
mysql DATE_FORMAT() question
265776 by: Adam Williams
265777 by: Adam Williams
Install syck on PHP4
265782 by: GoWtHaM NaRiSiPaLli
265799 by: Richard Lynch
zlib and fopen and stream_filter_append, prebuffer read errors help
265787 by: Bob Sabiston
265801 by: Richard Lynch
265808 by: Bob Sabiston
265819 by: Casey
apc and cli
265795 by: Ravi Menon
265796 by: Nathan Nobbe
265798 by: Richard Lynch
265821 by: Ravi Menon
safe_mode_include_dir
265797 by: Tony Beyers
265800 by: Tony Beyers
265807 by: Daniel Brown
265811 by: Tony Beyers
265816 by: Andrés Robinet
temp tables mysql OT
265818 by: tedd
265820 by: Chris
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscribelists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscribelists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-generallists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
attached mail follows:
At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
>
>Without order there cannot be randomness.
Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
This is one of those yin-yang things.
There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
no order, nor randomness, existing in nature, it's our perception,
clarification, and categorization of nature that demands attributes
be assigned to artificial groupings of identity threshold exceeding
objects. In other words, we decide on what IT is and then assign
order to IT.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
>On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami <behzad.eslamigmail.com> wrote:
>> For some computer-based simulation, i need to
>> generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
>[snip!]
>
> Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
>thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random number being generated by
>a machine.
>
>--
>Daniel P. Brown
>[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
>[They're Hidden From View!]
Unless the computer is tied to a peripheral that samples nature.
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
tedd wrote:
> At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
>> with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
>> external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
>
>
> My guess is that if there was a time that this <whatever> did not exist,
> but now does exist, then it cannot be random. It may be random for a
> billion years, or more, but it would eventually repeat.
>
> However, it something started at the instant of the big-bang, then its
> repeat cycle would be at least equal-to, or greater-than, known time and
> thus random.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
tedd your as sick as Rob :-)
attached mail follows:
At 2:46 PM -0500 12/10/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:37 -0800, Stephen Johnson wrote:
>> True randomization is only really possible in nature.
>
>Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
>may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
>initial state was and we couldn't possibly calculate all the
>interactions since, doesn't mean that everything since hasn't been
>happening in accordance with some universal formula and in absence of
>randomness. We know that there appear to be certain laws in physics,
>would they not have applied to that initial state in a non random
>manner? It may just be that due to the hugantic sample space from which
>to draw arbitrary values that we think things are random.
>
>Food for thought :)
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Rob:
You most certainly have a point there. Our identification,
classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue.
Order and randomness are simply our perceptions of the world around
us and our perception is pretty limited
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 2:32 PM -0500 12/10/07, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
>Random numbers with Gauss distribution (normal distribution).
>A correct alghoritm. Without aproximations, like Smaaps'
>It is specially usefull for simulations in physics.
>Check yourself, and have a fun.
>-snip-
>
>JanS
>student of astronomy
>on Warsaw University
Thanks -- I am sure I will use that some time.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:00 AM, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
> At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
> > Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
> >thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random number being generated by
> >a machine.
> Unless the computer is tied to a peripheral that samples nature.
In which case the random number is not being generated by the
computer, but rather derived from data interpreted from nature.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
> > Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
> >with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
> >external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
>
>
> My guess is that if there was a time that this <whatever> did not
> exist, but now does exist, then it cannot be random. It may be random
> for a billion years, or more, but it would eventually repeat.
>
> However, it something started at the instant of the big-bang, then
> its repeat cycle would be at least equal-to, or greater-than, known
> time and thus random.
Just because something doesn't repeat doesn't make it random. It may be
that Pi never repeats and yet we know it is not random.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami <behzad.eslamigmail.com> wrote:
> >> For some computer-based simulation, i need to
> >> generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
> >[snip!]
> >
> > Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
> >thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random number being generated by
> >a machine.
> >
> >--
> >Daniel P. Brown
> >[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
> >[They're Hidden From View!]
>
> Unless the computer is tied to a peripheral that samples nature.
>
> In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
> truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just because
the timeline and sample space is immense doesn't make it random, it just
makes it difficult to guess. In fact, someone already mentioned the case
of computers in casinos that can predict the landing spot of a roulette
ball.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
> >
> >Without order there cannot be randomness.
>
> Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
You're random with disorder.
> This is one of those yin-yang things.
Not really :)
> There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
> no order, nor randomness, existing in nature, it's our perception,
> clarification, and categorization of nature that demands attributes
> be assigned to artificial groupings of identity threshold exceeding
> objects. In other words, we decide on what IT is and then assign
> order to IT.
Your statement is contradictory. If there is no randomness in nature
then there is no randomness in our minds since we are inherently a part
of nature-- yes even when we leave plastic lying around everywhere. We
aren't the only creatures in nature to make toxic messes (there's a
reason that you can't gain a higher alcohol concentration than about 18%
through the fermentation process).
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 2:46 PM -0500 12/10/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:37 -0800, Stephen Johnson wrote:
> >> True randomization is only really possible in nature.
> >
> >Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
> >may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
> >initial state was and we couldn't possibly calculate all the
> >interactions since, doesn't mean that everything since hasn't been
> >happening in accordance with some universal formula and in absence of
> >randomness. We know that there appear to be certain laws in physics,
> >would they not have applied to that initial state in a non random
> >manner? It may just be that due to the hugantic sample space from which
> >to draw arbitrary values that we think things are random.
> >
> >Food for thought :)
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob.
>
> Rob:
>
> You most certainly have a point there. Our identification,
> classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue.
> Order and randomness are simply our perceptions of the world around
> us and our perception is pretty limited
Did you just answer your queue of posts in reverse chronological
order? :)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On 12/12/2007, Daniel Brown <parasanegmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 9:00 AM, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
> > At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
> > >thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random number being generated by
> > >a machine.
>
> > Unless the computer is tied to a peripheral that samples nature.
>
> In which case the random number is not being generated by the
> computer, but rather derived from data interpreted from nature.
Can you define for me where the machine stops and nature starts?
I mean, if I make a clock that uses the physical properties of a
pendulum to demarcate units of time then the pendulum is obviously
part of the machine.
But if I make a computer that uses the physical properties of a
radio-isotope to generate random numbers, you seem to be be saying
that the radio-isotope is not part of the machine, but instead part of
nature.
-robin
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:15 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
> > >
> > >Without order there cannot be randomness.
> >
> > Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
>
> You're random with disorder.
That should have said "You're confusing random with disorder.". But
maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
[snip]
But maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
[/snip]
Maybe?
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 10:53 AM, Robin Vickery <robinvgmail.com> wrote:
> Can you define for me where the machine stops and nature starts?
>
> I mean, if I make a clock that uses the physical properties of a
> pendulum to demarcate units of time then the pendulum is obviously
> part of the machine.
>
> But if I make a computer that uses the physical properties of a
> radio-isotope to generate random numbers, you seem to be be saying
> that the radio-isotope is not part of the machine, but instead part of
> nature.
When a pendulum swings, it's slowed, stopped, and reverses
direction based upon the equal-opposite force from a combination of
gravity and the machine to which it's attached. It is then a part of
the machine.
A radioactive isotope will decay on its own, regardless of
influence from the machine with which it is being monitored.
So your argument, creating a likeness between two unrelated parts,
is equivalent to saying that all of nature is potentially part of all
machines.
If I want to turn on a light at random, I could attach an X10
motion detector to a tree in the woods. When a deer happens to walk
by, it would trip the motion detector and activate the receiver, which
would then allow electricity to flow and power the lamp. By your
definition (and please don't take this message as accusatory, it's
simply for the love of argument, not a personal attack as some would
believe), the deer is then part of the machine, despite it's
predetermined and/or externally-influenced (hunting season!) choice of
path.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:04 AM, Jay Blanchard <jblanchardpocket.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> But maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
> [/snip]
>
> Maybe?
>
In Tedd's defense, there's a fine line between genius and
insanity, and he keeps getting closer and closer to that genius side.
;-P
I don't think any of us have the right to claim insanity for
another when we ourselves are probably not very well-balanced. If the
pot calls the kettle black, then it's time to get a new pot that
doesn't talk, because that would kinda' freak me out a bit.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:16 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 10:53 AM, Robin Vickery <robinvgmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you define for me where the machine stops and nature starts?
> >
> > I mean, if I make a clock that uses the physical properties of a
> > pendulum to demarcate units of time then the pendulum is obviously
> > part of the machine.
> >
> > But if I make a computer that uses the physical properties of a
> > radio-isotope to generate random numbers, you seem to be be saying
> > that the radio-isotope is not part of the machine, but instead part of
> > nature.
>
> When a pendulum swings, it's slowed, stopped, and reverses
> direction based upon the equal-opposite force from a combination of
> gravity and the machine to which it's attached. It is then a part of
> the machine.
>
> A radioactive isotope will decay on its own, regardless of
> influence from the machine with which it is being monitored.
>
> So your argument, creating a likeness between two unrelated parts,
> is equivalent to saying that all of nature is potentially part of all
> machines.
>
> If I want to turn on a light at random, I could attach an X10
> motion detector to a tree in the woods. When a deer happens to walk
> by, it would trip the motion detector and activate the receiver, which
> would then allow electricity to flow and power the lamp. By your
> definition (and please don't take this message as accusatory, it's
> simply for the love of argument, not a personal attack as some would
> believe), the deer is then part of the machine, despite it's
> predetermined and/or externally-influenced (hunting season!) choice of
> path.
The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
machine that is the universe.
As such, the deer is indeed part of the machine as are the decaying
isotopes that were probably formed in some process of the universe.
Whether that be the internal reactor of a star or some other event.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:26 AM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
> machine that is the universe.
>
> As such, the deer is indeed part of the machine as are the decaying
> isotopes that were probably formed in some process of the universe.
> Whether that be the internal reactor of a star or some other event.
I completely agree, and I was waiting for someone to throw in the
Grand Scheme concept (no surprise that it's you, Cummings! ;-P), but
that's beyond the scope of the "machine" we're discussing.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 11:26 AM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com>
> wrote:
>> The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the
>> greater
>> machine that is the universe.
>>
>> As such, the deer is indeed part of the machine as are the decaying
>> isotopes that were probably formed in some process of the universe.
>> Whether that be the internal reactor of a star or some other event.
>
> I completely agree, and I was waiting for someone to throw in the
> Grand Scheme concept (no surprise that it's you, Cummings! ;-P), but
> that's beyond the scope of the "machine" we're discussing.
>
And since when did "scope" ever stop anything on this list?
BTW Deer taste good *Gets ready to duck from all the non-deer eating
people*
--
Jason Pruim
Raoset Inc.
Technology Manager
MQC Specialist
3251 132nd ave
Holland, MI, 49424
www.raoset.com
japruimraoset.com
attached mail follows:
Robert Cummings wrote:
....
>
> The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
> machine that is the universe.
>
heh, that makes me a browser. :-P
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:43 -0500, Jason Pruim wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 2007 11:26 AM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com>
> > wrote:
> >> The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the
> >> greater
> >> machine that is the universe.
> >>
> >> As such, the deer is indeed part of the machine as are the decaying
> >> isotopes that were probably formed in some process of the universe.
> >> Whether that be the internal reactor of a star or some other event.
> >
> > I completely agree, and I was waiting for someone to throw in the
> > Grand Scheme concept (no surprise that it's you, Cummings! ;-P), but
> > that's beyond the scope of the "machine" we're discussing.
> >
>
> And since when did "scope" ever stop anything on this list?
>
> BTW Deer taste good *Gets ready to duck from all the non-deer eating
> people*
I have some deer sirloins in the freezer, great on the BBQ.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 17:50 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> ....
> >
> > The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
> > machine that is the universe.
> >
>
> heh, that makes me a browser. :-P
Not IE I hope :B
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
At 3:13 PM +0100 12/12/07, Jochem Maas wrote:
>tedd wrote:
>> At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
>>> Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
>>> with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
>>> external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
>>
>>
>> My guess is that if there was a time that this <whatever> did not exist,
>> but now does exist, then it cannot be random. It may be random for a
>> billion years, or more, but it would eventually repeat.
>>
>> However, it something started at the instant of the big-bang, then its
>> repeat cycle would be at least equal-to, or greater-than, known time and
>> thus random.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> tedd
>
>tedd your as sick as Rob :-)
Thank you. That puts me in good company.
Sick minds think alike.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 10:12 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
>> At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> > Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
>> >with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
>> >external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
>>
>>
>> [1]My guess is that if there was a time that this <whatever> did not
>> exist, but now does exist, then it cannot be random. It may be random
>> for a billion years, or more, but it would eventually repeat.
>>
>> [2]However, it something started at the instant of the big-bang, then
>> its repeat cycle would be at least equal-to, or greater-than, known
>> time and thus random.
>
>Just because something doesn't repeat doesn't make it random. It may be
>that Pi never repeats and yet we know it is not random.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Yes, that's a good observation, but look to rule [1] -- when did Pi come about?
Again, it's one of those food for thought arguments.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 10:15 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
>> no order, nor randomness, existing in nature, it's our perception,
>> clarification, and categorization of nature that demands attributes
>> be assigned to artificial groupings of identity threshold exceeding
>> objects. In other words, we decide on what IT is and then assign
>> order to IT.
>
>Your statement is contradictory. If there is no randomness in nature
>then there is no randomness in our minds since we are inherently a part
>of nature-- yes even when we leave plastic lying around everywhere. We
>aren't the only creatures in nature to make toxic messes (there's a
>reason that you can't gain a higher alcohol concentration than about 18%
>through the fermentation process).
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Just because we come from nature, does not mean that our perception
of randomness and order is forced upon Nature -- Nature is what
Nature does.
Our minds are not complete (some less than others) and we do not have
everything solved. It is part of our survival mechanism to understand
the world around us and we are continually adding to our collective
knowledge -- it's the great equalizer between us and other critters.
We've developed a system for observation and it's that system that is
problematic in trying to determine and apply artificial terms for
order and randomness. Granted it's a pretty good system, better than
any other critters, but certainly not flawless.
I can look out over the Mojave desert and see tumbleweeds growing in
cubic-closest packing (as I've done). I can reason and postulate why
they grow that way, but the tumbleweeds don't give a hoot -- they
just grow that way.
Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
As for plastic -- either Mother Nature will deal with plastic or
we'll add another rock-type to the stratigraphic record.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
>> truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
>
>Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just because
>the timeline and sample space is immense doesn't make it random, it just
>makes it difficult to guess. In fact, someone already mentioned the case
>of computers in casinos that can predict the landing spot of a roulette
>ball.
Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it's true.
I remember in the old days where they used roulette wheels to
generate random lists.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 10:18 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > You most certainly have a point there. Our identification,
>> classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue.
>> Order and randomness are simply our perceptions of the world around
>> us and our perception is pretty limited
>
>Did you just answer your queue of posts in reverse chronological
>order? :)
It doesn't make any difference -- I'm stateless.
My opinion is always the same regardless of how many times I change it.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 11:00 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:15 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
>> > At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Without order there cannot be randomness.
>> >
>> > Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
>>
>> You're random with disorder.
>
>That should have said "You're confusing random with disorder.". But
>maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Yes, but what if my disorder was random?
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 10:04 AM -0600 12/12/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
>[snip]
>But maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
>[/snip]
>
>Maybe?
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 11:43 AM -0500 12/12/07, Jason Pruim wrote:
>*Gets ready to duck from all the non-deer eating people*
Drat!
There are lot's of things that are non-deer -- even ducks. But they
don't all eat people.
The world is getting out of whack again.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
> At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
> >> truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
> >
> >Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just because
> >the timeline and sample space is immense doesn't make it random, it just
> >makes it difficult to guess. In fact, someone already mentioned the case
> >of computers in casinos that can predict the landing spot of a roulette
> >ball.
>
> Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it's true.
>
pfft; just because you dont believe it doenst mean its false. the show was
on
pbs. there were 2 guys studying chaos theory. its a typical story. one
guy thinks
he can do it.. talks the other guy into dropping out of college, then they
really dig in.
basically they way it worked is, they could predict a portion of the wheel
where the
ball would land, not the exact position. in fact they could get the result
within 1/8 of
the wheel. this turned out to be very convenient, because they would bet on
an eighth
of the table size every time, whereas others would be on an exact position
of the table.
this appeared inconspicuous. they then trained their people to make
conservative bets to
further avert attention.
if pbs had a database that actually worked, i would find the name of the
program and have
more specific details for you.
I remember in the old days where they used roulette wheels to
> generate random lists.
>
get with the times; these are the days of decaying isotopes :-O
-nathan
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 12:40 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 10:12 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
> >> At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> > Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
> >> >with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
> >> >external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]My guess is that if there was a time that this <whatever> did not
> >> exist, but now does exist, then it cannot be random. It may be random
> >> for a billion years, or more, but it would eventually repeat.
> >>
> >> [2]However, it something started at the instant of the big-bang, then
> >> its repeat cycle would be at least equal-to, or greater-than, known
> >> time and thus random.
> >
> >Just because something doesn't repeat doesn't make it random. It may be
> >that Pi never repeats and yet we know it is not random.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob.
>
>
> Yes, that's a good observation, but look to rule [1] -- when did Pi come about?
You mean guess [1] :) At any rate I'm not sure how assertion [1] affects
the observation.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 10:15 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > > There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
> >> no order, nor randomness, existing in nature, it's our perception,
> >> clarification, and categorization of nature that demands attributes
> >> be assigned to artificial groupings of identity threshold exceeding
> >> objects. In other words, we decide on what IT is and then assign
> >> order to IT.
> >
> >Your statement is contradictory. If there is no randomness in nature
> >then there is no randomness in our minds since we are inherently a part
> >of nature-- yes even when we leave plastic lying around everywhere. We
> >aren't the only creatures in nature to make toxic messes (there's a
> >reason that you can't gain a higher alcohol concentration than about 18%
> >through the fermentation process).
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob.
> Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
> nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
Actually, order is proven. The fact that I can re-arrange objects into
an order proves it exists, the accuracy of the ordering may fall into
question, but not that they are ordered. It's random that can't be
proven.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:16 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
> >> truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
> >
> >Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just because
> >the timeline and sample space is immense doesn't make it random, it just
> >makes it difficult to guess. In fact, someone already mentioned the case
> >of computers in casinos that can predict the landing spot of a roulette
> >ball.
>
> Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it's true.
>
> I remember in the old days where they used roulette wheels to
> generate random lists.
Seemingly random lists... We haven't proven random yet ;)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:18 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 10:18 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > > You most certainly have a point there. Our identification,
> >> classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue.
> >> Order and randomness are simply our perceptions of the world around
> >> us and our perception is pretty limited
> >
> >Did you just answer your queue of posts in reverse chronological
> >order? :)
>
> It doesn't make any difference -- I'm stateless.
>
> My opinion is always the same regardless of how many times I change it.
Contradiction. Change implies not the same. I'm sure your tongue was in
your cheek though when you wrote it :)
Cheers,
Rob
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 11:00 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:15 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
> >> > At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >Without order there cannot be randomness.
> >> >
> >> > Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
> >>
> >> You're random with disorder.
> >
> >That should have said "You're confusing random with disorder.". But
> >maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob.
>
> Yes, but what if my disorder was random?
How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
instance throwing a handful of sand into the air is expected to obey the
establish laws of physics. These laws of physics suggest order in the
universe even when we perceive disorder.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 3:42 PM, Robert Cummings <robertinterjinn.com> wrote:
> How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
> can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
> instance throwing a handful of sand into the air is expected to obey the
> establish laws of physics. These laws of physics suggest order in the
> universe even when we perceive disorder.
Quite honestly, with as much as we're disproving about the laws of
physics, they should probably first be introduced as bills and then
voted upon by the community.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
attached mail follows:
At 1:33 PM -0500 12/12/07, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
>On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, tedd
><<mailto:tedd.sperlinggmail.com>tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it's true.
>
>
>pfft; just because you dont believe it doenst mean its false.
Nope, but I find it difficult o believe.
>I remember in the old days where they used roulette wheels to
>generate random lists.
>
>
>get with the times; these are the days of decaying isotopes :-O
Just because I remember it, doesn't mean that I'm not with it. When I
start forgetting, then you can say that. :-)
I'm adding that the people who put the first man on the moon with
their slide rules also used roulette wheels as random number
generators.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 3:34 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
>> nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
>
>Actually, order is proven. The fact that I can re-arrange objects into
>an order proves it exists, the accuracy of the ordering may fall into
>question, but not that they are ordered. It's random that can't be
>proven.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
No, just because you can "re-arrange objects" to your definition of
order does not mean they are ordered -- unless you are making one of
those "begging the question" arguments (i.e., "I ordered it,
therefore it's ordered").
Instead, I claim that you perceive order, when there is not, other
than in your mind, and that's the point. One might claim that if you
could order things, then they would remain ordered -- but nothing
remains stagnant.
Furthermore, what you claim as ordered will not necessarily be "in
order" by another observer. As such, "order" is an abstract concept
of the mind, nothing else.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 3:35 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:16 -0500, tedd wrote:
>> At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> > > In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
>> >> truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
>> >
>> >Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just because
>> >the timeline and sample space is immense doesn't make it random, it just
>> >makes it difficult to guess. In fact, someone already mentioned the case
>> >of computers in casinos that can predict the landing spot of a roulette
>> >ball.
>>
>> Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it's true.
>>
>> I remember in the old days where they used roulette wheels to
>> generate random lists.
>
>Seemingly random lists... We haven't proven random yet ;)
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Yeah, but we haven't proven order yet either. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 3:36 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:18 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > My opinion is always the same regardless of how many times I change it.
>
>Contradiction. Change implies not the same. I'm sure your tongue was in
>your cheek though when you wrote it :)
>
>Cheers,
>Rob
Rob:
Yep, that's what it was meant to be.
When I worked for AT&T, we used to run cable from equipment bays to
other equipment bays. I used to delight in telling the foreman "No
matter how many times I cut this cable, it's still too short!"
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
At 3:42 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > Yes, but what if my disorder was random?
>
>How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
>can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
>instance throwing a handful of sand into the air is expected to obey the
>establish laws of physics. These laws of physics suggest order in the
>universe even when we perceive disorder.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Yes, but now we're getting back to artificial rules of the mind. We
perceive the laws of physics to work a certain way because we have
established rules as to how they should work. But, what happens when
they don't work? Then we change the rules. We are now at string
theory and things still remain disordered. All our efforts to put
order to things still fall short.
Also, when we do change our rules, nature hasn't changed. Nature
hasn't suddenly changed to our view, but rather we change our
thinking to adapt to observation. And it's in those terms of
observation that order and disorder of things comes about and not in
nature.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tedd [mailto:tedd.sperlinggmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:35 PM
> To: PHP General list
> Subject: RE: [PHP] Generating Random Numbers with Normal Distribution
>
> At 3:42 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > Yes, but what if my disorder was random?
> >
> >How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
> >can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
> >instance throwing a handful of sand into the air is expected to obey
> the
> >establish laws of physics. These laws of physics suggest order in the
> >universe even when we perceive disorder.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob.
>
> Yes, but now we're getting back to artificial rules of the mind. We
> perceive the laws of physics to work a certain way because we have
> established rules as to how they should work. But, what happens when
> they don't work? Then we change the rules. We are now at string
> theory and things still remain disordered. All our efforts to put
> order to things still fall short.
>
> Also, when we do change our rules, nature hasn't changed. Nature
> hasn't suddenly changed to our view, but rather we change our
> thinking to adapt to observation. And it's in those terms of
> observation that order and disorder of things comes about and not in
> nature.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
>
> --
> -------
> http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Ok... I guess you have too much free time to run into such a philosophical
meditation, lol. Anyway, being an existentialist and empiricist... I won't
believe in a random number until I see it, smell it, hear it, taste it and
touch it here and now! lol
Rob
Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
| TEL 954-607-4207 | FAX 954-337-2695
Email: infobestplace.net | MSN Chat: bestbestplace.net | SKYPE:
bestplace | Web: http://www.bestplace.biz | Web: http://www.seo-diy.com
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:20 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 3:34 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> > > Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
> >> nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
> >
> >Actually, order is proven. The fact that I can re-arrange objects into
> >an order proves it exists, the accuracy of the ordering may fall into
> >question, but not that they are ordered. It's random that can't be
> >proven.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rob.
>
> No, just because you can "re-arrange objects" to your definition of
> order does not mean they are ordered -- unless you are making one of
> those "begging the question" arguments (i.e., "I ordered it,
> therefore it's ordered").
Actually it does mean they're ordered. I re-arranged them from their
previous order/disorder. As such I exerted control. Control facilitates
order. The fact that I moved it from A to B means I controlled it, since
I controlled it I ordered it. This is not begging the question.
> Instead, I claim that you perceive order, when there is not, other
> than in your mind, and that's the point. One might claim that if you
> could order things, then they would remain ordered -- but nothing
> remains stagnant.
>
> Furthermore, what you claim as ordered will not necessarily be "in
> order" by another observer. As such, "order" is an abstract concept
> of the mind, nothing else.
Other observers aren't important since reality is what *I* observe.
Additionally, the fact that I order something for any moment of time,
however infinitely small, still means I ordered it. The fact that the
order decays due to other influences just reinforces the fact that there
are other rules at play that order the universe according to the
execution of those rules... aka physics. This brings us back to the
greater machine at play-- the universe, and how we are just machines
within the large machine. We can order things, but the greater machine
has final say since it is already running and we are within its
influence.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
At 5:36 PM -0500 12/8/07, Steve Finkelstein wrote:
>Hey folks,
>
>One area I lack experience in is writting a solution to index/search on a
>site. Would anyone be kind enough and point me in the right direction as far
>as any books which discuss some simple solutions or articles/blogs on the
>web? Clearly I'm not looking for anything as complex as Google's engine, ;-)
>but would love just to be able to understand/incorporate a decent level of
>search capabilities.
>
>Cheers all,
>
>- sf
Steve:
If you don't want to do it yourself , try this:
http://sperling.com/examples/search/
It's very simple to do.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
Thanks Tedd... looks like a promising link. I'll take a look!
On 12/12/07, tedd <tedd.sperlinggmail.com> wrote:
>
> At 5:36 PM -0500 12/8/07, Steve Finkelstein wrote:
> >Hey folks,
> >
> >One area I lack experience in is writting a solution to index/search on a
> >site. Would anyone be kind enough and point me in the right direction as
> far
> >as any books which discuss some simple solutions or articles/blogs on the
> >web? Clearly I'm not looking for anything as complex as Google's engine,
> ;-)
> >but would love just to be able to understand/incorporate a decent level
> of
> >search capabilities.
> >
> >Cheers all,
> >
> >- sf
>
>
> Steve:
>
> If you don't want to do it yourself , try this:
>
> http://sperling.com/examples/search/
>
> It's very simple to do.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
> --
> -------
> http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
>
attached mail follows:
At 2:04 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
><?php
>
>if( strlen( $pw1 ) < 6
> ||
> !ereg( '[[:digit:]]', $pw1 )
> ||
> strlen( ereg_replace( '[^[:alpha:]]', '', $pw1 ) ) < 2
> ||
> strlen( ereg_replace( '[[:alnum:][:space:]]', '', $pw1 ) ) < 1 )
>{
> // error message
>}
>
>?>
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
Rob:
You are a never ending supply for great snip-its!
Thanks,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
attached mail follows:
On Dec 11, 2007 9:20 PM, Stephen Johnson <mailliststhelonecoder.com> wrote:
> Google : php exexcute windows commands
>
> You can even hit the "I'm feeling lucky button." ;)
I was actually going to say the exact same thing. ;-P
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're Hidden From View!]
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 4:47 AM, Per Jessen <percomputer.org> wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> >> I can't remember what sort of environment the OP was in, but if any
> >> sort of organised testing is done, the use of two different APIs will
> >> just about double the test-effort. Which is why I still think the
> >> best option is to mandate _one_ of the APIs and choose your hoster
> >> accordingly.
> >
> > Well if you write unit tests, having the unit tests applied to one or
> > the other is the same amount of work since it just requires a switch
> > to change between mysql and mysqli.
>
> Regardless of how you do it, it's twice the amount of work to run a test
> twice.
>
actually its really not a big deal to actually run a test a couple of times.
supporting multiple libraries will add flexibility, but always with
flexibility there
is the cost of additional complexity (this can take many forms).
in regard to unit tests, the extra effort would be spent actually writing
both
unit tests. however, once the first one is written the second one should be
pretty easy, especially if they are both coded against an abstract database
interface. it could even make sense to write one test against an abstract
class
then create concrete subclasses for each specific library. then in the
future
adding a test for, say postgre, would be trivial.
-nathan
attached mail follows:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:47 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> >> I can't remember what sort of environment the OP was in, but if any
> >> sort of organised testing is done, the use of two different APIs will
> >> just about double the test-effort. Which is why I still think the
> >> best option is to mandate _one_ of the APIs and choose your hoster
> >> accordingly.
> >
> > Well if you write unit tests, having the unit tests applied to one or
> > the other is the same amount of work since it just requires a switch
> > to change between mysql and mysqli.
>
> Regardless of how you do it, it's twice the amount of work to run a test
> twice.
No, it's twice the amount of time to run the test a second time. But if
it's a unit test it's time you can be doing something else... or maybe
when you install PHP from source you sit there and watch the unit tests
run at the end? I go and do something else in another window. The whole
point of unit tests is to automate testing things so that there's "less"
work to do.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
attached mail follows:
That's right. I'm running IIS 7 not IIS 6. I was to fast reading the
"version 6" in the about box.
I found out I needed to setup the IIS 7 with ISAPImodule specially. I found
that out by expanding the IIS7-setup-option-tree to the bottom. They at
Microsoft are very clever to "hide" this, ASP vs. PHP
Maybe I'll make a webpage to explain this and post it here. This took to
much time to find out and I found no throughout guidance on the web.
SED
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrés Robinet [mailto:agrobinetbestplace.biz]
Sent: 12. desember 2007 05:05
To: 'SED'
Cc: php-generallists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP] How to install ISAPI version on Vista IIS 6
I think I found a solution for you... or at least a step closer. One
correction though, you are likely running IIS 7.0 and not IIS 6.0, right?
Check this out
http://www.phpbuilder.com/board/showthread.php?t=10344435&highlight=php+5.2.
3 It seems that the default installation of windows IIS 7.0 for Vista does
not include the CGI and ISAPI modules. You need to include at least the one
you'll be using for PHP, I guess ISAPI but I've read about some problems
with extensions, so... give it a try, it's a pity I don't have a Vista box
to try it and tell you.
Anyway... hope you manage to get it installed, and when you do... POST IT
BACK, there will surely be other people willing to know about it in this
list.
Rob
Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
| TEL 954-607-4207 | FAX 954-337-2695
Email: infobestplace.net | MSN Chat: bestbestplace.net | SKYPE:
bestplace | Web: http://www.bestplace.biz | Web: http://www.seo-diy.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SED [mailto:sedsed.is]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:44 AM
> To: 'Andrés Robinet'
> Cc: php-generallists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP] How to install ISAPI version on Vista IIS 6
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I'm not offended, I'm pistoff with Microsoft. Paying so much for VISTA
> and
> so many troubles and so litle support... I have other computers
> running
> various others systems but I need to solve this case.
>
> Your comment, only makes me smile, over how stupid I was to pay for
> Vista.
>
> Regards,
> SED
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrés Robinet [mailto:agrobinetbestplace.biz]
> Sent: 12. desember 2007 04:08
> To: php-generallists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP] How to install ISAPI version on Vista IIS 6
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SED [mailto:sedsed.is]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:25 AM
> > To: php-generallists.php.net
> > Subject: [PHP] How to install ISAPI version on Vista IIS 6
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm running Vista Ultimate on my computer with IIS 6.0.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to manually install PHP 5 (ISAPI) on IIS but in the
> "Handler
> > mappings" I get this message:
> >
> >
> >
> > "One or more of the modules specified for this handler does not exist
> > in the
> > modules list. If you are trying to add a script map the IsapiModule
> or
> > the
> > CgiModule is not prensent in the modules list."
> >
> >
> >
> > I have Googled this but did not find any answers. Even on php.net
> there
> > is
> > no mention on Vista.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you point me to guidance for installing PHP 5 on Vista running
> IIS
> > 6.0?
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SED
> >
>
> Hope you don't get offended but... check
> http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
> (the last one "choose a vista" is very instructive).
> I've never had a Mac, but I've laughed a lot... and I'm every day
> thinking
> more and more certain of not upgrading my XP. Hope you smile at least
> for 30
> seconds. :)
>
> Rob
>
>
> Andrés Robinet | Lead Developer | BESTPLACE CORPORATION
> 5100 Bayview Drive 206, Royal Lauderdale Landings, Fort Lauderdale, FL
> 33308
> | TEL 954-607-4207 | FAX 954-337-2695
> Email: infobestplace.net | MSN Chat: bestbestplace.net | SKYPE:
> bestplace | Web: http://www.bestplace.biz | Web: http://www.seo-
> diy.com
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
attached mail follows:
Hey there,
I try to decode the subjects of an email with German umlaute (öäü ..),
which are encoded in in quoted printable.
For Example ... the string "Gr=FC=DFen" has to be converted to "Grüßen".
I tried it with a little example and it worked fine:
<?php
$test = imap_qprint("Gr=FC=DFen");
$handle = fopen("codetest.xml", "w");
fwrite($handle, $test); // writes "Grüßen" into the file
fclose($handle);
?>
But when i implement the imap_qprint function into the real script,
in which i read the email header information it writes something like
this:
"=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Grüßen?"
So it decodes right but it puts this ugly iso code info
around the result. It's kinda wired because i use it exactly
the way I did in the example shown above.
Is there any way to avoid this or a build in function to strip
that crap??
greets,
Max
attached mail follows:
I'm working on hotel type booking script where prices will vary
depending on the season. prices are updated every year so i need to take
a user inputed date and determine which season the date falls under.
i figured i can convert all dates into a timestamp and then run a series
conditional statements to see which returns true.
something like this:
// date ranges
$dates[1]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '01', '04', date('Y'));
$dates[1]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '04', '14', date('Y'));
$dates[2]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '04', '15', date('Y'));
$dates[2]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '08', '18', date('Y'));
$dates[3]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '08', '19', date('Y'));
$dates[3]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '12', '23', date('Y'));
$dates[4]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '12', '14', date('Y'));
$dates[4]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '01', '03', date('Y') + 1);
// tstamp is user inputed date
if($tstamp >= $dates[1]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[1]['end']){
return 1;
}
if($tstamp >= $dates[2]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[2]['end']){
return 2;
}
if($tstamp >= $dates[3]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[3]['end']){
return 3;
}
if($tstamp >= $dates[4]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[4]['end']){
return 4;
}
now, not sure why this isn't working...but it's not returning true for
any of these.
also i'm realizing i need to account for people who decide to book a
date a year ahead, in which case this approach will break since all
timestamp date ranges (except for $date[4]['end']) are set to the
current year.
any suggestions on how i should approach this problem?
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:39 AM, slith <slithonegmail.com> wrote:
> I'm working on hotel type booking script where prices will vary
> depending on the season. prices are updated every year so i need to take
> a user inputed date and determine which season the date falls under.
>
> i figured i can convert all dates into a timestamp and then run a series
> conditional statements to see which returns true.
>
> something like this:
>
> // date ranges
> $dates[1]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '01', '04', date('Y'));
> $dates[1]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '04', '14', date('Y'));
>
> $dates[2]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '04', '15', date('Y'));
> $dates[2]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '08', '18', date('Y'));
>
> $dates[3]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '08', '19', date('Y'));
> $dates[3]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '12', '23', date('Y'));
>
> $dates[4]['start'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '12', '14', date('Y'));
> $dates[4]['end'] = mktime(0, 0, 0, '01', '03', date('Y') + 1);
>
> // tstamp is user inputed date
> if($tstamp >= $dates[1]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[1]['end']){
> return 1;
> }
>
> if($tstamp >= $dates[2]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[2]['end']){
> return 2;
> }
>
> if($tstamp >= $dates[3]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[3]['end']){
> return 3;
> }
>
> if($tstamp >= $dates[4]['start'] && $tstamp <= $dates[4]['end']){
> return 4;
> }
>
>
> now, not sure why this isn't working...but it's not returning true for
> any of these.
>
> also i'm realizing i need to account for people who decide to book a
> date a year ahead, in which case this approach will break since all
> timestamp date ranges (except for $date[4]['end']) are set to the
> current year.
>
> any suggestions on how i should approach this problem?
>
>
>
>
Will the boundary dates for each season change from one year to the
next? If so, I would probably store the seasons in a database table
and then just query from that table where the user-entered date is
between the season start and end dates. The table of seasons could
have dates configured as far out into the future as desired. If the
boundary dates are the same every year, you can ignore the year and
just compare the month/day of the user-entered date with the month/day
of the season boundaries.
Andrew
attached mail follows:
yes, i was trying to keep things simple and avoid using a database but i
think may go that route like you suggested.
Andrew Ballard wrote:
>
> Will the boundary dates for each season change from one year to the
> next? If so, I would probably store the seasons in a database table
> and then just query from that table where the user-entered date is
> between the season start and end dates. The table of seasons could
> have dates configured as far out into the future as desired. If the
> boundary dates are the same every year, you can ignore the year and
> just compare the month/day of the user-entered date with the month/day
> of the season boundaries.
>
> Andrew
attached mail follows:
I ran the commands:
CREATE TABLE testtable ( testdate DATETIME);
INSERT INTO testtable (testdate) VALUES (now());
and then I want to select it but format it to show the date only (not
the time, and yes I know I could use DATE instead of DATETIME, but there
may be cases where I need to show the time also). So I run:
select DATE_FORMAT(testdate, '%m\-%d\-%Y') from testtable AS date_column;
+-------------------------------------+
| DATE_FORMAT(testdate, '%m\-%d\-%Y') |
+-------------------------------------+
| 12-12-2007 |
+-------------------------------------+
now my question is, why is the column heading DATE_FORMAT(testdate,
'%m\-%d\-%Y') even though I told it to be called date_column?
attached mail follows:
nevermind, I see I had a mistake in my mysql statement, I should of been:
select DATE_FORMAT(testdate, '%m\-%d\-%Y') as date_column from testtable;
please disregard.
attached mail follows:
I am trying to install php4-syck but there is no package for it on apt
repository on ubuntu. So I got the .deb package and did
#dpkg -i php4-syck.x.deb
it installed the package and I restarted the apache webserver and tried to
run syck_load() function. It throws me an error that the function is not
found.
What else needs to be done to make this work.
Thanks
GTM
attached mail follows:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:35 am, GoWtHaM NaRiSiPaLli wrote:
> I am trying to install php4-syck but there is no package for it on apt
> repository on ubuntu. So I got the .deb package and did
> #dpkg -i php4-syck.x.deb
> it installed the package and I restarted the apache webserver and
> tried to
> run syck_load() function. It throws me an error that the function is
> not
> found.
>
> What else needs to be done to make this work.
Always start by looking at output of:
<?php phpinfo();?>
I would make a WILD GUESS that you need to edit the php.ini mentioned
there and add a new line to enable the extension 'syck'
You'd think the fancy package installers would do that for you, but
they often make invalid assumptions about where your php.ini file
lives, and edit the wrong file, and...
If you get it right (don't forget to re-start Apace!) then you SHOULD
see 'syck' listed as an extension in your <?php phpinfo();?>
If it ain't listed, you didn't install it right.
You may also want to try to compile PHP and syck from source:
http://trac.symfony-project.com/wiki/InstallingSyck
I never even heard of syck until now, and only did the Google for you,
really...
The syck people and/or the Ubunty/Debian folks may be better prepared
to help you, depending on what is actually going wrong, as I doubt too
many readers here ever heard of syck either...
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?
attached mail follows:
Hello,
I'm trying to read some zlib-compressed data from a regular binary
file. When I try to attach the zlib compression filter, I am getting
an error: something about how the prebuffered data didn't work with
the filter and so the filter wasn't added to the filter chain.
I looked and found a way to turn off buffering for stream *writes*,
but not for stream reads. Can anyone help with ideas for why this
isn't working? I posted questions to comp.lang.php and received no
response.
Thanks
Bob
attached mail follows:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:28 am, Bob Sabiston wrote:
> I'm trying to read some zlib-compressed data from a regular binary
> file. When I try to attach the zlib compression filter, I am getting
> an error: something about how the prebuffered data didn't work with
> the filter and so the filter wasn't added to the filter chain.
>
>
> I looked and found a way to turn off buffering for stream *writes*,
> but not for stream reads. Can anyone help with ideas for why this
> isn't working? I posted questions to comp.lang.php and received no
> response.
If all else fails, you could just not use the fancy-pants new stream
and filter functions, and just use http://php.net/zlib directly on the
file.
It's also possible your zlib file is just plain corrupt, and neither
will work...
--
Some people have a "gift" link here.
Know what I want?
I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist.
http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch
Yeah, I get a buck. So?
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
> On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:28 am, Bob Sabiston wrote:
>> I'm trying to read some zlib-compressed data from a regular binary
>> file. When I try to attach the zlib compression filter, I am getting
>> an error: something about how the prebuffered data didn't work with
>> the filter and so the filter wasn't added to the filter chain.
>>
>>
>> I looked and found a way to turn off buffering for stream *writes*,
>> but not for stream reads. Can anyone help with ideas for why this
>> isn't working? I posted questions to comp.lang.php and received no
>> response.
>
> If all else fails, you could just not use the fancy-pants new stream
> and filter functions, and just use http://php.net/zlib directly on the
> file.
Sorry Richard for the double mail, I didn't have the list cc'd before...
How could I do that? I thought the only way to use zlib in PHP was
through the stream functions.
>
>
> It's also possible your zlib file is just plain corrupt, and neither
> will work...
But I am getting the error before I start to read -- it is not a zlib
'file', it is a stretch of data within
an ordinary file that has been compressed with zlib.
Thanks
Bob
attached mail follows:
Try gzuncompress();
On Dec 12, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Bob Sabiston <bobflatblackfilms.com>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:28 am, Bob Sabiston wrote:
>>> I'm trying to read some zlib-compressed data from a regular binary
>>> file. When I try to attach the zlib compression filter, I am
>>> getting
>>> an error: something about how the prebuffered data didn't work with
>>> the filter and so the filter wasn't added to the filter chain.
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked and found a way to turn off buffering for stream *writes*,
>>> but not for stream reads. Can anyone help with ideas for why this
>>> isn't working? I posted questions to comp.lang.php and received no
>>> response.
>>
>> If all else fails, you could just not use the fancy-pants new stream
>> and filter functions, and just use http://php.net/zlib directly on
>> the
>> file.
> Sorry Richard for the double mail, I didn't have the list cc'd
> before...
>
> How could I do that? I thought the only way to use zlib in PHP was
> through the stream functions.
>
>>
>>
>> It's also possible your zlib file is just plain corrupt, and neither
>> will work...
>
> But I am getting the error before I start to read -- it is not a
> zlib 'file', it is a stretch of data within
> an ordinary file that has been compressed with zlib.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
attached mail follows:
Hi,
We have long running daemons written in php ( cli, non-apache
contexts) with the typical pattern:
while( !$shutdown )
{
$c = new SomeClass;
$c->process();
}
For performance reasons, would it help if apc.enable_cli is turned on:
apc.enable_cli integer
Mostly for testing and debugging. Setting this enables APC for the
CLI version of PHP. Normally you wouldn't want to create, populate and
tear down the APC cache on every CLI request, but for various test
scenarios it is handy to be able to enable APC for the CLI version of
APC easily.
I am slightly confused by the statement - 'Mostly for testing and
debugging.....' .
On each loop iteration, does php recompile the code in 'SomeClass' (
and all its dependencies ) or it is really cached ( as it has seen the
class code once ).
If there is a php internals document on such issues, do let me know.
Thanks,
Ravi
attached mail follows:
On Dec 12, 2007 2:33 PM, Ravi Menon <jravimenongmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have long running daemons written in php ( cli, non-apache
> contexts) with the typical pattern:
>
> while( !$shutdown )
> {
> $c = new SomeClass;
>
> $c->process();
> }
>
> For performance reasons, would it help if apc.enable_cli is turned on:
>
> apc.enable_cli integer
>
> Mostly for testing and debugging. Setting this enables APC for the
> CLI version of PHP. Normally you wouldn't want to create, populate and
> tear down the APC cache on every CLI request, but for various test
> scenarios it is handy to be able to enable APC for the CLI version of
> APC easily.
>
>
> I am slightly confused by the statement - 'Mostly for testing and
> debugging.....' .
>
> On each loop iteration, does php recompile the code in 'SomeClass' (
> and all its dependencies ) or it is really cached ( as it has seen the
> class code once ).
>
> If there is a php internals document on such issues, do let me know.
>
i think the cache is alive for the duration of the parent process.
typically cli
scripts are brief. however, if you have a long running cli script apc might
be
useful in the context of the cli.
ive been curious about this myself. if anyone has a definitive answer, im
looking forward to it.
-nathan
attached mail follows:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 1:33 pm, Ravi Menon wrote:
> We have long running daemons written in php ( cli, non-apache
> contexts) with the typical pattern:
>
> while( !$shutdown )
> {
> $c = new SomeClass;
>
> $c->process();
> }
>
> For performance reasons, would it help if apc.enable_cli is turned on:
>
> apc.enable_cli integer
>
> Mostly for testing and debugging. Setting this enables APC for the
> CLI version of PHP. Normally you wouldn't want to create, populate and
> tear down the APC cache on every CLI request, but for various test
> scenarios it is handy to be able to enable APC for the CLI version of
> APC easily.
>
>
> I am slightly confused by the statement - 'Mostly for testing and
> debugging.....' .
>
> On each loop iteration, does php recompile the code in 'SomeClass' (
> and all its dependencies ) or it is really cached ( as it has seen the
> class code once ).
>
> If there is a php internals document on such issues, do let me know.
The following is almost-for-sure correct, but I wouldn't swear in
court...
Step 0. Read PHP/HTML source code.
Step 1. PHP uses a 2-pass compiler and generates byte-code.
Step 2. The byte-code is then feed to the executer.
Step 3. Executer spews output (or crashes or whatever)
APC and other caches add a Step 1A., which stores the byte-code in RAM
under the filename (or full path, depending on config) as a key.
Therefore, adding APC will not affect in any way the "while" loop --
It's compiled once in Step 1, and that's it.
If you re-run the same script again and again, however, APC in CLI
might be able to keep the script around and avoid a hit to the disk to
LOAD the script (Step 0 above) as well as avoiding the 2-pass
compilation to byte-code (Step 1 above).
NOTE:
Step 0 is the REALLY expensive step where APC et al are REALLY
boosting performance.
APC et al *could* just insert step 0A and store the PHP source, and
have ALMOST the same benefits.
However, storing the compiled version at Step 1A gets you some free
gravy in not re-compiling the PHP source to byte-code, so they do that
because, well, it's essentially FREE and saves a few more cpu cycles.
But the REAL boost, again, is from not hammering the hard drive (slow)
to load PHP source into RAM, Step 0.
PS
If you are really concerned about the constructor of SomeClass being
expensive, time it an