Search Results

Search found 56456 results on 2259 pages for 'set theory'.

Page 10/2259 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • How to set density for each shape in PhysX 3.1

    - by hywei
    I'm using PhysX 3.1 as my game's physics engine. One requirement is that I need set different density for each shape(there are server shapes for my single rigid actor). I know that the shape's density can be set by NxShapeDesc::density in PhysX 2.8, but I can't find such interface in PhysX 3.1. I know that the mass properties can be set in PhysX 3.1 just as the snowman example in the SDK, but I don't know whether there exists a direct interface to set density for each shape.

    Read the article

  • Severity and relation to occurence - priority?

    - by user970696
    I have been browsing through some webpages related to testing and found one dealing with the metrics of testing. It says: The severity level of a defect indicates the potential business impact for the end user (business impact = effect on the end user x frequency of occurrence). I do not think think this is correct or what am I missing? Usually it is the priority which is the result of such a calculation (severe bug that occurs rarely is still severe but does not have to be fixed immediately). Also from this description, what is the difference between the effect on the end user and business impact?

    Read the article

  • Is excessive indirection and/or redundant encapsulation a recognized concept?

    - by Omega
    I'm curious if there's a series of tendencies or anti-patterns when programming whereby a developer will always locally re-wrap external dependencies when consuming them. A slightly less vague example might be say when consuming an implementation of an interface or abstract, and mapping every touch-point locally before interacting with them. Like an overcomplicated take on composition. Given my example, would the interface not be reliable enough and any change to it never be surmountable any any level of indirection? Is this a good or a bad practice? Can it ever go too far? Does it have a proper name?

    Read the article

  • Isn't class scope purely for organization?

    - by Di-0xide
    Isn't scope just a way to organize classes, preventing outside code from accessing certain things you don't want accessed? More specifically, is there any functional gain to having public, protected, or private-scoped methods? Is there any advantage to classifying method/property scope rather than to, say, just public-ize everything? My presumption says no simply because, in binary code, there is no sense of scope (other than r/w/e, which isn't really scope at all, but rather global permissions for a block of memory). Is this correct? What about in languages like Java and C#[.NET]?

    Read the article

  • ISO 12207 - testing being only validation activity? [closed]

    - by user970696
    Possible Duplicate: How come verification does not include actual testing? ISO norm 12207 states that testing is only validation activity, while all static inspections are verification (that requirement, code.. is complete, correct..). I did found some articles saying its not correct but you know, it is not "official". I would like to understand because there are two different concepts (in books & articles): 1) Verification is all testing except for UAT (because only user can really validate the use). E.g. here OR 2) Verification is everything but testing. All testing is validation. E.g. here Definitions are mostly the same, as Sommerville's: The aim of verification is to check that the software meets its stated functional and non-functional requirements. Validation, however, is a more general process. The aim of validation is to ensure that the software meets the customer’s expectations. It goes beyond simply checking conformance with the specification to demonstrating that the software does what the customer expects it to do It is really bugging me because I tend to agree that functional testing done on a product (SIT) is still verification because I just follow the requirements. But ISO does not agree..

    Read the article

  • How often do CPUs make calculation errors?

    - by veryfoolish
    In Dijkstra's Notes on Structured Programming he talks a lot about the provability of computer programs as abstract entities. As a corollary, he remarks how testing isn't enough. E.g., he points out the fact that it would be impossible to test a multiplication function f(x,y) = x*y for any large values of x and y across the entire ranges of x and y. My question concerns his misc. remarks on "lousy hardware". I know the essay was written in the 1970s when computer hardware was less reliable, but computers still aren't perfect, so they must make calculation mistakes sometimes. Does anybody know how often this happens or if there are any statistics on this?

    Read the article

  • Semantic algorithms

    - by Mythago
    I have a more theoretical than practical question. I'll start with an example - when I get an email and open it on my iPad, there is a feature, which recognizes the timestamp from the text and offers me to create an event in the calendar. Simply told, I want to know theoretically how it's done - I believe it's some kind of semantic parsing, and I would like if someone could point me to some resources, where I can read more about this.

    Read the article

  • What is the aim of software testing?

    - by user970696
    Having read many books, there is a basic contradiction: Some say, "the goal of testing is to find bugs" while other say "the goal of the testing is to equalize the quality of the product", meaning that bugs are its by-products. I would also agree that if testing would be aimed primarily on a bug hunt, who would do the actual verification and actually provided the information, that the software is ready? Even e.g. Kaner changed his original definiton of testing goal from bug hunting to quality assesement provision but I still cannot see the clear difference. I percieve both as equally important. I can verify software by its specification to make sure it works and in that case, bugs found are just by products. But also I perform tests just to brake things. Also what definition is more accurate?

    Read the article

  • Come up with a real-world problem in which only the best solution will do (a problem from Introduction to algorithms) [closed]

    - by Mike
    EDITED (I realized that the question certainly needs a context) The problem 1.1-5 in the book of Thomas Cormen et al Introduction to algorithms is: "Come up with a real-world problem in which only the best solution will do. Then come up with one in which a solution that is “approximately” the best is good enough." I'm interested in its first statement. And (from my understanding) it is asked to name a real-world problem where only the exact solution will work as opposed to a real-world problem where good-enough solution will be ok. So what is the difference between the exact and good enough solution. Consider some physics problem for example the simulation of the fulid flow in the permeable medium. To make this simulation happen some simplyfing assumptions have to be made when deriving a mathematical model. Otherwise the model becomes at least complex and unsolvable. Virtually any particle in the universe has its influence on the fluid flow. But not all particles are equal. Those that form the permeable medium are much more influental than the ones located light years away. Then when the mathematical model needs to be solved an exact solution can rarely be found unless the mathematical model is simple enough (wich probably means the model isn't close to reality). We take an approximate numerical method and after hours of coding and days of verification come up with the program or algorithm which is a solution. And if the model and an algorithm give results close to a real problem by some degree that is good enough soultion. Its worth noting the difference between exact solution algorithm and exact computation result. When considering real-world problems and real-world computation machines I believe all physical problems solutions where any calculations are taken can not be exact because universal physical constants are represented approximately in the computer. Any numbers are represented with the limited precision, at least limited by amount of memory available to computing machine. I can imagine plenty of problems where good-enough, good to some degree solution will work, like train scheduling, automated trading, satellite orbit calculation, health care expert systems. In that cases exact solutions can't be derived due to constraints on computation time, limitations in computer memory or due to the nature of problems. I googled this question and like what this guy suggests: there're kinds of mathematical problems that need exact solutions (little note here: because the question is taken from the book "Introduction to algorithms" the term "solution" means an algorithm or a program, which in this case gives exact answer on each input). But that's probably more of theoretical interest. So I would like to narrow down the question to: What are the real-world practical problems where only the best (exact) solution algorithm or program will do (but not the good-enough solution)? There are problems like breaking of cryptographic ciphers where only exact solution matters in practice and again in practice the process of deciphering without knowing a secret should take reasonable amount of time. Returning to the original question this is the problem where good-enough (fast-enough) solution will do there's no practical need in instant crack though it's desired. So the quality of "best" can be understood in any sense: exact, fastest, requiring least memory, having minimal possible network traffic etc. And still I want this question to be theoretical if possible. In a sense that there may be example of computer X that has limited resource R of amount Y where the best solution to problem P is the one that takes not more than available Y for inputs of size N*Y. But that's the problem of finding solution for P on computer X which is... well, good enough. My final thought that we live in a world where it is required from programming solutions to practical purposes to be good enough. In rare cases really very very good but still not the best ones. Isn't it? :) If it's not can you provide an example? Or can you name any such unsolved problem of practical interest?

    Read the article

  • Validation and Verification explanation (Boehm) - I cannot understand its point

    - by user970696
    Hopefully my last thread about V&V as I found the B.Boehm is text which I just do not understand well (likely my technical English is not that good). http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/1979/usccse79-501/usccse79-501.pdf Basically he says that verification is about checking that products derived from requirements baseline must correspond to it and that deviation leads only to changes in these derived products (design, code). But he says it begins with design and ends with acceptance tests (you can check the V model inside). The thing is, I have accepted ISO12207 in terms of all testing is validation, yet it does not make any sense here. In order to be sure the product complies with requirements (acceptance test) I need to test it. Also it says that validation problems means that requirements are bad and needs to be changed - which does not happen with testing that testers do, who just checks correspondence with requirements.

    Read the article

  • Is there such a thing these days as programming in the small?

    - by WeNeedAnswers
    With all the programming languages that are out there, what exactly does it mean to program in the small and is it still possible, without the possibility of re-purposing to the large. The original article which mentions in the small was dated to 1975 and referred to scripting languages (as glue languages). Maybe I am missing the point, but any language that you can built components of code out of, I would regard to being able to handle "in the large". Is there a confusion on what Objects are and do they really figure as being mandatory to being able to handle "the large". Many have argued that this is the true meaning of "In the large" and that the concepts of objects are best fit for the job.

    Read the article

  • Quality Assurance=inspections, reviews..?

    - by user970696
    Studying this subject extensively, the most books state the following: Quality Assurance: prevention activity. Act of inspection, reviewing.. Quality Control: testing While there are some exceptions that mention that QA deals with just processes (planning, strategy, standard application etc.) which is IMHO much closer to real QA, yet I cannot find any good reference in Google Books. I believe that inspections, reviews, testing is all quality control as it is about checking products, no matter if it is the final one or work products. The problem is that so many authors do not agree. I would be grateful for detailed explanation, ideally with a reference.

    Read the article

  • Bug severity classification issues

    - by KyleMinn
    In a book I have, there is a following classification of defect: Critical : A defect receives a “critical” severity level if one or more critical system functionalities are impaired by a defect with is impaired and there is no workaround. High: A defect receives a “high” severity level if some fundamental system functionalities are impaired but a workaround exists. Medium: A defect receives a “medium” severity level if no critical functionality is impaired and a workaround exists for the defect. Low: A defect receives a “low” severity level if the problem involves a cosmetic feature of the system. To be honest, I do not get it.. For example point 2. What if fundamental but not critical feature is impaired and there is NOT a workaround. The same for point 3: what if no critical functionality is affected but there is no workaround? E.g. optional field in the registration form does not work. No workaround but barely an issue.

    Read the article

  • Legal Applications of Metamorphic Code

    - by V_P
    Firstly, I would like to state that I already understand the 'vx' applications for Metamorphic code. I am not here to ask a question related to any of those topics as that would be inappropriate in this context. I would like to know if anyone has ever used 'Metamorphic' code in practice, for purposes other than those previously stated, if so, what was the reasoning for using said concept. In essence I am trying to discover a purpose for this concept, if any, other than circumventing anti-virus scanners and the like.

    Read the article

  • Very original V&V explanation (Bohm) - I cannot understand its point

    - by user970696
    Hopefully my last thread about V&V as I found the B.Boehm is text which I just do not understand well (likely my technical English is not that good). http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/1979/usccse79-501/usccse79-501.pdf Basically he says that verification is about checking that products derived from requirments baseline must correspond to it and that deviation leads only to changes in these derived products (design, code). But he says it begins with design and ends with acceptance tests (you can check the V model inside). The thing is, I have accepted ISO12207 in terms of all testing is validation, yet it does not make any sense here. In order to be sure the product complies with requirements (acceptance test) I need to test it. Also it says that validation problems means that requirements are bad and needs to be changed - which does not happen with testing that testers do, who just checks correspondence with requirements.

    Read the article

  • Multiple Set Peer for VPN Failover

    - by Kyle Brandt
    I will have two Cisco routers at Location A serving the same internal networks, and one router in location B. Currently, I have one router in each location with a IPSec site-to-site tunnel connecting them. It looks something like: Location A: crypto map crypto-map-1 1 ipsec-isakmp description Tunnel to Location B set peer 12.12.12.12 set transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA match address internal-ips Location B: crypto map crypto-map-1 1 ipsec-isakmp description Tunnel to Location A set peer 11.11.11.11 set transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA match address internal-ips Can I achieve fail over by simply adding another set peer at location B?: Location A (New secondary Router, configuration on previous router stays the same): crypto map crypto-map-1 1 ipsec-isakmp description Tunnel to Location B set peer 12.12.12.12 set transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA match address internal-ips Location B (Configuration Changed): crypto map crypto-map-1 1 ipsec-isakmp description Tunnel to Location A set peer 11.11.11.11 ! 11.11.11.100 is the ip of the new second router at location A set peer 11.11.11.100 set transform-set ESP-3DES-SHA match address internal-ips Cisco Says: For crypto map entries created with the crypto map map-name seq-num ipsec-isakmp command, you can specify multiple peers by repeating this command. The peer that packets are actually sent to is determined by the last peer that the router heard from (received either traffic or a negotiation request from) for a given data flow. If the attempt fails with the first peer, Internet Key Exchange (IKE) tries the next peer on the crypto map list. But I don't fully understand that in the context of a failover scenerio (One of the routers as Location A blowing up).

    Read the article

  • std::set<T>::erase(key). What if key isn't there?

    - by Armen Tsirunyan
    if I erase an element from an std::set and pass the key, not the iterator, and the key isn't in the set right now, will an exception be thrown? The thing is every second sentence in the MSDN documentation says: "this does blah blah, but it doesn't conform to the standard". So I need to know the standard behaviour. I just couldn't find it in the standard. Redirecting to the relevant clause will do as well. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Patch Set 11.2.0.2 for Win32 and Win64 now available

    - by Mike Dietrich
    Oracle Database Patch Set 11.2.0.2 for Windows (Patch: 10098816) is now available for download from support.oracle.com: Oracle Database 11.2.0.2 Patch Set for Windows 32bit Oracle Database 11.2.0.2 Patch Set for Windows 64bit Please keep in mind: It's a full install - you don't have to download 11.2.0.1 first, you can start right with 11.2.0.2 You'll get it just from support.oracle.com - no download from OTN or eDelivery as this is a patch set Installation will be done by default into a separate %ORACLE_HOME% .- and this is our strong recommendation. If you'd like to install into your existing 11.2.0.1 %ORACLE_HOME% then you'll have to detach your 11.2.0.1 home from the OUI inventory first (runInstaller -detachHome ORACLE_HOME=c:\orahomes\11.2.0), save the contents of ?\network\admin and ?\database, clean up, install 11.2.0.2 and copy the saved network\admin and \database content back. Btw, Oracle Database Patch Set 10.2.0.5 for HP-UX - Patch:8202632 is available for download as well since today.

    Read the article

  • How can I fix the "TERM environment variable not set" warning in eclipse

    - by Robert
    I'm running ubuntu 12.04 LTS and working with eclipse (juno) on a c++ project. I keep getting "TERM environment variable not set" in the console while trying to run the program. I realize this means the variable needs to get set. My question is what should it be set to and how do I set it? I've read that it should be 'xterm' in a few places. So I added export TERM=xterm in my .profile and while eclipse stopped giving me the warning, instead it would output unreadable garbage everynow and then (not a side effect of the program). It did display the program output but intermixed were weird characters. This leads me to believe it's not 'xterm' I should be setting TERM to. Or I'm setting it in an incorrect way. Any help is appreciated. Sample output: **TERM environment variable not set.** Please make a selection ----------------------- 1. Create a budget 2. Edit a budget 3. Display a budget 4. Save a budget 5. Load a budget 6. Exit What is your selection: 1 **TERM environment variable not set.** Enter the name of your budget: etc The program continues to execute as expected but the message is highly annoying As someone has commented, I do use system("clear") which is likely the source of the warning? Either way, is this likely just an eclipse issue or something I can fix in ubuntu/linux

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails: What are partial hash arguments and full set arguments?

    - by williamjones
    I'm using asserts_redirected_to in my unit tests, and I'm receiving this warning: DEPRECATION WARNING: Using assert_redirected_to with partial hash arguments is deprecated. Specify the full set arguments instead. What is a partial hash argument, and what is a full set argument? These aren't terms that I've seen used in the Rails community before, and the only relevant results I can find on Google for these are in reference to this deprecation warning. Here is my code: assert_redirected_to :controller => :user, :action => :search also tried: assert_redirected_to({:controller => :user, :action => :search}) I might have guessed that it feels I'm missing some parameters or something like that, but the API documentation explicitly says that not all parameters need to be included: http://rails.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionController/Assertions/ResponseAssertions.html

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >