Search Results

Search found 27766 results on 1111 pages for 'bad idea jeans'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 59/1111 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

  • How can I remove duplicate icons for "launched" java programs in the launcher?

    - by Tim
    When launching java programs (like IntelliJ IDEA and Crashplan) in Natty's Unity launcher, duplicate icons are shown (see image). For IntelliJ I created the .desktop file, for Crashplan the .desktop file is supplied with the application. Is there something that can be changed in the .desktop files (or somewhere else) that can prevent this from occurring? I couldn't find a bug report for unity itself but programs like Gnome-Do/Docky have bug reports and had to make internal changes to their applications to prevent this. In this image the 1st icon is the one created from the .desktop file and the second icon is after launching it. Second icon disappears when closing the application. Custom IntelliJ .desktop file #!/usr/bin/env xdg-open [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Type=Application Terminal=false Icon[en_US]=/opt/idea/bin/idea128.png Name[en_US]=IntelliJ IDEA Exec=/opt/idea/bin/idea.sh Name=IntelliJ IDEA Icon=/opt/idea/bin/idea128.png StartupNotify=true Crashplan provide .desktop file [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Encoding=UTF-8 Name=CrashPlan Categories=; Comment=CrashPlan Desktop UI Comment[en_CA]=CrashPlan Desktop UI Exec=/usr/local/crashplan/bin/CrashPlanDesktop Icon=/usr/local/crashplan/skin/icon_app_64x64.png Hidden=false Terminal=false Type=Application GenericName[en_CA]=

    Read the article

  • iPhone UI: No edit button for UITableView, bad idea?

    - by Nic Hubbard
    I have a UITableViewController which lets the user drill down into different records. On the second level/view, the user can add and edit new records. But, I am not sure what to do, since the back button is on the top left, and I need to put the "Add" button on the top right, so there is no room (keeping to HIG) for the edit button, which would normally go where the back button is. (I am using a tab bar, so can't put it at the bottom.) Do you think that it is logical, to expect users to know to swipe to delete a record? Or, do I need to have an edit button? If I DO need an edit button, where should I put it if I am following HIG?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad idea to have a login dialog inside an iframe?

    - by AyKarsi
    We're creating a website where we will be giving out code snippets to our users which they can place on their own websites. These snippets contain a link a javascript include. When clicking the link, an iframe containing the login dialog to our site opens. The user then authenticates inside the iframe, does his work and when he leaves the iframe his session is closed. We've got it working allready and it's very slick. Our main concern though is phishing. The user has absolutely now way of veryifying where the login page is really coming from. On the other hand, phising attacks are also succesfull even if the user can see the fake-url in the address bar. Would you enter your (OpenId) credentials in an iframe? Does anyone know a pattern with which we could minimise the chances of a phishing attack?

    Read the article

  • g++ - is using the "-g" flag for production builds a good idea?

    - by Grigory
    Just to give some context, I'm talking about compiling C++ code with g++ here. I can see how including the -g flag for production builds would be convenient for maintenance: the program will be much easier to debug if it crashes unexpectedly. My question here is, does including the -g flag affect the output executable in any other way than increasing its size? Can it somehow make the code slower (e.g. by turning off certain optimizations)? From what I understand, it shouldn't (the documentation only mentions the inclusion of debug symbols), but I'm not sure.

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to use an integer column for storing US ZIP codes in a database?

    - by Yadyn
    From first glance, it would appear I have two basic choices for storing ZIP codes in a database table: Text (probably most common), i.e. char(5) or varchar(9) to support +4 extension Numeric, i.e. 32-bit integer Both would satisfy the requirements of the data, if we assume that there are no international concerns. In the past we've generally just gone the text route, but I was wondering if anyone does the opposite? Just from brief comparison it looks like the integer method has two clear advantages: It is, by means of its nature, automatically limited to numerics only (whereas without validation the text style could store letters and such which are not, to my knowledge, ever valid in a ZIP code). This doesn't mean we could/would/should forgo validating user input as normal, though! It takes less space, being 4 bytes (which should be plenty even for 9-digit ZIP codes) instead of 5 or 9 bytes. Also, it seems like it wouldn't hurt display output much. It is trivial to slap a ToString() on a numeric value, use simple string manipulation to insert a hyphen or space or whatever for the +4 extension, and use string formatting to restore leading zeroes. Is there anything that would discourage using int as a datatype for US-only ZIP codes?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to use a computed column as part of a primary key ?

    - by Brann
    I've got a table defined as : OrderID bigint NOT NULL, IDA varchar(50) NULL, IDB bigint NULL, [ ... 50 other non relevant columns ...] The natural primary key for this table would be (OrderID,IDA,IDB), but this it not possible because IDA and IDB can be null (they can both be null, but they are never both defined at the same time). Right now I've got a unique constraint on those 3 columns. Now, the thing is I need a primary key to enable transactional replication, and I'm faced with two choices : Create an identity column and use it as a primary key Create a non-null computed column C containing either IDA or IDB or '' if both columns were null, and use (OrderID,C) as my primary key. The second alternative seams cleaner as my PK would be meaningful, and is feasible (see msdn link), but since I've never seen this done anywhere, I was wondering if they were some cons to this approach.

    Read the article

  • ingenious idea needed: how to declare different sizes for different fonts? @font-face?

    - by Haroldo
    I've never seen this done, but i get a feeling that there's gotta be a clever way of doing it. css font-size-adjust looks like it was never meant to be, but when i look around I'm seeing some really ingenious css techniques going on. Take this on nettuts yesterday for using @font-face for vector icons. my challenge: if(user has calibri ) { font-family: calibri; font-size: 12px; } if(user hasn't calibri ) { font-family: arial; font-size: 10px; }

    Read the article

  • Give me better idea to do Marquee tag in asp.net page.

    - by Ayyappan.Anbalagan
    The bellow code working, but i don’t know it the write way or not? <td align="center" style=" height:50px; width:100%; background-color:Red;width:10%;"> <div id="divremview" > <marquee behavior="scroll" direction="up"> <div id="div1"><asp:Label ID="Label1" runat="server" Text="Label">Hi</asp:Label></div> </marquee> </div> </td> Also it not in center alignment. As usual it in left alignment

    Read the article

  • HTTP POST with URL query parameters -- good idea or not?

    - by Steven Huwig
    I'm designing an API to go over HTTP and I am wondering if using the HTTP POST command, but with URL query parameters only and no request body, is a good way to go. Considerations: "Good Web design" requires non-idempotent actions to be sent via POST. This is a non-idempotent action. It is easier to develop and debug this app when the request parameters are present in the URL. The API is not intended for widespread use. It seems like making a POST request with no body will take a bit more work, e.g. a Content-Length: 0 header must be explicitly added. It also seems to me that a POST with no body is a bit counter to most developer's and HTTP frameworks' expectations. Are there any more pitfalls or advantages to sending parameters on a POST request via the URL query rather than the request body? Edit: The reason this is under consideration is that the operations are not idempotent and have side effects other than retrieval. See the HTTP spec: In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested. ... Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent.

    Read the article

  • Detecting Screen Resolution to load alternative CSS a good idea?

    - by jdln
    Im working with a graphic designer who constantly wants to make websites larger than the 960 pixels i recommend. I can do a certain amount with liquid layouts but id really love to be able to load different CSS for larger resolutions. I googled it and found the link below, but im worried that I havnt heard more about this. Is this is a reliable method? Im concerned as I would have thought that more people would want to do this. http://www.ilovecolors.com.ar/detect-screen-size-css-style/ Thanks

    Read the article

  • I don't like Python functions that take two or more iterables. Is it a good idea?

    - by Xavier Ho
    This question came from looking at this question on Stackoverflow. def fringe8((px, py), (x1, y1, x2, y2)): Personally, it's been one of my pet peeves to see a function that takes two arguments with fixed-number iterables (like a tuple) or two or more dictionaries (Like in the Shotgun API). It's just hard to use, because of all the verbosity and double-bracketed enclosures. Wouldn't this be better: >>> class Point(object): ... def __init__(self, x, y): ... self.x = x ... self.y = y ... >>> class Rect(object): ... def __init__(self, x1, y1, x2, y2): ... self.x1 = x1 ... self.y1 = y1 ... self.x2 = x2 ... self.y2 = y2 ... >>> def fringe8(point, rect): ... # ... ... >>> >>> point = Point(2, 2) >>> rect = Rect(1, 1, 3, 3) >>> >>> fringe8(point, rect) Is there a situation where taking two or more iterable arguments is justified? Obviously the standard itertools Python library needs that, but I can't see it being pretty in maintainable, flexible code design.

    Read the article

  • Circular database relationships. Good, Bad, Exceptions?

    - by jim
    I have been putting off developing this part of my app for sometime purely because I want to do this in a circular way but get the feeling its a bad idea from what I remember my lecturers telling me back in school. I have a design for an order system, ignoring the everything that doesn't pertain to this example I'm left with: CreditCard Customer Order I want it so that, Customers can have credit cards (0-n) Customers have orders (1-n) Orders have one customer(1-1) Orders have one credit card(1-1) Credit cards can have one customer(1-1) (unique ids so we can ignore uniqueness of cc number, husband/wife may share cc instances ect) Basically the last part is where the issue shows up, sometimes credit cards are declined and they wish to use a different one, this needs to update which their 'current' card is but this can only change the current card used for that order, not the other orders the customer may have on disk. Effectively this creates a circular design between the three tables. Possible solutions: Either Create the circular design, give references: cc ref to order, customer ref to cc customer ref to order or customer ref to cc customer ref to order create new table that references all three table ids and put unique on the order so that only one cc may be current to that order at any time Essentially both model the same design but translate differently, I am liking the latter option best at this point in time because it seems less circular and more central. (If that even makes sense) My questions are, What if any are the pros and cons of each? What is the pitfalls of circular relationships/dependancies? Is this a valid exception to the rule? Is there any reason I should pick the former over the latter? Thanks and let me know if there is anything you need clarified/explained. --Update/Edit-- I have noticed an error in the requirements I stated. Basically dropped the ball when trying to simplify things for SO. There is another table there for Payments which adds another layer. The catch, Orders can have multiple payments, with the possibility of using different credit cards. (if you really want to know even other forms of payment). Stating this here because I think the underlying issue is still the same and this only really adds another layer of complexity.

    Read the article

  • Give me some idea : How do I match photographer?

    - by user231430
    I have photographer in my database such as PhotographerID, PhotographerName, JobArea, BestPhotography, FavoritePhotography. And I want to match some photographer from my database. The question that I will ask the user before matching photographer is.. Area or province that you want to hire a photographer? Type of photography? How do I match?

    Read the article

  • cURL + HTTP_POST, keep getting 500 error. Has no idea?

    - by mysqllearner
    Okay, I want to make a HTTP_POST using cURL to a SSL site. I already imported the certificate to my server. This is my code: $url = "https://www.xxx.xxx"; $post = "";# all data that going to send $ch = curl_init(); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, $url); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POST, true); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, $post); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, true); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER, FALSE); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYHOST, FALSE); curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, 'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0'); $exe = curl_exec($ch); $getInfo = curl_getinfo($ch); if ($exe === false) { $output = "Error in sending"; if (curl_error($ch)){ $output .= "\n". curl_error($ch); } } else if($geInfo['http_code'] != 777){ $output = "No data returned. Error: " . $geInfo['http_code']; if (curl_error($ch)){ $output .= "\n". curl_error($ch); } } curl_close($c); echo $output; It keep returned "500". Based on w3schools, 500 means Internal Server Error. Is my server having problem? How to solve/troubleshoot this?

    Read the article

  • Is locking on the requested object a bad idea?

    - by Quick Joe Smith
    Most advice on thread safety involves some variation of the following pattern: public class Thing { private static readonly object padlock = new object(); private string stuff, andNonsense; public string Stuff { get { lock (Thing.padlock) { if (this.stuff == null) this.stuff = "Threadsafe!"; } return this.stuff; } } public string AndNonsense { get { lock (Thing.padlock) { if (this.andNonsense == null) this.andNonsense = "Also threadsafe!"; } return this.andNonsense; } } // Rest of class... } In cases where the get operations are expensive and unrelated, a single locking object is unsuitable because a call to Stuff would block all calls to AndNonsense, degrading performance. And rather than create a lock object for each call, wouldn't it be better to acquire the lock on the member itself (assuming it is not something that implements SyncRoot or somesuch for that purpose? For example: public string Stuff { get { lock (this.stuff) { // Pretend that this is a very expensive operation. if (this.stuff == null) this.stuff = "Still threadsafe and good?"; } return this.stuff; } } Strangely, I have never seen this approach recommended or warned against. Am I missing something obvious?

    Read the article

  • Bad idea to have the same object, have a different side effect after method call.

    - by Nathan W
    Hi all, I'm having a bit of a gesign issue(again). Say I have this Buttonpad object: now this object is a wrapper object over one in a com object. At the moment it has a method on it called CreateInto(IComObject). Now to make a new button pad in the Com Object. You do: ButtonPad pad = new ButtonPad(); pad.Title = "Hello"; // Set some more properties. pad.CreateInto(Cominstance); The createinfo method will excute the right commands to buid the button pad in the com object. After it has been created it any calls against it are foward to the underlying object for change so: pad.Title = "New title"; will call the com object to set the title and also set the internal title variable. Basically any calls before the CreateInfo method only affect the .NET object anything after has the side effect of calling the com object also. I'm not very good at sequence diagrams but here is my attempt to explain whats going on: This doesn't feel good to me, it feels like I'm lying to the user about what the button pad does. I was going to have a object called WrappedButtonPad, which is returned from CreateInto and the user could make calls against that to make changes to the Com Object, but I feel having two objects that almost do the same thing but only differ by names might be even worse. Are these valid designs, or am I right to be worried? How else would you handle a object the can create and query a com object?

    Read the article

  • Using static strings to define input field names in JSPs - good idea or not?

    - by Derek Clarkson
    Hi all, I've just be asked to work on a large portal project and have been looking through the established code. I keep finding this in the jsps: <input class="portlet-form-button" name="<%=ModifyUserProfile.FORM_FIRST_TIME_LOGIN_SUBMIT%>" type="submit" ... The authors are using static strings defined in classes to define the names of input fields and buttons in jsp forms. I've never seen this done before and was wondering if this is common practice. I'm inclined to think not, but I'm asking because, apart from centralising names which I would have thought are not likely to change, I can't see the reason why. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • In Ruby or Python can the very idea of Class be rewritten?

    - by John Berryman
    Howdy All... first time at stack overflow. I'm looking into using some of the metaprogramming features provided by Ruby or Python, but first I need to know the extent to which they will allow me to extend the language. The main thing I need to be able to do is to rewrite the concept of Class. This doesn't mean that I want to rewrite a specific class during run time, but rather I want to make my own conceptualization of what a Class is. To be a smidge more specific here, I want to make something that is like what people normally call a Class, but I want to follow an "open world" assumption. In the "closed world" of normal Classes, if I declare Poodle to be a subclass of Dog to be a subclass of Animal, then I know that Poodle is not going to also be a type of FurCoat. However, in an open world Class, then the Poodle object I've defined may or may not be and object of type FurCoat and we won't know for sure until I explain that I can wear the poodle. (Poor poodle.) This all has to do with a study I'm doing concerning OWL ontologies. Just so you know, I've tried to find information online, but due to the overloading of terms here I haven't found anything helpful. Super thanks, John

    Read the article

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    Read the article

  • When designing an event, is it a good idea to prevent listeners from being added twice?

    - by Matt
    I am creating an event-based API where a user can subscribe to an event by adding listener objects (as is common in Java or C#). When the event is raised, all subscribed listeners are invoked with the event information. I initially decided to prevent adding an event listener more than once. If a listener is added that already exists in the listener collection, it is not added again. However, after thinking about it some more, it doesn't seem that most event-based structures actually prevent this. Was my initial instinct wrong? I'm not sure which way to go here. I guess I thought that preventing addition of an existing listener would help to avoid a common programming error. Then again, it could also hide a bug that would lead to code being run multiple times when it shouldn't.

    Read the article

  • Any idea about WPF ScrollViewer to make it smooth scroolling like Android?

    - by jimi
    I have trying a simple ScrollViewer in xaml like below: <ScrollViewer Height="{Binding RelativeSource={RelativeSource FindAncestor, AncestorType={x:Type StackPanel}}, Path=Height}" ScrollViewer.VerticalScrollBarVisibility="Visible" CanContentScroll="True"> <DockPanel> <StackPanel Name="StackPanel1" OverridesDefaultStyle="False" Width="230" Height="803" VerticalAlignment="Top" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="23,1,0,0"> ....Something here ....Something here ....Something here </StackPanel> </DockPanel> </ScrollViewer> But my question is..is it possible for us to create any smooth scrolling likes any android or iphone using WPF? Any ideas?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >