Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'rubens farias'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Six Rubens’ Tubes Combined Into a Fire-Based Music Visualizer [Video]

  - by Jason Fitzpatrick

  The last Rubens’ Tube setup we shared with you was but a simple single tube. This impressive setup is six independent tubes that register distinct frequencies of sound in a musical composition as standing flames. Check out the video to see it in action. Curious about the Rubens’ Tubes? Read more about the phenomenon here. [via Design Boom] 8 Deadly Commands You Should Never Run on Linux 14 Special Google Searches That Show Instant Answers How To Create a Customized Windows 7 Installation Disc With Integrated Updates

  Read the article

• Setting up ssh config file with id_rsa through tunnel

  - by Rubens

  I've been struggling to set up a valid configuration to open a connection with a second machine, passing through another one, and using an id_rsa (which requests me a password) to connect to the third machine. I've asked this question in another forum, but I've received no answer that could be considered very helpful. The problem, better described, goes as follows: Local machine: user1@localhost Intermediary machine: user1@inter Remote target: user2@final I'm able to do the entire connection using pseudo-tty: ssh -t inter ssh user2@final (this will ask me the password for the id_rsa file I have in machine "inter") However, for speeding things up, I'd like to set my .ssh/config file, so that I can simply connect to machine "final" using: ssh final What I've got so far -- which does not work -- is, in my .ssh/config file: Host inter User user1 HostName inter.com IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_rsa Host final User user2 HostName final.com IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_rsa_2 ProxyCommand ssh inter nc %h %p The id_rsa file is used to connect to the middle machine (this requires me no password typing), and id_rsa_2 file is used to connect to machine "final" (this one requests a password). I've tried mixing up some LocalForward and/or RemoteForward fields, and putting the id_rsa files in both first and second machines, but I could not seem to succeed with no configuration whatsoever. Hope somebody can help me here! Regards! P.S.: the thread I've tried to get some help from: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/proxycommand-on-ssh-config-file-4175433750/

  Read the article

• How can I delete permanently My Folders in Windows 7?

  - by Rubens

  How can I delete permanently My Music/My Pictures/My Videos/etc. Folders in Windows 7? If you delete this folders manually, Windows Media Player 12 recreate all of them again, again and again! It's a nightmare. Anyone knows a registry hacking to get rid of these folders forever? Note 1: I know how to disable the Libraries feature in Windows 7, but I don't want this, I want to delete only the folders named above. note2: The "folders monitored" option doesn't exist in Windows Media Player 12.

  Read the article

• Large file upload into WSS v3

  - by Rubens Farias

  I'd built an WSSv3 application which upload files in small chunks; when every data piece arrives, I temporarly keep it into a SQL 2005 image data type field for performance reasons**. Problem come when upload ends; I need to move data from my SQL Server to Sharepoint Document Library through WSSv3 object model. Right now, I can think two approaches: SPFileCollection.Add(string, (byte[])reader[0]); // OutOfMemoryException and SPFile file = folder.Files.Add("filename", new byte[]{ }); using(Stream stream = file.OpenBinaryStream()) { // ... init vars and stuff ... while ((bytes = reader.GetBytes(0, offset, buffer, 0, BUFFER_SIZE)) 0) { stream.Write(buffer, 0, (int)bytes); // Timeout issues } file.SaveBinary(stream); } Are there any other way to complete successfully this task? ** Performance reasons: if you tries to write every chunk directly at Sharepoint, you'll note a performance degradation as file grows up (100Mb).

  Read the article

• What to pass parameters to start an workflow through WCF

  - by Rubens Farias

  It's possible to define some start values to an workflow using WorkflowInstance.CreateWorkflow, like this: using(WorkflowRuntime runtime = new WorkflowRuntime()) { Dictionary<string, object> parameters = new Dictionary<string, object>(); parameters.Add("First", "something"); parameters.Add("Second", 42); WorkflowInstance instance = runtime.CreateWorkflow(typeof(MyStateMachineWorkflow), parameters); instance.Start(); waitHandle.WaitOne(); } This way, a MyStateMachineWorkflow instance is created and First and Second public properties gets that dictionary values. But I'm using WCF; so far, I managed to create a Start method which accepts that two arguments and I set that required fields by using bind on my ReceiveActivity: using (WorkflowServiceHost host = new WorkflowServiceHost(typeof(MyStateMachineWorkflow))) { host.Open(); ChannelFactory<IMyStateMachineWorkflow> factory = new ChannelFactory<IMyStateMachineWorkflow>("MyStateMachineWorkflow"); IMyStateMachineWorkflow proxy = factory.CreateChannel(); // set this values through binding on my ReceiveActivity proxy.Start("something", 42); } While this works, that create an anomaly: that method should be called only and exactly once. How can I start an workflow instance through WCF passing those arguments? On my tests, I just actually interact with my workflow through wire after I call that proxy method. Is there other way?

  Read the article

• Prolog singleton variables in Python

  - by Rubens

  I'm working on a little set of scripts in python, and I came to this: line = "a b c d e f g" a, b, c, d, e, f, g = line.split() I'm quite aware of the fact that these are decisions taken during implementation, but shouldn't (or does) python offer something like: _, _, var_needed, _, _, another_var_needed, _ = line.split() as well as Prolog does offer, in order to exclude the famous singleton variables. I'm not sure, but wouldn't it avoid unnecessary allocation? Or creating references to the result of the split call does not count up as overhead? EDIT: Sorry, my point here is: in Prolog, as far as I'm concerned, in an expression like: test(L, N) :- test(L, 0, N). test([], N, N). test([_|T], M, N) :- V is M + 1, test(T, V, N). The variable represented by _ is not accessible, for what I suppose the reference to the value that does exist in the list [_|T] is not even created. But, in Python, if I use _, I can use the last value assigned to _, and also, I do suppose the assignment occurs for each of the variables _ -- which may be considered an overhead. My question here is if shouldn't there be (or if there is) a syntax to avoid such unnecessary attributions.

  Read the article

1