Now they have a new acceleration school in Los Angeles.

I'm absolutely shocked at how low the price is. Normally, they charge 12k or more. This is only $3,600* for a 9 week course.

I wonder why they charge 1/3 of what everyone else charges.

* (too rich for my taste).

1) If all your conflicts are resolved by either using yours or theirs then that is super easy to resolve - since I resolve merges just using vim I would just delete all the lines showing my version and leave their version in place (or vice versa). Doesn't tortoisegit have the same options?

2) You should never get a conflict on something that you didn't touch somehow. What is the conflict if you didn't change anything?

3) I don't understand how all your conflicts are resolved by entirely using one version or the other. In nearly all of my conflicts I either wind up using both (easy conflicts like we both added a new import at the top of a file) or I have to pick and choose pieces from each (I change the name of a function call, while my coworker changed the arguments - now I have to resolve by calling my new function name with his new arguments).

At the beginning of this, are you saying that you have changes in your working directory, and then git pull gives that message saying "Changes would be overwritten by merge, aborting"? In that case, yes you can either commit or use git stash (personally I use git stash, do the pull, and then git stash apply and resolve the conflicts).

Beyond that, it sounds to me like your issue is with SourceTree/TortoiseGit, and I haven't used those so I can't be much help there. "Stage Hunk" should mean "mark the conflict in this hunk as resolved" though.

Once all your conflicts are marked as resolved (everything is staged) you can git commit to create a merge commit.

The flow is always: get merge conflict -> look at conflict -> make file look how you want -> stage changes (this marks the conflict as resolved) -> git commit when all conflicts are marked as resolved.

I think there may be some confusion. In the subversion and git flows I'm only talking about one file. So for 1) above, I 'use mine' on some conflicting blocks and 'use theirs' on others. On 2) I don't know but it seems like when you get one conflict you get multiple, even in places you didn't touch. Maybe I'm mixing up conflicts with non-conflicting merge indicators. On #3 see my answer to #1 - I mean I'm using a combined file. For some reason tortoise subversion makes this really easy to resolve using a GUI merge tool. I still haven't figured out Tortoise Git or Source Tree yet.

I will try stashing next time, thanks. That's a totally new concept to me, wasn't sure what it meant.

Welp...I've made a huge mistake.

hey guys, is there a skype group or something that you guys are a part of? or is there a live community where i could go to with questions (something like stackoverflow but like chat based)

inspired by the geniuses in this subforum (not sarcastic, i am truly blown away by many of the posters here and their intellect), ive been spending dozens of hours trying to teach myself python, reading online books, doing exercises, taking courses. still unbelievably bad, but i really want to become decent at this because it's truly the only hobby i've found in my spare time that isn't like a chore to me, it's so much fun.

sorry if this is a super fish question in advance :/

anecdotally, i've been told python is kind of c+ dummy ver., and that i should really be learning c+ if i want to get into programming. but from what i've seen so far python is so user friendly, i absolutely love it.

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...0&fpart=1&vc=1

look what I dug up

utter nonsense. i would argue the exact opposite. stay away from C++ unless you specifically need it for some kind of low level programming or applications where speed and memory concerns are crucial. i would guess neither applies to you.

the view that you aren't a "real" programmer unless you're using "C" or assembly is self-congratulatory hacker myopia, and those who espouse it often do know how to program properly in high level languages like python, and thus do not fully appreciate their expressive power and conciseness, and hide this fact from themselves by dismissing them as newbie languages.

You're not a real programmer unless you program your computer with an interface of 9 switches and a pair of red LEDs.

Does anyone know a simplish way to take a Python app like this one and puts it on the interwebs:



I used two python packages that I'm guessing will make that hard/not worth it:

1) Tkinter (in the standard library, so maybe that's portable?)
2) mingus (presumably not portable, but makes the pretty sounds for me. Actually, it was really hard to figure out how to make nice sounds with python in a reasonable way that allows overlap and doesn't hang the program. I don't really want to figure out how to do that again for another language. Plus, I don't speak javascript.)

Also, I feel like this thing is kinda cool, no?

The GUI/interactive elements will have to be re-coded in html/javascript, but the backend could certainly be in python/django.

Forever immortalized in this article http://www.codingthewheel.com/archiv...uator-roundup/

Yeah. With things like this, the only thing that's actually difficult for me is making a GUI/playing sounds/dealing with timing loops. That's the sort of stuff that you have to relearn in every language, which I find to be incredibly annoying.

I was praying that someone would know a way to do something like python -> executable (with py2app or whatever) -> javascript web app or flash app or something similar. Otherwise, I probably won't bother to build it, since I don't actually know any browser-side languages in any detail.

don't take this as definitive by any means, but i'd be skeptical that an autoconverter like that exists, or that, if it exists, it works well.

never done music stuff with js, so can't speak to that part, but all the visualizations and moving stuff would be pretty easy, and i'd imagine you could pick it up faster than you think. if putting stuff on the web interests you, which it sounds like it does, you may as well as bit the bullet and learn js. it's not going anywhere, and it will probably pay you lots of future dividends if only in the ability to express yourself and share cool ideas easily.

I find that most things in programming aren't really based on how smart you are as much as how knowledgeable you are. If you have never worked with a piece of technology then when others talk about it it will sound like crazy technobabble. But it's not that they are super-geniuses, it's just that they know stuff you don't.

And I find that many times if you spend some time googling whatever they were talking about then it all will make at least a bit of sense.

I was playing around with apache benchmark (ab) tonight, and am totally confused about how it is able to do what it does so fast. eg:

This establishes 1000 concurrent connections to google and makes 10K requests, measuring response times. The entire thing completes within a few seconds. How is it able to run its tests so fast? How reliable can it be? Why doesn't it get bottlenecked by the limits of the internet connection?

Can I just have some sort of back end sanity check? I don't know a ton about back end web dev or at least I didn't but I've been working on php and mysql for the last couple weeks because I'm unemployed and bored.

Previously when I would do front end stuff that needed ajax I'd just make a *.json file and pull in fake values from that to do what I needed to make it work client side then pass it off to whoever. But here's what I came up with to pull in a pretty simple sql query to the front end:

php

jquery ajax

so effectively I'm taking this sql data, turning it into a json-encoded string, sending it to the client, and turning it back into a real js-usable object. But that seems kind of silly. Is this this way that most people handle table data like this, encoding and then decoding? Is there no way to send a "real" json object to the client? I know I could use php to write to a *.json file but that can't be better.

have you tried it without JSON.parse? i usually follow the same pattern as you laid in the example but i never have to use JSON.parse...

EDIT: ah, i think this might fix your issue:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2...-for-json-file

yeah completely breaks without JSON.parse or $.parseJSON heh.

did you see my edit? i think it will work fine if you are setting the content type header appropriately

ah ha makes sense I will mess around with that.

http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.post/

You can use .post instead of .ajax or set the dataType to json instead of text

ah, nice catch.

Isn't select * a bad idea in production code?

yeah I'm not so bright, obviously that works fine. But I do wonder if its not effectively doing the same thing - taking the time on the client side to unnecessarily decode a string into json. Oh well.

well, at the end of the day, you are sending a stream of bits of the network, ie, a raw enencoded string. so of course javascript is going to have to do its work to turn that back into a js object in memory on your browser.