HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jefff@meaddata.com (Jeff Fleck)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview,comp.windows.open-look
Subject: Re: minimizing flashing by preserving colors in colormap
Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:05:39 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: headdawg.meaddata.com

In article <hue.725788469@coney>, hue@island.COM (Pond Scum) writes:
|> carl@crazyman.med.ge.com (Carl Crawford) writes:
|> >my xview application sometimes allocates more slots than are available
|> >in the system colormap (cm).  when this happens, xview (xlib ?) gives
|> >me a colormap segment (cms) that begins at location zero in the system
|> >cm and maps it in when necessary.  the colors that i use for the first
|> >few locations are used by xview and openwindows for background,
|> >foreground, and highlighting by other applications.  to minimize
|> >flashing i am trying allocate a slightly larger cm and preserve these
|> >special locations.  using some kludgey code i am able to figure out
|> >what to put in the locations.  does anyone know of a better way to
|> >prevent the flashing? if not, is there a robust method to figure out
|> >the number of locations to preserve and their contents?


What I do to prevent flashing is the following:

1.  Start all the applications with colors that you wish to reserve.
2.  Run cmap_compact save to create .owcolors
3.  Place cmap_compact init in your .xinitrc or similar start up file (
    before loading a background)
4.  Exit and restart the window system.
5.  cmap_compact init will push those colors .owcolors to the end of
    the colormap and reserves them.
-- 
| Jeff Fleck        |                       |Engineering Productivity |
| Mead Data Central | The IRISH on Saturday | jefff@meaddata.com      |
| P.O. Box 933      | The DAWGS on Sunday   | ..uunet!meaddata!jefff  |
| Dayton, OH 45401  |                       |   (513) 865-7716        |
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview,comp.lang.c++,comp.windows.x,comp.sys.sun.apps
From: dshaker@qualix.com (Doug Shaker)
Subject: [repost] C++ API to Xview - demo available by email.
Keywords: C++ Xview demo email
Reply-To: dshaker@qualix.com
Organization: QUALiX Group, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:32:03 GMT

[My previous post had an error in the header that made it 
unreadable by some newsreaders.]

Xv++ is a C++ interface to Xview.  A demo version of Xv++
(limited to 25 Xv++ objects) is available on the Qualix
mailserver.  This version is compatible with SunOS 4.1.x,
and the Sun-Solbourne-Lucid group of C++ compilers. To get
a copy send an email message of the following form:
	BEGIN
	send xv++.demo
	send index
	END
	Your Name
	Your Address
	Your Phone
to the Qualix mailserver at either of the following addresses:
	qfacts@qualix.com
	...uunet!qualix!qfacts

 - Doug Shaker
	voice:	415/572-0200
	fax:	415/572-1300
	email:	dshaker@qualix.com
	mail:	Qualix Group
		1900 S. Norfolk St., #224
		San Mateo, CA 94403
From: rickg@eng.sun.com (The Tankster)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: PANEL_LIST_INSERT_STRINGS / PANEL_LIST_CLIENT_DATAS
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:49:31 GMT
Reply-To: rickg@eng.sun.com
Organization: SunSoft, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: irondude
In-reply-to: eric@nit.pactel.com's message of 7 Jan 93 00:15:52 GMT


   From: eric@nit.pactel.com (Eric Pederson)
   Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
   Date: 7 Jan 93 00:15:52 GMT
   Organization: Pac*Tel Corporation

   The PANEL_LIST_INSERT_STRINGS attribute is nice since it takes
   an array of char *'s as one of its arguments.  I'd like to do
   a "batch" setting of client data values too, but the argument for
   PANEL_LIST_CLIENT_DATAS is a list of values in the xv_set
   function itself.  Is there any way around this short of resorting
   to ATTR_LIST which has a limit of 250?

not with the 3.0 library, though it is possible to weasle
around both limitations if your creative enough and/or use
the XView extension mechansim.


<<tank

--

*********************************************************************

	Richard M. "Tank" Goldstein		rickg@Eng.Sun.COM
	Window Developer Environment,
	SunSoft, Inc.

	"I'm a scientist.  I don't think, I observe."
			-Dr. Clayton Forrester

*********************************************************************
From: dansmith@Autodesk.COM (Daniel Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: how to put resource to server db from XView?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:47:12 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA

In <HALAZAR.93Jan7175738@moonfish.media.mit.edu> halazar@media.mit.edu (Michael Halle) writes:

> system("echo \"OpenWindows.KeepTransientsAbove:\" \"true\"  | xrdb -merge");

	That was it!  The colon!  I'd cut and pasted from an XrmPut<whatever>
line and forgot to add the colon...

	This does work because I think it generates a PropertyNotify
back to olwm (you can test this for yourself by running xrb -merge
from the shell with different values for this particular resource.)

	Now, as to why Sun changed this from 3.0 to 3.1, we're listening :-)

					Daniel
-- 
 dansmith@autodesk.com       daniel@world.std.com       dansmith@well.sf.ca.us
        Daniel Smith, Autodesk, Sausalito, California, (415) 332-2344 x 2580
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
From: bdenton@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (robert.a.denton)
Subject: Help, beginners question
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:13:30 GMT

I need help in the following.  I have not been able to determine
a solution using Dan Heller's xview book.


I am interested in an application that at startup creates 3 non-
overlapping windows placed at certain points on the screen.  I
want to be able to assign stout, stderr, and a term to the 3 windows.


How do you create 3 seperate windows, as I continue to get 
either compile or garbage at runtime.



Thankx:


		Chris S.
		att!ihlpb!cds

Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
From: hongv@romeo.ecs.csus.edu (Vut Hong)
Subject: xview for DOS
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:53:27 GMT

Hello, fellow xview users.

I am current seeking a copy of xview for DOS.  
If anyone can point me to the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Thank.
Woody
From: eric@nit.pactel.com (Eric Pederson)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: PANEL_LIST_INSERT_STRINGS / PANEL_LIST_CLIENT_DATAS
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:15:52 GMT
Organization: Pac*Tel Corporation

The PANEL_LIST_INSERT_STRINGS attribute is nice since it takes
an array of char *'s as one of its arguments.  I'd like to do
a "batch" setting of client data values too, but the argument for
PANEL_LIST_CLIENT_DATAS is a list of values in the xv_set
function itself.  Is there any way around this short of resorting
to ATTR_LIST which has a limit of 250?
-- 
Eric Pederson                                       Pac*Tel Corporation
eric@nit.pactel.com                                        510-210-8890
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
From: emiller@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (eric john miller)
Subject: Scrollbar Placement in an Application
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: comp.window.open-look
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:19:53 GMT

Could someone offer suggestions on how to force scrollbars to be placed
on both the right and left side of canvases in multi-canvas application.
I am interested in certain canvases having scrollbars on the left and
certain canvases having scrollbars on the right.  Any suggestions
would be apprectiated.

Thanks in advance...

Eric J. Miller
emiller@cis.ohio-state.edu
ejm@rsch.oclc.org
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
From: mraisis@nmpd.oz.au (Michael Raisis)
Subject: interposing a destroy function
Reply-To: mraisis@nmpd.oz.au
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:16:50 GMT

I am very new to programming with XView and have been having problems getting simple things
to work. I have been using O'Reilly Vol 7 (3rd ed) and some sample code (Ftptool4.3) for
examples.

This problem relates to getting a interposed destroy function to work properly.  My environment is SunOs 4.1.2 on an SLC and XView version 3.0.

The destroy function (based on the example in O'Reilly vol 7) is outlined below.


#ifdef F_PROTOTYPES
Notify_value baseWinDestroy(Notify_client  client,
                            Destroy_status status)
#else
Notify_value baseWinDestroy(client, status)
Notify_client               client;
Destroy_status                      status;
#endif
{
  if (status == DESTROY_PROCESS_DEATH) {

    /* ... */

  }

  else if (status == DESTROY_CHECKING) {

    if (/* not ready to exit */) {

      notify_veto_destroy(client);

      /* warn the user with a notice */
    }

  }

  else if (status == DESTROY_CLEANUP) {

    /* clean-up */

    return notify_next_destroy_func(client, status);

  }

  else if (status == DESTROY_SAVE_YOURSELF) {

    /* ... */

  }

  return NOTIFY_DONE;

}

The function is interposed by;


    notify_interpose_destroy_func(baseWin->frame, baseWinDestroy);


The problems are as follows:

i) When the fuction is called with DESTROY_CHECKING and it is not okay
   to exit 'notify_veto_destroy()' is called but the notifier continues to
   call the function again with DESTROY_CLEANUP

ii) When the function is called with DESTROY_CLEANUP it calls notify_next_destroy_func()
    and returns.  All the windows are unmapped but the process does not exit.

Why????

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
From: pklauren@nmsu.edu (Patrick M Klaurens)
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Followup-To: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:55:20 GMT

I do think that I would have no problems with a properly qualified
woman (SEAL teams are a'waitin when I graduate).  If she can cut it,
fine, but I would not want one on an MTT or "classic" SF mission
because the individuals that you could be training may not be as open
minded as I am, and the time lost convincing them that this woman is
good is counter productive. I know of two women that I would never
want to cross in a combat zone, because they have a knack for it.  I
would never object to a qualified woman beside me for a non training
job, because part of fighting is being good enough to (professional
enough?) to take your allies as they come.  This has been debated in
the past from racial point of view.
pat
Xref: sparky alt.war:2349 soc.women:22289 alt.war.vietnam:719
From: SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane)
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:36:20 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1993Jan7.021039.6855@msc.cornell.edu>
hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
 
>About a month ago I watched some Iron Man
>Triathlon (x miles swimming, 112 biking and then a full marathon), the top men
>finished in 8 hours, the top women 10% later.  So when is this greater
>endurance supposed to take effect?
 
Apples and oranges. You're saying that the men finished 10% faster than the
women, but speed was not the issue. The women remained in competition 10%
longer than the men. That sounds like more endurance to me.
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: L616015@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:41:31 PST


    Alright, I can't stand it anymore, no more lurking.

    As a vet ( infantry ) I'll add my $.02 worth. I'm sure most infantrymen
would agree that they would rather face a battalion of enemy armor than a
platoon of females, cycles all synced, verging on PMS. Remember, the female is
always the deadliest of the species.

The Space Ranger
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Re: Progress in War, Chivalry, Honor, Loss of Life...
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:33:39 GMT

ssalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (-=[SLS]=-) writes:

>Because people WERE burned at the stake (including such notable as
>Joan of Arc) does this mean we need to discard shish kebobs?...or just
>refrain from burning people along with the onions, green peppers and
>other assorted delights.

>Steven

Umm ...  you can burn people but not vegatbles?
Or that the only thing that should be cooked at
525 degrees is heretics?

The -ideas- of chivalry are what lead to the idea of Rules
of Warfare.  Fight only the combatants, protect the weak,
protect the week - no fighting during holy periods. [I've
met vets who referred to a 'Union War': "NSTIW, it was about
five and we were digging in for the night when here came
this bunch looking for the war ... [long shaggy story deleted]"

Unfortunately the practices of warfare have been freed of
such moralistisc entanglement, largley as the result of
the 'deproffesionalizing' of the military starting back
in the 16th century (when armies were small and professional,
i.e. not citizen-soldiers in for the duration, but craftsmen
for hire, wars were between the armies.  This years enemy
populace might be next years support base.)

Now we have the nation at arms - it is us or them;
ForcesOfLight vs EvilMinionsOfUltimateEvil. Life or Death
sort of mentality.  And Total War - kill them all, G*d
will know his own.  (Of course the mongolian hordes
were doing this as early as 1240.  A city sacked by mongols
was just as dead as one nuked, but it was a more labor
intensive process.)

Now, total war theory puts the non combatants into
the equation because there are no 'non participants'.
Modern warfare is logistics - without regular meals
and army is a mob of hungary people with guns [q.v. Somalia].
If you can get the other side to quit the war, you don't
have to kill him, risking your forces in the process.

So, Europe in 1945 was just as devistated as Europe in
1630 - but the technology was there in 1630 to quickly
rebuild.  In 1945, there were further problems.

chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
EOF
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dynalys@tigger.jvnc.net (219 Wall Street)
Subject: Re: medival warfare
Originator: dynalys@tigger.jvnc.net
Keywords: seige warfare
Organization: JvNCnet
Distribution: alt.war
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:14:01 GMT

 The sappers had 2 problems to deal with.  They were counter sappers and strong walls.  The wall could sometimes withstand being without the support under a wall.

	There are 3 najor types of castles.  Not every castle design fits into one of these.  The are motte and baily, curtain wall, and contric.  They devolped in this order.  The motte and baily castel was a castle on a large hill with a smaller lower hill suroded with palisades.  The curtain wal and the contincertic castle were similar.  They both had gatehouses and thick heavy walls.  The constric castle had walls higher further in so that archers could fire over the walls in fron of them.  All of the castles




 provided good defense and they were all hard to take over.


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Prostitutes winning medals?
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:40:39 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.


   In the book "Acts of War", Richard Holmes mentions that two french
prostitutes won the Croix de Guerre in indochina in the 50's. Does anyone
know more about this?
   What do you have to do to get a Croix de Guerre? Is it like the Medal
of Honor in the US?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
From: csh@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au (Chris Heath)
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Reply-To: csh@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au (Chris Heath)
Organization: University of NSW
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:03:54 GMT


--
In article <1993Jan11.171307.16557@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
|>)Apples and oranges. You're saying that the men finished 10% faster than the
|>)women, but speed was not the issue. The women remained in competition 10%
|>)longer than the men. That sounds like more endurance to me.
|>) 
|>)Diane
|>
|>That seems like a very poor definition of endurance.  As other posters have
|>suggested, a definition of 'more endurance' as the ability to perform at some
|>specified level for a longer period of time is much more logical.  The
|>interesting question is how to specify the level of 'performance' that must
|>be maintained.  Something that does not directly involve size seems ideal -
|>different specifications can probably be explored, which may or may not
|>reveal differences and/or general trends.  Running seems like a reasonable
|>place to start.

In athletic cicles the measure of this is VO2 max, which is the amount
of oxygen a person can process per kilogram of body weight.

Clearly a lighter person has some advantage as there can be a greater
variation in body weight than lung capacity, as most peoples lungs
are generally the same size.

This is similar to the way in which smaller people, pound for pound
are stronger than bigger people (as evidenced by weightlifting 
records, when considered as weight lifted per kilo of body weight).

/-------------------------------------------------------------\
|   Chris Heath       Email ==> csh@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au     |
|                                                             |
|   University of New South Wales                             |
|   Sydney, Australia.                                        |
|                                                             |
|   In the beginning there was chaos.....nothings changed!!   |
\-------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
From: ssalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (-=[SLS]=-)
Subject: Re: Progress in War, Chivalry, Honor, Loss of Life...
Organization: OFSA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:42:39 GMT

pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) remarks:
>ssalter@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (-=[SLS]=-) writes:
>>Because people WERE burned at the stake (including such notable as
>>Joan of Arc) does this mean we need to discard shish kebobs?...or just
>>refrain from burning people along with the onions, green peppers and
>>other assorted delights.
>
>Umm ...  you can burn people but not vegatbles?
>Or that the only thing that should be cooked at
>525 degrees is heretics?

Did *you* miss my point or am I just confused? Probably the
latter...hmmm, hey I am not biased that way, vegetables can be burned
as well as people...(?)

>The -ideas- of chivalry are what lead to the idea of Rules
>of Warfare.  Fight only the combatants, protect the weak,
>protect the week - no fighting during holy periods. [I've

'zactly!


Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: medival warfare 
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:53:06 GMT

In article <726527928snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan7.201726.4580@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu writes:
>
>
>  >    I read that it was the advent and advance of iron shot the caused the
>  > decline of castles. The iron _could_ penetrate stone walls. Of course, this
>  > lead to the early modern artillery fortresses which are castle-like.
>
>Nothing really "penetrates" a stone wall 20-30' thick :-).  Rather the 
>iron balls would do more damage because they didn't absorb energy by 
>shattering, and could be fired faster.
>
    I meant "breach" rather than "penetrate".

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: sam@sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:20:58 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]
Followup-To: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu (hillyard@msc.cornell.edu) wrote:
: I find it quite easy to believe that a man would starve to death before a
: women would (Their main problem was lack of food.  The famous thing about
: the Donner party is that they ate the people who died); higher metabolism 
: and less fat storage after all.  But I am somewhat skeptical of common claim 
: that women have better endurance.  Looking at track and field (something with
: nice, objective performance ratings), the difference between men's and women's
: world class times are the same 10% from the 100m dash to the marathon.  Maybe 
: a marathon isn't long enough?  

I do not have the actual studies before me and am using 15 year old memories
but as I recall, the different use of energy (stored vs. blood) between men
and women gives men a very distinct advantage up to around 18 miles.  Since
a marathon is only a few miles over that, I am sure that it is too short to
measure the endurance advantage that women are supposed to have.  I recommend
that you look at the 100 mile foot race records -- especially if records are
available for their times for the 10 miles beginning at mile 30 or so.  
Also, you need to keep in mind that children are still raised differently and
young girls do not run as much as young boys (nor are they taught to be as
competative) due to our society so they may not be reaching their full 
potential.  The gap between male and female athletes has been decreasing
as our society has evolved toward equality.
Xref: sparky alt.war:2384 soc.women:22545 alt.war.vietnam:772 alt.dads-rights:3298
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Women In Combat And Standards
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:12:21 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
] drieux, just drieux (drieux@wetware.com) wrote:
] : 
] : Would they equally exempt men from combat units for
] : not making the grade???? 
] :----------------
] If you fail a strenght/endurance test during boot camp they will probably
] reassign you to a holding company where you will spend ALL your time doing
] physical training. You will eventually become "inspired" enough to pass
] the test and get on with your military career.

yes, I understand the 'fun in the sun' part of Boot Camp.

yes, I understand the 'PosMo' and 'Mo Tour' Pleasures of boot Camp.

The matter goes back up to the Top - will they be
exempting males who do not live up to the same 
macho standards that are used to exempt women from Combat?

More Importantly will they allow Father's to get out of
the Service so as to be able to take care of their Kids?

Or will we see the Same sort of MurphyBrown 'forgetting Fathers'
sort of behavior we have seen all these years?


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 
Just because you are a homicidal maniac
doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor.
		- Barry Sadler
Newsgroups: alt.war