Excel 快捷键和功能键 - Excel - Microsoft Office Online
按 Shift+F11 可插入一个新工作表。
重剑无锋,大巧不工
Excel 快捷键和功能键 - Excel - Microsoft Office Online
按 Shift+F11 可插入一个新工作表。
Windows中的计时器(SetTimer和CreateWaitableTimer)
Timers (SetTimer and CreateWaitableTimer) in Windows
1.SetTimer
下面的例子创建了一个计时器(不与窗口相关联),该计时器过程函数建了20个消息框。
The following example creates a timer (that is not attached to a window) whose Timer Procedure creates 20 Message Boxes
#include <windows.h>
class foo_class {
static int counter;
public:
//static函数,相当于全局
static void __stdcall timer_proc(HWND,unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned long) {
if (counter++ < 20)
MessageBox(0,"Hello","MessageBox",0);
else
PostQuitMessage(0);
}
};
int foo_class::counter=0;
WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE,HINSTANCE,LPSTR,int) {
//第1个参数,MSDN中指出如果置为NULL,即0,不与窗口相关联。
//If this parameter is NULL, no window is associated with the timer and the nIDEvent parameter is ignored.
//第2个参数会被忽略
//第3个参数,300毫秒触发一次
//第4个参数,触发时由函数foo_class::timer_proc响应
int iTimerID = SetTimer(0, 0, 300, foo_class::timer_proc);
MSG m;
//这是消息循环
while (GetMessage(&m,0,0,0)) {
TranslateMessage(&m);
DispatchMessage(&m);
}
return 1;
}
2.CreateWaitableTimer
这个例子演示如何在windows中使用计时器。
计时器被设计为(1)在第1次调用CreateWaitableTimer后2秒触发,(2)此后每3/4秒触发一次。
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0400
#include <windows.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned __stdcall TF(void* arg) {
HANDLE timer=(HANDLE) arg;
while (1) {
//此处,进程间通信的接收方
//timer是命名的,因此进程间或线程间没有区别
WaitForSingleObject(timer,INFINITE);
printf(".");
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
//创建,命名为0,也可以是LPCTSTR,字符串
//其他进程可以通过OpenWaitableTimer获得此timer的句柄,并对之进行SetWaitableTimer
HANDLE timer = CreateWaitableTimer(
0,
false, // false=>will be automatically reset
0); // name
LARGE_INTEGER li;
const int unitsPerSecond=10*1000*1000; // 100 nano seconds
// Set the event the first time 2 seconds
// after calling SetWaitableTimer
//2秒
li.QuadPart=-(2*unitsPerSecond);
//通过句柄设置timer
SetWaitableTimer(
timer,
&li,
750, // Set the event every 750 milli Seconds
0,
0,
false);
//用TF函数启动worker线程
_beginthreadex(0,0,TF,(void*) timer,0,0);
// Wait forever,
while (1) ;
return 0;
}
参考:
1.[http://www.adp-gmbh.ch/win/misc/timer.html ]
2.[http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184796],中文的
安装了CustomizeGoogle is a Firefox extension that enhances Google search results by adding extra information (like links to Yahoo, Ask.com, MSN etc) and removing unwanted information (like ads and spam).在[ http://www.customizegoogle.com/]。因为看到小众软件上提到这个extention。
不错,真的能看cache了。
测试另一个extention,名为torbutton,作为代理。用了之后超时,可能无法访问内置的代理。unistall,继续用SwitchProxy Tool。
UFC录像两段
作为外行看到的技术
肘击
用肘夹住对方的头,膝盖顶头
击打对方关或颈部,目的似乎是使颈部受力,而失去平衡
用腿夹住对方的腰,使自己在地面时保持住,或使自己控制地面的对方
力量很重要,速度和耐力也很重要。
MIT开放课程 Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs video下载:
教材Structure And Interpretation Of Computer Programs - Mit Press,
使用Scheme语言
有免费工具MIT Scheme,
在[ http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-001Spring-2005/Tools/detail/Guide-to-MIT-Scheme.htm],
支持Windows和Linux。
视频下载:
1.flash或mp4
MIT OCW - 6.001 Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1986)
[http://www.archive.org/details/MIT_Structure_of_Computer_Programs_1986]
或
[ http://ia350602.us.archive.org/3/items/MIT_Structure_of_Computer_Programs_1986/]
2.avi(Divx)或mpg, bit torrent supported
[http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/ ]
感谢刘典先生推荐[Structure And Interpretation Of Computer Programs - Mit Press],
他告诉我这本书能帮助确定"机制与策略"的分离。
感谢李粲先生同意刘典先生推荐这本书,李粲先生与刘典先生一同指出《Unix程序设计艺术》中的"机制与策略"正符合我所说的原则。
感谢不记得什么时间谁请的烤牛肉,它让我们的交流很畅快。
[http://www.quantummotion.org/index.html]
我正在读的:
Everyone Can Understand Quantum Mechanics: Motion is random and discontinuous
The deepest implication of random discontinuous motion lies in that it entangles the world into an inseparable whole in a form of time division. Our universe is time-divided by God in a completely random way. Everything, from atoms to stars, lives in the time division universe. It looks as if the whole world is composed of many sub-worlds, each one of which occupies one tiny part of the continuous time flow, and the occupying way is discontinuous and random in essence. Schrodinger's cat in the time division universe No doubt the new picture will lead to a profound shift in our world view. It implies that our universe is not a mere aggregate of independent existences, but an entangled inseparable whole in the time division form. We live in a time division universe in reality. More »
Total Commander - Addons:
"Plugins
Packer plugins
Packer plugins offer additional pack formats inside of Total Commander, or allow access to special file formats like CD-ROM images, or list files.
File system plugins
File system plugins allow access to whole file systems via the Network Neighborhood, e.g. to a PocketPC device or a Linux file partition.
Lister Plugins
Lister-Plugins allow to show specific file types via F3, e.g. program code with syntax highlighting.
Content Plugins
Content plugins allow to extract specific data from files, like mp3 tags or photo information (e.g. exposure time). This data can be displayed in file lists, or used in the search and multi-rename functions."
[http://dev.csdn.net/author/hotmailmsn/67b483ad2819482682f1cd2f542bcd67.html#]
对面向对象设计原则的总结 - 其他 - CSDN技术中心
[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000854.html]
Coding Horror: Maximizing The Value of Your Keystrokes
When people tell me they're too busy to blog, I ask them to count up their output of keystrokes. How many of those keystrokes flow into email messages? Most. How many people receive those email messages? Few. How many people could usefully benefit from those messages, now or later? More than a few, maybe a lot more. From this perspective, blogging is a communication pattern that optimizes for the amount of awareness and influence that each keystroke can possibly yield. Some topics, of course, are necessarily private and interpersonal. But a surprising amount of business communication is potentially broader in scope. If your choice is to invest keystrokes in an email to three people, or in a blog entry that could be read by those same three people plus more -- maybe many more -- why not choose the latter? Why not make each keystroke work as hard as it can? [converting an email to a blog entry] can have powerful network effects. To exploit them, you have to realize that the delivery of a message, and the notification of delivery, do not necessarily coincide. Most of the time, in email, they do. The message is both notification and payload. But a message can also notify and point to a payload which is available to the recipient but also to other people and processes in other contexts. That arrangement costs hardly any extra keystrokes, and hardly any extra time. But it's an optimization that can radically expand influence and awareness.
I covered similar ground in When In Doubt, Make It Public, but Jon's entry is even more compelling. It's a specific example of how you can adapt your behavior to have a much broader impact. What Jon's describing happens to me all the time. I'll be in the middle of composing an email when I suddenly realize that there's no reason to silo this information in a private email exchange. I convert that email into a blog entry. Now, anyone who is interested in the topic can find it and have a public conversation with me-- and everyone else-- about it. The next time you find yourself typing more than a few sentences on your keyboard, stop and ask: are you maximizing the value of your keystrokes?
[http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000840.html]
Coding Horror: When In Doubt, Make It Public
Marc Hedlund offered some unique advice to web entrepreneurs last month:
One of my favorite business model suggestions for [web] entrepreneurs is to find an old UNIX command that hasn't yet been implemented on the web, and fix that.
To illustrate, Marc provides a list of UNIX commands with their corresponding web implementations:
talk, finger | ICQ |
LISTSERV | DejaNews |
ls | Yahoo! directory |
find, grep | |
rn | Bloglines |
pine | Google Mail |
mount | Amazon S3 |
bash | Yahoo! Pipes |
wall |
Jason Kottke noted that most successful "new" business models on the web aren't new at all -- they're simply taking what was once private and making it public and permanent :
Blogger = public email messages. (1999) Instead of "Dear Bob, Check out this movie." it's "Dear People I May or May Not Know Who Are Interested in Film Noir, check out this movie. If you like it, maybe we can be friends." Flickr = public photo sharing. (2004) Flickr co-founder Caterina Fake said in a recent interview: "When we started the company, there were dozens of other photosharing companies such as Shutterfly, but on those sites there was no such thing as a public photograph -- it didn't even exist as a concept -- so the idea of something 'public' changed the whole idea of Flickr." YouTube = public home videos. (2005) Bob Saget was onto something. Twitter = public IM. (2006) I don't think it's any coincidence that one of the people responsible for Blogger is also responsible for Twitter.
But you don't have to found a new Web 2.0 company to benefit from the power of public information. Even brick and mortar companies are finally realizing that the age-old principle of "secret by default" may not be the best policy today :
Companies used to assume that details about their internal workings were valuable precisely because they were secret. If you were cagey about your plans, you had the upper hand; if you kept your next big idea to yourself, people couldn't steal it. Now, billion- dollar ideas come to CEOs who give them away; corporations that publicize their failings grow stronger. Power comes not from your Rolodex but from how many bloggers link to you - and everyone trembles before search engine rankings.
Power, it seems, comes from public information. Secrets are only a source of powerlessness. Just ask Brad Abrams, who poses this rhetorical question :
If no one knows you did X, did you really get all the benefits for doing X?
I think Brad is being a bit too cautious here. I'll go one step further. Until you've..
.. did X really happen at all? This is not to say we should fill the world with noise on every mundane aspect of our existence. But who decides what is mundane? Who decides what is interesting? Everything's interesting to someone, even if that someone is only you and a few other people in the world. It's my firm belief that the inclusionists are winning. We live in a world of infinitely searchable micro-content, and every contribution, however small, enriches all of us. But more selfishly, if you're interested in deriving maximum benefit from your work, there's no substitute for making it public and findable. Obscurity sucks. But obscurity by choice is irrational. When in doubt, make it public.