Irei postando ao longo do tempo, alguns exercícios da faculdade que fiz recentemente.

Preencha um vetor de tamanho n com números inteiros aleatórios sem repetição.
protótipo: void preencheVetor(int n, int *v) *

/*=============================================================================*
* includes                                                                     *
*=============================================================================*/

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>

/*=============================================================================*
* declaracoes                                                                  *
*==============================================================================*
/*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* declaracoes - prototipos de funcoes                                          *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

void preencheVetor(int iNum, int *iVetor);

/*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* funcao "main"                                                                *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {

    int iNum;
    printf("Digite um numero: \n");
    scanf("%d", &iNum);
    int *iVet = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int) * iNum);
    preencheVetor(iNum, iVet);
    printf("\n");
    for (int i = 0; i < iNum; i++)
        printf("\n %d ", iVet[i]);
    system("pause");

    return 0;

}
/*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* corpo das funções - preencheVetor                                            *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

void preencheVetor(int iNum, int *iVetor) {
     int iAux, iFlag = 0;
     srand(time(NULL));
     for (int i = 0; i < iNum; i++) {
          iAux = (int) rand() % 100;
          for (int j = 0; j < i; j++) {
              if (iAux == iVetor[j])
                 iFlag = 1;
          }
     if (iFlag != 1)
        iVetor[i] = iAux;
     else
         i--;
     iFlag = 0;
     }
}

Be Advised: This is a hypothetical post. Obviously, there are bigger (literally bigger. Have you seen Trey? He’s huge.) fish to fry and we should keep our eyes on the race at hand. Doesn’t mean I can’t have a little fun!!!

It’s the year 2018, and as we’re all shocked that we got passed the hurdle that was the Mayan Calender, here we are anyway. We fly around in our cars and levitate with our Jet Packs and Al Gore has going clinically insane because he can’t understand why half the earth hasn’t caught fire yet. But, it’s been politics as usual in Washington. Deficits have been rising, wars are being ramped up and the economy still is in dyer need of help. The last two Presidents have done nothing to help the situations and the candidates we’ve brilliantly lined up for the upcoming 2020 elections look like, if possible, even worse options than what we’ve had. However, the good people of Kentucky have a different idea.

Rand Paul was elected to the US Senate way back in 2010. He seems more honest and more genuine than any politician anyone has ever met–because he is. His father Ron Paul, as Presidential Candidate, came off as a little different and wasn’t exactly a candidate people could warm to. Don’t get me wrong– when you actually sat down in listened to what he was saying, he made real sense. The problem was, most people didn’t make it that far.

Yet Ron’s offspring, Rand, is different. He’s an excellent speaker and captures audiences with his calm demeanor and way of explaining his ideas. He has an unique ability to reel in a base of libertarian minded independents and conservative republicans alike, which makes his especially dangerous. I expect, with the problems in the economy have only gotten worse during Rand’s tenure in the Senate despite his strong efforts to fix it, that the country will be in a state of panic. Candidates that represent the “status quo” will no longer be acceptable and citizens are going to look for a real, non-politician to stand up and say “What can I do to help fix this country?” It just so happens that’s exactly the platform Rand Paul is running on.

Rand is an attractive candidate and one with a real ability to win. His non-partisan approach makes his base very wide, but his real world solutions makes it deep. He’s able to dip into Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians alike and captivate them with his exceptional ability on the stump. He’s also willing to work harder than anyone to do what it takes to win. He doesn’t play attack politics, but knows when to call his opponents out. He has more experience (6 years in the Senate) than President Obama did when elected and is still a very youthful, energetic guy. He’s a nightmare for other candidates.

When you really sit down and think about it, it makes sense. When you listen to this dark-horse Senate candidate from Kentucky, does he not make more sense and provide more ideas than former Presidential Candidates, czars, Secretaries of whatever and even President Obama? I honestly think when 2018 rolls around, and liberal, out-of-control spending still hasn’t fixed this country (for the second time in a century), America will look to a true conservative not wanting to play politics, but get things done.

Am I crazy, or does the eight ball not seem to be pointing to a serious run–and I don’t mean a campaign with almost no chance of winning, like his fathers. I mean I think he can compete. And if President Obama’s magic czar doesn’t fix the economy and the Republicans don’t do it either, there going to turn to maybe the only level headed, conservative in the Senate–Rand Paul.

By Rusaila Bazlamit; originally published on Reflect Upon on July, 22, 2008

So finally I have read [The Fountainhead] a novel that I knew many people praising… Once I started reading it I couldn’t stop till I finished it…
The novel is written by Ayn Rand… in the novel Rand chose Architecture as a form of self-expression…

Gary Cooper as Howard Roark; Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

I can’t understand why during my 5 years studying architecture none of my professors recommended the book… It is such a good book and deals with architecture in a new critical way… allowing us to interpret the history of architecture and the modern practices of it in a new way…

Many of the main characters are involved in Architecture whether they are architects like the main character Howard Roark or they are critics of architecture like Ellsworth Toohey…

The Fountainhead; Ayn Rand

The Fountainhead; Ayn Rand

The novel talks about selfishness, egotism and altruism through another perspective which shakes some of the bases of how societies are led to approve or condemn actions that are defined as virtues or sins by other people for whatever agenda…
As you are reading there will be many sections which you forget you are reading a novel but you concentrate on the ideas presented… again gaining more insights about architecture and society.
I liked the way Rand has used architecture as a medium to convey her own philosophies…
The novel is definitely a must-read… especially for architects and architecture students…
The novel had been made into a movie in the 1940s but I’m always disappointed when a novel is turned into a movie… so I recommend the novel… having said that I found this video of Howard Roark’s speech toward the end of the movie… is worth seeing… [ full Howard Roark courtroom speech]

Howard Roark: A building has integrity, just like a man.

The Fountainhead; Ayn Rand

The novel also tackles some of the ideas related to Capitalism and though I’m myself an anti-capitalism to the core… I have to say that I had a new understanding of Capitalism that made me reflect more about some of own ideas related to man, freedom and wealth…
Also the concept of self, self-sacrifice, selfishness made me think about the concept of the self in my own Islamic beliefs which I’ll talk about some other time…

It is a mind opening when we understand the hidden driving forces that shape, create and re-create some of our basic cultural and societal patterns…

The Fountainhead one of my best novels of all times…

Changing the translational research landscape: a review of the impacts of Biomedical Research Centres in England – RAND Corporation – 2009
By: Sonja Marjanovic, Bryony Soper, Ala’a Shehabi, Claire Celia, Anais Reding, Tom Ling

“This report describes a review of the Biomedical Research Centres (BRC) scheme, undertaken for the DH 18 months after the BRCs were commissioned. This review was a perceptions audit of senior executives involved in the scheme, and explored whether the scheme is working in the way intended. It considered how translational research and innovation were pursued prior to the BRC scheme (including the opportunities and barriers experienced in the past by NHS and academic partners); whether and how institutional relationships are changing because of the scheme; and (if so) how these changes are influencing the health research system. The information obtained through our interviews suggests that the BRC scheme is already contributing to observable changes in institutional relationships between the NHS, academia, industry and other players, and is helping shape the health research system to pursue translational research and innovation with the clear goal of realising patient benefit. The scheme, and the associated changes in stakeholder relationships it has fostered, is also making a significant contribution to capacity-building in the health research system, and is leading to improved resource-targeting, management and governance.”

Free, downloadable PDF file(s) are available below.

Download PDF Full Document
(File size 0.4 MB, 2 minutes modem, < 1 minute broadband)

Download PDF Summary Only
(File size 0.2 MB, < 1 minute modem, < 1 minute broadband)

Contents

Chapter One:
The BRC review context

Chapter Two:
Collaboration dynamics: changes in institutional relationships between the NHS, academia and industry

Chapter Three:
The impact of the BRC scheme and of associated changes in institutional relationships on capacity-building

Chapter Four:
The impact of BRCs on resource-targeting, management and governance

Chapter Five:
On reflection

This is a very important step back toward economic liberty.  More than half of the congress has co-sponsored the bill (including 80 democrats – so truly bi-partisan) and it asks for one simple thing.  Transparency.  After all, it’s our money, and our government… shouldn’t we have a right to know where all of the money the fed prints out of thin air goes?  This clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUreWxKGOkY) seems to indicate not even they know where it goes!

Update – the hypocrisy – government promises transparency… but does not take opportunities to deliver on that promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRQHsXujpo

More information on auditing the Fed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx-UYvtSqeI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAQIJWUJVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpbW64vRrMc

Update – Freedom Watch – Judge Andrew Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAQIJWUJVU – the Fed’s response (besides hiring the Enron lobbyist)

Congressional report admits economic collapse was government’s fault:

http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/07/09/congressional-report-blames-the-governement-for-the-mortgage-crisis/

You can’t fairly blame the free market anymore – after all we have not had a true free market in this country for decades.  You can try to blame lack of regulators, but some of the big organizations that they say need regulation had literally hundreds of regulators already… and the answer can’t possibly be to give the federal reserve the power to regulate the banks.  Did you know the federal reserve is a private organization?  It’s a bank… for the banks.  Giving it the power to regulate – isn’t that like allowing banks to regulate themselves?  Actually reading the plan, one learns that many of the ‘regulations’ become optional anyway (so it’s a big bank regulating (in many ways) itself… but only if it wants to).  You can read the entire plan here: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/june/white%20paper.pdf – and a critique of it here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20147

If I’m wrong about any of this I’d love to hear about it so I can continue the learning process.  If you agree, contact your government here – https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and tell them to support HR 1207 and government transparency.  Also, feel free naturally to forward this to others if you want.

I hope you all are having a wonderful week!  I wish the best to you.

According to Carbon Control News (subscription required), “Industry officials say alternative jet fuels could play a central role in reducing aviation’s carbon footprint, but a new study commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finds many of those fuels are actually worse for the climate than conventional petroleum, and that those which do produce fewer lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions “are costly and could potentially be counterproductive.”

Two-Step Strategy to Making a Fortune in Gold

Everything is in place for gold. And as gold makes incrementally new highs and rebounds from the eventual and unexpected corrections, there will be more opportunity.
But at this stage in gold’s run, there’s a simple two step strategy to make a fortune in gold in the next few years.

Step 1) Make a plan to buy gold and gold stocks over the next three to five years

Step 2) Stick to the plan

That’s the beauty of getting in something relatively early. Gold has made a good run over the last eight years, but the biggest money will likely be made in the next eight years as a lot more money piles into the “utter nonsense” that is gold.

As I trip down the path to supposed enlightenment something has been puzzling me- how much does the author’s history matter to us in considering their work?  I’m not talking about the person’s favorite color, what they ate for dinner last Tuesday or even what their favorite TV program is.  I am talking about their lives as it pertains to their work.

I began wondering this for a multitude of reasons.  The first reason was We the Living.  Oh, I know that doesn’t sound like a reason but I assure you, it is.  The second reason is more because of how wretchedly easy it is for me to take a lot of information a work of fiction can offer and actually have faith the author did enough research to illustrate their points with accuracy.

As for the first point:  I reviewed We the Living a couple weeks ago and found myself shocked and horrified by the details of life in Russia Rand detailed.  I don’t know if I would have been skeptical of the food rationing or the political upheaval and outright class war brought about by Lenin and his supporters if I hadn’t known the author actually didn’t leave the USSR until 1926 (the year the story ended).  Before I decided to read the book I actually read it was “as close to an autobiography” as she would ever write so, knowing Rand’s black and white personality, I took her at her word.  Of course, after all the emotional upheaval caused by such a gut wrenching book, I started doing an online search of Lenin and the Bolshevik’s food rationing.

To say I found little to no information would be accurate- which is quite distressing.  [I now own a book called Life Under the Bolshevik Regime- I'll be reading that sometime in the near future]  Wiki didn’t mention it, unless you count a “drought” which supposedly occurred for one year, and only ever referred to the food rationing as a “war time” event.  Doing a google search actually led me to find a helpful site detailing what rations the party members were allotted all the time so I knew Rand hadn’t been BS-ing.  But the book, if I had been skeptical of her to begin with and didn’t know her history, would not necessarily have impacted me as much as it did.  Now, part of that very much has to do with the author’s ability to spin a believable tale (which she does) but when it’s historical there’s a lot of faith involved- unless you’re an expert or at least have a good deal of knowledge from the outset.

The second speaks to my somewhat gullible nature.  I don’t mean to say I’m not a cynic (I am- really) but when it comes to fiction, if the information is presented in a manner of which is believable I am bound to soak it up and think “Oh, my gosh those unicorns were EVIL!”  Well, okay.  Not exactly- but I think you get my point there.  It’s about certain plausibility and a lack of dramatic (read:over the top descriptions) tone which gets me in both literature and film.

My faith really only goes so far- since I am such an information slut I tend to google, get books from the library (or Borders if I have a coupon- yeah, coupon!) and research it my damned self if I’m either interested enough or I think something is a load of hooey.

But still I’m left wondering how much the author’s history matters to the reader.  We the Living struck me particularly hard due to my previous knowledge of Rand’s life and, honestly, thinking about people being starved like that almost always makes me cry.  I took her word, on faith, that her book was an accurate depiction of life in Petrograd from 1922-1926.  Something similar happened to me when reading Witch of Cologne excepting I knew (and still don’t know) hardly anything about Tobsha Lerner- this time about the Spanish Inquisition.  Honestly, I care little about that time period in history except perhaps sport somewhat of an intellectual curiosity- it’s not something I’m going to write about any time soon and my historical interests just lean in a different direction (I also am really not concerned with an event such as that occurring again so I’m pretty lax in that area).

What about you?  Do you flip to see the credentials of the author before picking up a novel?  Just non-fiction?  Not at all?  If the novel was somewhat controversial in scope about a subject matter you knew little of- would you take care to ascertain exactly what knowledge that person had before they began spewing forth words and information which would wind up on a page?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

حين ترغب فى الحصول على عدة قيم رقمية مختلفة بشكل عشوائى من أجل تطبيق إحدى المعادلات عليها للتأكد من صحة نتائجها أو تريد هذه القيم من أجل تجربة إستخدام إحدى أدوات الإكسل المختلفة فإنك قد تقوم بذلك من خلال إدخال هذه القيم بشكل يدوى أو أن تستخدم الطريقة التالية والتى تعتمد على الدالتين RAND و INT.

الحصول على قيم رقمية بين 0 و القيمة X
بفرض أن X = 50 تكون المعادلة المستخدمة كالتالى

تفسير المعادلة السابقة:

1. تبدأ هذه المعادلة من خلال تنفيذ الدالة RAND والتى تقوم بتوليد قيم رقمية عشوائية بين 0 و 1
2. بعد توليد القيمة الرقمية العشرية يتم إيجاد حاصل ضربها مع القيمة X والتى فرضنا أنها = 50 فبالتالى نكون قد حصلنا على رقم صحيح وكسر
3. للتخلص من القيمة العشرية فى الخطوة السابقة نستخدم إحدى دوال التقريب وهنا سنستخدم الدالة INT لأنها لا تحتاج إلى تحديد المدى الخاص بالتقريب ولكنها تقوم بالتقريب لأقرب أقل رقم صحيح

ملاحظات على المعادلة السابقة:

• القيم الرقمية التى نحصل عليها لا تشتمل على القيمة X لكنها تشتمل على القيمة 0
• للحصول على القيمة X نقوم بإضافة 1 ( لن تحصل بذلك على 0) فى نهاية المعادلة لتصبح المعادلة كالتالى
  
  انظر الصورة التالية
  
• للحصول على قيم رقمية بين X و Y نستخدم المعادلة التالية بفرض أن X=15 و Y=25 (تشتمل على القيمة X ولا تشتمل على القيمة Y)
  
• للحصول على قيم رقمية بين X و Y نستخدم المعادلة التالية بفرض أن X=15 و Y=25 (تشتمل على القيمة X والقيمة Y)
  
  انظر الصورة التالية
  

ملحوظة : يمكنك الحصول على قيم رقمية عشوائية بين قيميتين بواسطة الدالة RANDBETWEEN

فى رعاية الله

»يمكنك الإطلاع على جميع موضوعات المدونة من خلال الأرشيف.
»إذا كانت هذه هى زيارتك الأولى للموقع، فلا تنس أن تشترك فى خلاصات الموقع عبر   الـ RSS أو عبر الـ e-mail للحصول على جديد الموقع مباشرة.

Lagde ett program her om dagen til en obligatorisk oppgave. Har ikke prøvd å legge opp filer for nedlastning noe særlig før så skulle prøve å bruke rapidshare som ett webhotell.

Her er ett lottorekke generator program som er skrevet i c.

Click on Hudson’s (Vizsla mix) face to see the Dog Trots pack this past summer.  Man, it was a hot one, and we’re not complaining.

1. Introduction

I can understand why some people have a hard time getting to terms with Ayn Rands philosophy – it has a way of turning your entire world upside down once you grasp it. And I think it’s only proper that any philosophical framework is subject to debate – because not all philosophies are valid. With that being said, I just read the worst hack-job of criticism ever, in our daily #2 paper here in Sweden. Some mediocre columist (has he read Ayn Rand? even once?) decided to throw together the regular set of klichées and pretend it was actually a viewpoint. It hardly classifies even as a factless opinion in my book.

2. Review of a review

(Since this was written in Swedish, the translation is mine, but I’m fairly good at translating Swedish into English, so your going to have to trust me getting it correct)

Just like Dan Browns ‘Da Vinci Code” it [Atlas Shrugged] is embarrasingly badly written and full of weird theories

The problem with statements like these is that you have to somehow be able to point to exactly WHAT is badly written. No example is given. Not even a qualifier of what type of error the author did. Nope, just a “take it on faith” statement. An excellent way of setting the stage for a review of Atlas Shrugged, don’t you agree (yes, that was sarcasm)?

“At these times of public support of large corporations and government regulation of the market economy, a growing number of conservatives find comfort in Rands manifest against government activities”

This is supposedly a criticism that Atlas Shrugged isn’t read because of it’s literary performance but because of it’s “strict ideological message”. I pity any author whose novel is read simply because of it’s literary performance – because this means that the author is nothing but a conjourer of pleasent combinations of words and sentances, a shallow copy of those who write real books, with real content, that actually MEANS something. This kind of criticism would be laughed at by everyone, were we not living in the age of tabloids and consumption culture.

3. Utopian socialism

“(…) the novel is more than something else a cry for a new and more complete man, paradoxically remainding of the utopian socialism, which Rand denounced her entire life”

This is actually a point I like to debate, because yes – Rand’s laissez-faire capitalist society is by many seen as an unaccomplishable utopia. The difference between Rand’s thinking and the utopian socialism is that Rand actually specifies the means by which to reach the end (utopia) and how these means will bring this utopia about. The utopian socialists, on the other hand, didn’t even try to specify means – or in what fashion those means would bring on utopia, they simply claimed (in accordance with the philosophical framework as layed out by the underpants gnomes) :

1 ) We all become socialist
…
3 ) We reach utopia

And according to the utopian socialists, anyone questioning what happens between 1 and 3 simply doesn’t get the concept.

4. Laissez-faire capitalism as an individualist utopia

Rand does something completely different. She points to the marvellous development that has taken place in each and every instance when mans creativity has been unleashed by having the freedom not to be oppressed by kings – or governments. At this day of age, when we in the Western world aspire at no more than one or two percent of (inflation-adjusted) growth a year – one wonders what the world would have looked like if we had experienced the same growth as 19th century america. What many, especially Europeans, are frightfully unaware of is that the United States, up until the 1950’s had a level of wealth that was almost larger than the combined wealth of the rest of the world. They had a general wellbeing that should have been envied by anyone living in the rest of the world. Much has happened since – but imagine what would have happened if the US had taken a few steps back towards the 19th century style of government, and not dived headlong into western-european welfare statism. The US might very well have been utopia by now. The remarkable force of economic and political freedom is something few will ever understand – and that is why there are still so many people poor, starving and dying in preventable diseases. It is the modern welfare state that is to blame for ALL the suffering in this world of today – because had we been without it – the free market-economies of the world would have economized away poverty by the simple logical creed that it isn’t productive to be poor, thus it is an economic victory to bring people out of poverty, because they can more efficiently partake in economic activities. Maybe I’m overreaching here, but it doesn’t take much more than looking at the numbers of economically free societies that hasn’t yet been burdened by the bureucratic welfare state to realize that SOMETHING is keeping us back, and it sure as hell isn’t the average man.

5. The nonsense argument and Atlas Shrugged as an idea beyond Ayn Rand

Finally, the criticism takes on the regular argument that Rand was a madwoman, driving a cultlike movement that demanded strict adherence to her principles. Whether this is true or not (and I certainly don’t believe it is for one second) is besides the point, because Ayn Rands work is not Ayn Rand. Her works, which to be read and understood requires a large amount of critical thinking, were never written to be taken “by faith”, nor would anyone understanding them do so. Whoever Ayn Rand was personally matters little when reading her philosophy, because her philosophy was that of individualism – and to require of an idea that the first person which spoke it must be a saint in orderfor it to be believable  - seems much more the way of your regular cult than Ayn Rand.

Whoever wrote this piece of utter nonsense may do best to go back and read a few selected works of Ayn Rand again, and try and apply her philosophy to his own reasoning. He will probably be surprised at what he finds.

SvD

Well slip me the tongue and call me protected!

I have been saved by the smooch!!

Some big brain over in Britain did some super serious scientifical researchification and discovered that “female inoculation with a specific male’s cytomegalovirus is most efficiently achieved through mouth-to-mouth contact and saliva exchange, particularly where the flow of saliva is from the male to the typically shorter female.”

Which is really just a big ol’ fancified $20 way of saying swapping spit can stop my sweet ass from getting sick!
Now I know why it is that I so very rarely get ill …

I’ve been innoculated by nookie!
::: and I LIKE it!! :::

I AM A MEDICAL MIRACLE!!!

I’M GONNA LIVE FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

::: suckit sickos!! :::

Dr. Colin Hendrie of the University of Leeds says that smoochin’ on the same person for about six months provides the best protection.
::: I have soooo met that quota! :::

“As the relationships progresses and the kisses become more passionate, the woman’s immunity builds up, cutting her odds of becoming ill,” a report in the journal Medical Hypotheses states.

Flu shot, schmooo shmot — I am so healthy I don’t even need that shit!!!

I’m gonna go drink for 30 hours straight, get high on paint fumes, run with scissors and tear up the organ donor card, ‘cuz I’m here for the duration, bitches!

HAHAHAHAHA YEEEEAAAAHHHHH!!!!!

Hey hey Mr. Cookie! Bring those live savin’ lips back over here, babe!

SOURCE