Little better. 3.5.8 gave 41/100 but didn't look at all like the reference and 3.5.9 had 51/100, but looked identical. I had to copy the score from behind a picture of a dog (?) to even see it. I got the 'empty.txt' question and answered to open it; it didn't but also didn't segfault.
FWIW: sidux 2.6.24.2 amd64, KDE 3.5.8 & 3.5.9, Qt 3.3.8b
And while both Mac OS X and Windows have their issues, for the average person, it makes more sense to use those than Linux.
I read stuff like this frequently. I use a Linux distro on my desktop so perhaps I'm not average, perhaps I don't make sense, I may have more issues than OS X and Windows combined and I may not even be a person. BUT I think a Linux based desktop is quite OK for an 'average' person and the only sense I see is that there's no particular sense in changing the OS that comes pre-installed on a machine if you're happy with it.
The issue is usually the idiot that becomes the victim of a well done social hack.
You don't need an idiot to fall for a "well done social hack". If you're convinced you're smarter than every swindler out there, you'll be a victim soon enough.
IIRC, even dot-releases of python are not source-compatible. I assume that's why my install of Ubuntu has multiple versions of every library, e.g.,/usr/lib/python2.4/smtplib.py and/usr/lib/python2.5/smtplib.py.
My install of sidux (based on Debian sid) has still Python 2.4.4 as default since 2.5 is still considered a problem by the Debian maintainers afaik. And I know more differences between 2.4 and 2.5 than I wish so a compatibility issue with 3.0 wasn't any news, even if it hadn't been announced years ago. I expect compatibility issues with 2.6 too and I'm sure the PEP for Python 4000 will be written soon after Python 3 stabilizes. With Python it's manageble though, I don't consider it a big problem. Plenty of code to go through but with a symlink here and a shebang there as bandaids it won't cost me more than a week to make my code 2.6 and 3.0 ready next to 2.4 and 2.5.
'It sounds like a requiem,' Giovanni Maria Pala said. 'It's like a soundtrack that emphasizes the passion of Jesus.'
With Da Vinci in da house ya can bet yo momma's wigglin' ass it wasn't about the passion of Jesus, mo' 'bout the passion of mc Leo da man himself, for real!
Oh but I care about security. Just like I care about porn, the size of my penis and stocktips. I sometimes spend entire days reading all the mail I get about stuff I care about.
So what's "timely" given the OOXML spec was 6000+ pages of obfuscated MS jargon? You Can't blame some voting members for using the MicroSoft Standards Unification Control Coordinating Specification (tm) which only consisted of one word: "YES", then.
They also decided to rig a thermal barrier out of a surplus reference book and all-purpose gray tape.
Technology is the same everywhere. Nothing a bit of "all-purpose gray tape" won't fix and I bet they've got leathermans and a couple of cans of WD-40 around too.
So, buy the book. It's a good book, I agree with the review and you can find out how much the GIMP does beyond the simpler functions which you'll learn how to use too. Perhaps use Google to find icon edit tools (hint: vector graphics)? Or is it with Google also too hard "to do even the simpler functions"/ Google "doesn't do enough even"?
I see, the problem is that function and variablenames often aren't normal words. I can't think of a way to solve the issue 100% but I can suggest an approach that may cover a large and important part. - first you'd want to have coding standards with naming standards. From this it should be possible to extract a set of acceptable abbreviations, nameparts and pre & postfixes. - then look at the problem domain. Ideally there's a dictionary already of domain related verbs and nouns with their definitions, if only to improve communication between designers and programmers. Additionally you probably have a sort of general system wide design with items like classes, relations, files, devices, etc needed by several projects. These can be in plain language and therefore subjected to an ordinary spellchecker. - both then lead to a project dependent collection of words. A context sensitive (able to recognize functionnames etc) word chopper breaks your variablenames in parts and compares them to that collection like a spellchecker. It's not necessary to break according to capitalization or underscores but it would make things a little easier. I think it's do-able up 'till here but it gets tricky when you want to leave language words out. Keywords aren't the problem of course, difficulties will arise with libraries which don't adhere to your standards. Perhaps it's possible to identify names and add them to an exceptions list. - it'd be great when this works at least to the point where the main coding parts (APIs, classes, public methods/functions, etc.) are correct because too much detail will get too expensive (to develop, run and use) and your coders won't like it. If the 'outside' is correct then only a maintainer will see misspellings in the code and it'll be so local that it can be corrected if desired.
If it's not a Sony game, and it's not even going to be AVAILABLE for the PS3, then who do you think decided to use a rootkit-ish (even if it's not a rootkit) technology? Hint: it wouldn't have been Sony.
Why do you think it's not available on the PS3? Precisely because it contains a rootkit! This is just a clever ploy to cripple the competition by releasing the hottest game of the moment infested with malware. You better put on your tin foil hat, you're not thinking clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Did my heart just stop? Oooh, my Guardian Angel has become a Blue Angel Of Death.
I want one on a shark.
It would rip it to sand, then dust.
Little better. 3.5.8 gave 41/100 but didn't look at all like the reference and 3.5.9 had 51/100, but looked identical. I had to copy the score from behind a picture of a dog (?) to even see it. I got the 'empty.txt' question and answered to open it; it didn't but also didn't segfault.
FWIW: sidux 2.6.24.2 amd64, KDE 3.5.8 & 3.5.9, Qt 3.3.8b
"We're aiming for a possible development window of Duke Nukem Forever."
With Python it's manageble though, I don't consider it a big problem. Plenty of code to go through but with a symlink here and a shebang there as bandaids it won't cost me more than a week to make my code 2.6 and 3.0 ready next to 2.4 and 2.5.
there was
And regardless of this Special Interest Group, I've always used KDE as windowmanager on Fedora (or CentOS for that matter). Worked excellent.
So what's "timely" given the OOXML spec was 6000+ pages of obfuscated MS jargon? You Can't blame some voting members for using the MicroSoft Standards Unification Control Coordinating Specification (tm) which only consisted of one word: "YES", then.
I haven't heard it shine for a while, maybe there is something strange going on.
or patch the bug-fix, who knows.
So, buy the book. It's a good book, I agree with the review and you can find out how much the GIMP does beyond the simpler functions which you'll learn how to use too. Perhaps use Google to find icon edit tools (hint: vector graphics)? Or is it with Google also too hard "to do even the simpler functions"/ Google "doesn't do enough even"?
I see, the problem is that function and variablenames often aren't normal words. I can't think of a way to solve the issue 100% but I can suggest an approach that may cover a large and important part.
- first you'd want to have coding standards with naming standards. From this it should be possible to extract a set of acceptable abbreviations, nameparts and pre & postfixes.
- then look at the problem domain. Ideally there's a dictionary already of domain related verbs and nouns with their definitions, if only to improve communication between designers and programmers. Additionally you probably have a sort of general system wide design with items like classes, relations, files, devices, etc needed by several projects. These can be in plain language and therefore subjected to an ordinary spellchecker.
- both then lead to a project dependent collection of words. A context sensitive (able to recognize functionnames etc) word chopper breaks your variablenames in parts and compares them to that collection like a spellchecker. It's not necessary to break according to capitalization or underscores but it would make things a little easier. I think it's do-able up 'till here but it gets tricky when you want to leave language words out. Keywords aren't the problem of course, difficulties will arise with libraries which don't adhere to your standards. Perhaps it's possible to identify names and add them to an exceptions list.
- it'd be great when this works at least to the point where the main coding parts (APIs, classes, public methods/functions, etc.) are correct because too much detail will get too expensive (to develop, run and use) and your coders won't like it. If the 'outside' is correct then only a maintainer will see misspellings in the code and it'll be so local that it can be corrected if desired.
Have a bit of love for the Germans though, FTA: "They'll bomb and kidnap, well, we'll spam them to death with trojans!"
Not if the Wine developers use it for programming Wine, "eat your own dog food". Although WINN, Wordpad Is Not Notepad, of course.
You better put on your tin foil hat, you're not thinking clearly.