I do. Or I make my employer du jour do so. I buy two or three a year. I usually buy anything other than Red Hat just to keep the manure spread as evenly as possible. And I've made it a point to buy one copy of Debian annually the last three years. I'm an athiest, this is what I do instead of tithing a church.
Competition is far superior on IGS. The ratings on IGS were recently adjusted by four stones and are still a stone or two stronger than AGA ratings. IGS is good for your game; the others are for kicking the weak around the board.
I broke both hands in a bicycle accident three years ago. Bi-lateral, almost mirror image fractures, a inch and quarter hollow, titanium drywall screw in each thumb. At the time my wife was five months pregnant and until the harness came off (3rd degree shoulder separation) she was doing everything, I mean everything, for me.
A word of advice: use the hands. I worked straight through, only missing two days for surgery and the day of the accident; typing with just the middle fingers of each hand. It will make your shoulder stronger and shorten your rehab. Your rehab will go much faster if you are using your hand before you get the cast off. Avoid the mouse when possible. You might consider some voice interface software, as well. And stretch!
What does this have to do with media, guaco? A child knows not to believe everything in the newspapers. This is misinformation from sources with legal and fiduciary responsibility to act forthrightly. This is financial analysts spouting press releases as research, accountants fudging figures, corporate execs talking up the sleeves of their $3,000 suits in their annual reports.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. --Thomas Jefferson.
Julia Child's *Way to Cook* is a great presentation of foundation recipes with the variations that teach you how to improvise successfully.
After that and a deal of practice, have a look at Escoffier, a nineteenth C Frenchman whose fame has made his book eponymous. The units are archaic, the portions industrial and the stove is coal-fired, but this is the fscking Bible of French cuisine. You will learn more mucking up the recipes in his book than you will anywhere short of apprenticing with Bocuse.
Now, when I cook for other than everyday, I make a menu of seasonal ingredients, pick a cut of critter and work through Julia and Escoffier side-by-side. I haven't followed a recipe in a decade. If someone asks what they're eating I make up a name and then explain what its based on. I made a brown sauce a few years ago that people still talk about.
Don't be afraid to screw up; recipes are guidelines, not algorithms. Except baking. Cooking may be an art, but baking is science.
Lastly, the most important factor for true greatness in the amateur kitchen: make your own stock.
It sucks to lose on a grammar fault, but rules is rules. Still, I am struck that an avowed lisper has no regard for the spectacle of a greybeard typesetter is using S-expressions, in whatever guise, or the finer features of functional programming in the course of making my daily bread.
And whether bungus or bungette, wasn't one of the breakthroughs of lisp an opening of the semantic space for the machine, a clearing of the forest?
What you fear is what hides behind the neologous noun *bungus* as qualified by the adjectival phrase *semantic arbitrarity*, that is, whatever bungus signifies must be constituted by semantic arbitrarity.
As to me, I don't believe anything. I *think* its okay to use superior tools, but I find it much more effective to simply describe their superiority, particularly when I raise my voice.
That's right, boys and girls, proofreader's marks. Their annotations, referred to as *markup* by the ink devils setting the type, are the basis for *ML. Typesetting macros, whether SGML, Troff, Tex, et. al., were subsequently known by the same term.
I prefer to see the scope of XML application as a broadening of the concept of publication rather than a narrowing of the idea of data.
XML1.0 and XSLT1.0 have each received two effectively complete, free, open implementations. These two are more than enough to create a bungus of semantic arbitrarity sufficient to blow your neolithic mind. I, rather, have no shit for W3C or their corporate patsies. As to PERL, the world is the less fucked up now its REGEX flavor implemented in J1.4
My point along has been it is neither _new_ nor _better_, merely useful. What do you _really_ want to do today?
I am not about to implement a flippin' LISP machine inside my publication system to support single-sourcing. That's reinvention. Don't get me wrong, I like LISP, love Scheme, but it hasn't been done and isn't going to get done and I've got a job to do.
XSLT, hype to the contrary, does not pretend to be a complete language. It is a simple way to build data-driven, recursive evaluations for the application of alternative markup templates. *MARKUP*. It's a publication system.
If you could see the forest for the parenthesis, you could appreciate seeing good ideas finding new life in new clothes. What the hell does syntax have to do with it, piss-poor or otherwise?
But there is still plenty of work to do getting it into the system. I've got this pagination engine, see. It doesn't have an integrated lisp machine. In its absence I'll have to stumble along with pointy brackets.
The AC is thick, the comment tendentious. XML consciously borrowed the concept. Have a look at XSLT; remind you of anything?
In fact, there is a perfectly grammatical means of nouning a verb, its called a gerund: The umpteenth running of the Great Deerwood Woodtick Races.
And, um, flaming.
The Flaming Grammarians are all wet here. Modern grammar recognizes usage as paramount and grammar neither more nor less normative than spelling or the convention of the signifier itself. Which is not to say that some verbification should not be challenged: *deplane* is just plain misguided. Its construction follows no known rule but that of laziness.
The very idea of a *prescriptive* grammar outside the domain of synthetic (as opposed to natural, unfortunate distinction that) language is laughable.
Mr. Perens, the old saw about any press being good press is given the lie here. The b-week article in question is counter-productive in several ways but particularly and most pointedly in its rhetorical whos and hows. I concur that influence is the goal, it is in the whos and hows that we get tripped up. I'm treated all too often to b-weeks tech coverage as my old man is a long-time subscriber and brings me a stack with tech articles tabbed whenever he comes to visit his grandkids. My impression is that b-week and much of the tech press wants to have their cake and eat it too. They talk a good game, not wanting to alienate the OSS community they see as savvy and motivated and a great demographic for expensive IT ad spend. Thus, OSS sees plenty of press these days. It is the tenor of that press and the message being sent that I take issue with.
A close reading of the article presents an ideological conflict. This is good, but the terms of the conflict and the nature of the belligerents is mischaracterized. On one side powerful, moneyed interests defend their perfectly legal copyright interests, the foundation of their business model. On the other, *junkies* and *ideologues* demand access, apparently motivated by nothing more than intellectual hubris or the desire for *cheap software*. This mischaracterization of our position does much more harm than good. Frankly, those we seek to influence will not be swayed by the strength of our development methodologies, certainly not by our perverse desire to *see the code*. The economic argument doesn't carry water either; we are just chiselers who can't be bothered to pay for the techno we rock out to while we're hacking on-line banking sites. They can be swayed by an appeal to the preservation of our essential freedoms in the information age. The threat is apparent to us because we are closer to the technology, it is our civic duty to make the threat known to a wider public.
We are not junkies, zealots, communists or wizards. We're citizens who happen to have done a bit of reading and have seen the smoke on the horizon. I myself am a poet and rhetor who knows a bit about targeting discourse. I am here to tell you that this is an ideological fight and we lose when we pretend its not; we've already been co-opted. We need to ensure that our position is seen for what it is: a defense of individual liberty, personal responsibility and civic duty. It is past time for America's tremendously vital and important IT industries and those applying the fruits of its industry to abandon business models built on ignorance and fear, to abandon leveraging profits with the weight of apathy and indolence.
Your comment betrays the sort of fetishism of press that makes market of man and is endemic to the American cult of lucre, counter to the progress of the truth of our position. Sometimes you got to whip the dogs that get you there, Bruce.
Twitter's critique is right on and there is no reason not to lead a rational individual to a more correct understanding of just what's at stake here, particularly one engaged in the noble devoirs of the fourth estate. The mealy-mouthed caterwhauling with which you chide twitter is just what brings us to this pass, eh? It *is* the principle of the thing, Bruce, not the position of it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the mentally handicapped never figured out how far a measly $25 goes to keep the juju flowing. Too clever by half.
I do. Or I make my employer du jour do so. I buy two or three a year. I usually buy anything other than Red Hat just to keep the manure spread as evenly as possible. And I've made it a point to buy one copy of Debian annually the last three years. I'm an athiest, this is what I do instead of tithing a church.
Go ahead, fertilize your favorite distro today.
Competition is far superior on IGS. The ratings on IGS were recently adjusted by four stones and are still a stone or two stronger than AGA ratings. IGS is good for your game; the others are for kicking the weak around the board.
I broke both hands in a bicycle accident three years ago. Bi-lateral, almost mirror image fractures, a inch and quarter hollow, titanium drywall screw in each thumb. At the time my wife was five months pregnant and until the harness came off (3rd degree shoulder separation) she was doing everything, I mean everything, for me.
A word of advice: use the hands. I worked straight through, only missing two days for surgery and the day of the accident; typing with just the middle fingers of each hand. It will make your shoulder stronger and shorten your rehab. Your rehab will go much faster if you are using your hand before you get the cast off. Avoid the mouse when possible. You might consider some voice interface software, as well. And stretch!
Whenever was the Web an *innocent place*? 1995: already gilded by time.
What does this have to do with media, guaco? A child knows not to believe everything in the newspapers. This is misinformation from sources with legal and fiduciary responsibility to act forthrightly. This is financial analysts spouting press releases as research, accountants fudging figures, corporate execs talking up the sleeves of their $3,000 suits in their annual reports.
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. --Thomas Jefferson.
I have this pie, would you like a slice?
I have twelve eggs but if you call it a dozen I'll kick your ass.
This is no different than the DoD explaining the need for $2bn bombers or Justice requiring key escrow.
Anyone believes the gub'mint any more trustworthy than any other institution deserves to get it in the Darwin.
Julia Child's *Way to Cook* is a great presentation of foundation recipes with the variations that teach you how to improvise successfully.
After that and a deal of practice, have a look at Escoffier, a nineteenth C Frenchman whose fame has made his book eponymous. The units are archaic, the portions industrial and the stove is coal-fired, but this is the fscking Bible of French cuisine. You will learn more mucking up the recipes in his book than you will anywhere short of apprenticing with Bocuse.
Now, when I cook for other than everyday, I make a menu of seasonal ingredients, pick a cut of critter and work through Julia and Escoffier side-by-side. I haven't followed a recipe in a decade. If someone asks what they're eating I make up a name and then explain what its based on. I made a brown sauce a few years ago that people still talk about.
Don't be afraid to screw up; recipes are guidelines, not algorithms. Except baking. Cooking may be an art, but baking is science.
Lastly, the most important factor for true greatness in the amateur kitchen: make your own stock.
It sucks to lose on a grammar fault, but rules is rules. Still, I am struck that an avowed lisper has no regard for the spectacle of a greybeard typesetter is using S-expressions, in whatever guise, or the finer features of functional programming in the course of making my daily bread.
And whether bungus or bungette, wasn't one of the breakthroughs of lisp an opening of the semantic space for the machine, a clearing of the forest?
What you fear is what hides behind the neologous noun *bungus* as qualified by the adjectival phrase *semantic arbitrarity*, that is, whatever bungus signifies must be constituted by semantic arbitrarity.
mindless Java code slaves
Dude, I'm not even a programmer. I am speaking of XML.
And its really no longer fun if you can't recognize when I'm mocking you.
Yes, I sense your fear, your fear of the bungus.
As to me, I don't believe anything. I *think* its okay to use superior tools, but I find it much more effective to simply describe their superiority, particularly when I raise my voice.
That's right, boys and girls, proofreader's marks. Their annotations, referred to as *markup* by the ink devils setting the type, are the basis for *ML. Typesetting macros, whether SGML, Troff, Tex, et. al., were subsequently known by the same term.
I prefer to see the scope of XML application as a broadening of the concept of publication rather than a narrowing of the idea of data.
XML1.0 and XSLT1.0 have each received two effectively complete, free, open implementations. These two are more than enough to create a bungus of semantic arbitrarity sufficient to blow your neolithic mind. I, rather, have no shit for W3C or their corporate patsies. As to PERL, the world is the less fucked up now its REGEX flavor implemented in J1.4
My point along has been it is neither _new_ nor _better_, merely useful. What do you _really_ want to do today?
I am not about to implement a flippin' LISP machine inside my publication system to support single-sourcing. That's reinvention. Don't get me wrong, I like LISP, love Scheme, but it hasn't been done and isn't going to get done and I've got a job to do.
XSLT, hype to the contrary, does not pretend to be a complete language. It is a simple way to build data-driven, recursive evaluations for the application of alternative markup templates. *MARKUP*. It's a publication system.
If you could see the forest for the parenthesis, you could appreciate seeing good ideas finding new life in new clothes. What the hell does syntax have to do with it, piss-poor or otherwise?
but I was alone.
Markup is inherently platform-independent for the same reason that scripting languages are: requires an interpreter on your platform.
Pop quiz: Where does the term markup originate?
--Socrates
But there is still plenty of work to do getting it into the system. I've got this pagination engine, see. It doesn't have an integrated lisp machine. In its absence I'll have to stumble along with pointy brackets.
The AC is thick, the comment tendentious. XML consciously borrowed the concept. Have a look at XSLT; remind you of anything?
Uh, rave.
In fact, there is a perfectly grammatical means of nouning a verb, its called a gerund: The umpteenth running of the Great Deerwood Woodtick Races.
And, um, flaming.
The Flaming Grammarians are all wet here. Modern grammar recognizes usage as paramount and grammar neither more nor less normative than spelling or the convention of the signifier itself. Which is not to say that some verbification should not be challenged: *deplane* is just plain misguided. Its construction follows no known rule but that of laziness.
The very idea of a *prescriptive* grammar outside the domain of synthetic (as opposed to natural, unfortunate distinction that) language is laughable.
Mr. Perens, the old saw about any press being good press is given the lie here. The b-week article in question is counter-productive in several ways but particularly and most pointedly in its rhetorical whos and hows. I concur that influence is the goal, it is in the whos and hows that we get tripped up. I'm treated all too often to b-weeks tech coverage as my old man is a long-time subscriber and brings me a stack with tech articles tabbed whenever he comes to visit his grandkids. My impression is that b-week and much of the tech press wants to have their cake and eat it too. They talk a good game, not wanting to alienate the OSS community they see as savvy and motivated and a great demographic for expensive IT ad spend. Thus, OSS sees plenty of press these days. It is the tenor of that press and the message being sent that I take issue with.
A close reading of the article presents an ideological conflict. This is good, but the terms of the conflict and the nature of the belligerents is mischaracterized. On one side powerful, moneyed interests defend their perfectly legal copyright interests, the foundation of their business model. On the other, *junkies* and *ideologues* demand access, apparently motivated by nothing more than intellectual hubris or the desire for *cheap software*. This mischaracterization of our position does much more harm than good. Frankly, those we seek to influence will not be swayed by the strength of our development methodologies, certainly not by our perverse desire to *see the code*. The economic argument doesn't carry water either; we are just chiselers who can't be bothered to pay for the techno we rock out to while we're hacking on-line banking sites. They can be swayed by an appeal to the preservation of our essential freedoms in the information age. The threat is apparent to us because we are closer to the technology, it is our civic duty to make the threat known to a wider public.
We are not junkies, zealots, communists or wizards. We're citizens who happen to have done a bit of reading and have seen the smoke on the horizon. I myself am a poet and rhetor who knows a bit about targeting discourse. I am here to tell you that this is an ideological fight and we lose when we pretend its not; we've already been co-opted. We need to ensure that our position is seen for what it is: a defense of individual liberty, personal responsibility and civic duty. It is past time for America's tremendously vital and important IT industries and those applying the fruits of its industry to abandon business models built on ignorance and fear, to abandon leveraging profits with the weight of apathy and indolence.
Your comment betrays the sort of fetishism of press that makes market of man and is endemic to the American cult of lucre, counter to the progress of the truth of our position. Sometimes you got to whip the dogs that get you there, Bruce.
Twitter's critique is right on and there is no reason not to lead a rational individual to a more correct understanding of just what's at stake here, particularly one engaged in the noble devoirs of the fourth estate. The mealy-mouthed caterwhauling with which you chide twitter is just what brings us to this pass, eh? It *is* the principle of the thing, Bruce, not the position of it.
I thought it rather refreshing to lead off with such a bald troll.
fly me in.
compatibility...not bad by slashdot standards.