Yes, you're right. After reading PEP 3101, I have to agree that the new style is better.
Your short example tripped me up, but
>>> "User ID: {uid} Last seen: {last_login}".format(... uid="root",... last_login = "5 Mar 2008 07:20")
is very readable. Even though I think that "format" is a poor choice for the method name because you're doing more than string formatting, don't you?
I bet the though process went something like this:
Guide: Hmm, should I use spaces or tabs for indentation? College 1: Spaces, of course. Spaces look the same everywhere! College 2: I disagree. One space is too small to visually indent code. Tabs FTW! Guide: Why, I'll just do both.
WTF?! This notation makes the format string appear more important than the actual value. One could argue that the same happens in the old-style Python notation ("%7.3g" appears before the "10"), but that's just an artifact of the example and the old-style Python code is much more powerful.
The 1970s called, they want their SGML entities back.
I was going to rant about the arrogance of programmers that require users to write complicated markup for anything other than ASCII and the stupidity of people who recommend those crutches.
But then I remembered that it's 2009 and Slashdot still doesn't support Unicode.
So what are you saying, Queen should make their music free because in the past people paid for their music?
That's copyright in a nutshell. For a limited amount of time the creator gets a monopoly on the distribution rights which he can monetize. After a while the default case kicks in where everybody can make copies.
I think your definition is simply wrong. Private interests still rely on the state to enforce contracts. Otherwise I could just tell my employer to stick his NDA/NCA that I signed where the sun don't shine. Short of shaming me or hiring thugs to "convince" me, there isn't really a lot he could do. Instead he can hire a lawyer and make the courts force me to honor the agreement I signed or face the consequences.
You seem to think that capitalism and government are antagonistic towards each other when they concern different domains. Government is about who sets the rules and what those rules are. Capitalism is about economic activity, mostly setting prices. Every company that enters the market has to comply with the rules of the game. But, as the name implies, it's also about how to raise capital, which has a corrupting influence on government.
That's why most companies are against government interference only when it suits them, but not when it gives them an advantage over its competitors.
There is a standard that is platform independent: AppCasting. It's brilliant in its conception, basically a RSS feed with the program as an enclosure.
There's a very nice implementation for the Mac called Sparkle that has a clean and simple GUI, gets the job done without fuss and is free software (MIT license so it can be incorporated in proprietary software).
There is nothing inherently moral in following the law. If you think a law is wrong and think you're justified in breaking it, then by all means do it. You gotta be prepared to live with the consequences, of course.
Laws are nothing more then group norms with the power of the state behind them. While group norms serve a very important purpose in society (mostly heuristics for individual behavior and for group cohesion which is important for survival), they are not set in stone.
So if you think that the rules regarding pot or piracy are wrong and can make a moral case for why they're wrong, then you are morally justified in breaking them. Otherwise the rules will never change.
Geeks vastly overestimate their influence if they think that a party will lose an election because of bittorrent filtering. The majority has still no idea what filesharing is and those who know are more likely to be young and therefore not of voting age.
Even if you can vote, know bittorrent and are opposed to its filtering, you still might vote for the labor party. Identity politics is a bitch.
Are you implying that the botnets operators are in bed with their adversaries? If so, why not spell it out? And who are these fighters exactly? Anti-virus firms, sysadmins, politicians?
What you write sounds a bit like the broken window fallacy. Specifically, if there were no botnets those who are fighting them could use their time to pursue other goals most likely creating value elsewhere. Meanwhile, there would be no damage done by botnets, resulting in a net plus.
Well, the behavior might be the same, but the motivations behind the behavior are different nonetheless. And since we're talking about belief systems that seems to me to be a relevant distinction.
I could have sworn that it was an answer to Luke_22 post.
Anyway, I wouldn't be so hard on agnostics, because if they honestly have a "Don't know, don't care" attitude, more power to them.
But then there are those who constantly have to elevate themselves above both religious and non-religious people as if they are somehow especially enlightened because of their beliefs. My theory is that they are all closet atheists anyway and some form of Pascal's wager is holding them back. They know its logical flaws but on some level still fear that they made the wrong choice.
That wasn't the OP's working definition at all. He implied that atheists are part of a church and are complicit in atheism's crimes -- whatever they are. That's a funny way of saying that he doesn't want an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Your short example tripped me up, but >>> "User ID: {uid} Last seen: {last_login}".format( ... uid="root", ... last_login = "5 Mar 2008 07:20")
is very readable. Even though I think that "format" is a poor choice for the method name because you're doing more than string formatting, don't you?
If you use Notepad, that is.
I bet the though process went something like this:
Guide: Hmm, should I use spaces or tabs for indentation?
College 1: Spaces, of course. Spaces look the same everywhere!
College 2: I disagree. One space is too small to visually indent code. Tabs FTW!
Guide: Why, I'll just do both.
A good editor should re-indent the pasted code automatically. In VIM you can use :set ai, si.
WTF?! This notation makes the format string appear more important than the actual value. One could argue that the same happens in the old-style Python notation ("%7.3g" appears before the "10"), but that's just an artifact of the example and the old-style Python code is much more powerful.
The 1970s called, they want their SGML entities back.
I was going to rant about the arrogance of programmers that require users to write complicated markup for anything other than ASCII and the stupidity of people who recommend those crutches.
But then I remembered that it's 2009 and Slashdot still doesn't support Unicode.
Bad idea. Qt apps just don't feel right on the Mac. Case in point: Google Earth.
So what are you saying, Queen should make their music free because in the past people paid for their music?
That's copyright in a nutshell. For a limited amount of time the creator gets a monopoly on the distribution rights which he can monetize. After a while the default case kicks in where everybody can make copies.
Things may fall out of fashion for a time, but they always come back as "retro".
In which case nobody would want to pirate their songs and we would have no need to discuss the public's right to their music.
But Queen did in fact choose to publish their songs and reaped huge benefits because of that.
What the public did was provide Queen with an audience, without which Queen would not have existed.
UK culture secretary Andy Burnham calls...
A nobody in government wanted to see his name printed in the paper, so he makes an outrageous demand. News at 11.
I think your definition is simply wrong. Private interests still rely on the state to enforce contracts. Otherwise I could just tell my employer to stick his NDA/NCA that I signed where the sun don't shine. Short of shaming me or hiring thugs to "convince" me, there isn't really a lot he could do. Instead he can hire a lawyer and make the courts force me to honor the agreement I signed or face the consequences.
You seem to think that capitalism and government are antagonistic towards each other when they concern different domains. Government is about who sets the rules and what those rules are. Capitalism is about economic activity, mostly setting prices. Every company that enters the market has to comply with the rules of the game. But, as the name implies, it's also about how to raise capital, which has a corrupting influence on government.
That's why most companies are against government interference only when it suits them, but not when it gives them an advantage over its competitors.
There is a standard that is platform independent: AppCasting. It's brilliant in its conception, basically a RSS feed with the program as an enclosure.
There's a very nice implementation for the Mac called Sparkle that has a clean and simple GUI, gets the job done without fuss and is free software (MIT license so it can be incorporated in proprietary software).
But of course Google has to invent their own Google Update Engine. Talk about NIH syndrome. What's worse, it constantly runs as root and they install it as part of their Google earth browser plugin without telling the user about and with no option to skip installation violating their own software principles in the process.
There is nothing inherently moral in following the law. If you think a law is wrong and think you're justified in breaking it, then by all means do it. You gotta be prepared to live with the consequences, of course.
Laws are nothing more then group norms with the power of the state behind them. While group norms serve a very important purpose in society (mostly heuristics for individual behavior and for group cohesion which is important for survival), they are not set in stone.
So if you think that the rules regarding pot or piracy are wrong and can make a moral case for why they're wrong, then you are morally justified in breaking them. Otherwise the rules will never change.
Geeks vastly overestimate their influence if they think that a party will lose an election because of bittorrent filtering. The majority has still no idea what filesharing is and those who know are more likely to be young and therefore not of voting age.
Even if you can vote, know bittorrent and are opposed to its filtering, you still might vote for the labor party. Identity politics is a bitch.
Right. If you say so, it must be true!
Insightful, WTF?
I know a few people who've bought DRM'd music from iTunes who are aware of DRM and the limitations. Although it's usually only a tune at a time.
In fact, I'm considering to buy an album from iTunes Plus right now, but I have to check first if my cell phone plays AAC.
I take it you don't have kids, do you?
Call me cold-hearted, but there is a reason that those babies are not surviving.
Yes. They don't have access to proper medical care. Cold-hearted asshole.
Are you implying that the botnets operators are in bed with their adversaries? If so, why not spell it out? And who are these fighters exactly? Anti-virus firms, sysadmins, politicians?
What you write sounds a bit like the broken window fallacy. Specifically, if there were no botnets those who are fighting them could use their time to pursue other goals most likely creating value elsewhere. Meanwhile, there would be no damage done by botnets, resulting in a net plus.
sudo nmap -O host
will usually do the trick.
Well, the behavior might be the same, but the motivations behind the behavior are different nonetheless. And since we're talking about belief systems that seems to me to be a relevant distinction.
Did you mean this post? http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1069475&cid=26190291
I could have sworn that it was an answer to Luke_22 post.
Anyway, I wouldn't be so hard on agnostics, because if they honestly have a "Don't know, don't care" attitude, more power to them.
But then there are those who constantly have to elevate themselves above both religious and non-religious people as if they are somehow especially enlightened because of their beliefs. My theory is that they are all closet atheists anyway and some form of Pascal's wager is holding them back. They know its logical flaws but on some level still fear that they made the wrong choice.
That wasn't the OP's working definition at all. He implied that atheists are part of a church and are complicit in atheism's crimes -- whatever they are. That's a funny way of saying that he doesn't want an argument.
What kind of logic is that? You assert the Uncertainty Principle and conclude that science may or may not be right.
Then it follows that the Uncertainty Principle itself may or may not be right!
*POOF*, there goes your argument.