# Show all files in a directory, rather than just the ones that match some magic pattern
Changed the filter in the open dialog to all files...
# Separate file name from file type
I don't understand this one. You can sort by either and hide the type/extension if you want.
# Use an menu accelerator key that's close to the space bar, rather than near the edge of the keyboard
They work in the same way - you press two keys...
OK seriously I don't have a problem here but I am training myself to use two hands rather than one for this to reduce wrist problems. I use the right meta keys for shortcuts on the left and vice versa - it does also make all keys easily accesible.
1. Control keys can be changed in the preferences... (snip)
Agreed, but a more obvious (to a new user) method or changing the default would make it easier for people to switch from Windows. (Which may not be the point but would make Apple happy).
2. Save buttons on toolbars are up to the developers. And in all honesty, I think a lot more people use keyboard commands to save, instead of clicking on a tiny little button in a toolbar that not even every app has. This definitely is not an OS specific thing...they're available if you need it, but nobody's forcing anyone to use it..
From the article "I don't think any of the Apple software ever gives you the option to include a Save button." so he's referring to Apple software, not 3rd party. So not OS specific, just written by Apple. He also makes the point about a print button being present when this is used much less than the save option.
3. My Logitech MX518 works on my Macs....(snip)
Agreed, this isn't an OS issue - maybe Apple should consider making multi-button mice, at least as an option.
4. Why on earth do you need to see only the relevant file types? Sometimes OS X will grey out the ones that aren't relevant or not selectable, but what good is it going to do? Afraid of accidentally naming your file a name that already exists?!
Maybe because I don't want to open movies or mp3 in a spreadsheet. This does work well in windows - you can change to filter to show all files if you want to but normally you see files relevant to the app. This could work the same in OS X if you really do want to open a spreadsheet in iTunes...
5. Useless. In all honesty, Spotlight/Quicksilver/Launchbar sort of get rid of the need for that, like the article mentioned.
Agreed, just because people are used to it doesn't mean it makes sense. As somebody else said that
should be covered by sorting by type. I prefer the approach where the dialog has separate file and folder controls anyway.
I don't care which OS is being lauded or lambasted - all the ones I've come across have had things I thought good and bad. The trick is only to copy the good ones. To do that you have to decide which is which though.
I remapped it to control like any sane vi'er would:)
Awww come on now, this is too easy:
If you were sane you wouldn't use vi!.;-D
Sorry, couldn't resist.
More seriously it's about defaults. You can customize OS X, Windows and Linux to behave mostly like you want - but you may need to know a fair bit to do it.
e.g. I have alt-gr mapped to plain alt under windows so I can reduce the RSI and that was an obscure registry hack. I would just like all operating systems to be easier to customize - and to be a bit saner out of the box.
But now I am married and starting to watch the old ones again.
Would that be Dr Who stories or girls?:-)
I still watched Dr Who - it was on before going out and looking for girls while I was getting ready.
Re:Eccleston made a good doctor.
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 1
I've got a lot of Century 21 in the loft - I'll have to re-read them one day if they're not too brittle now:-(
Another way of looking at it is that the TV series show the Doctors personal time line and that he has changed 'objective' reality several times so that there really aren't any continuity problems - all the apparent contradictions are only showing different states of external reality at different points in the Drs (or the Tardis?) peregrinations.
Re:Eccleston made a good doctor.
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 1
I was assuming there was a 'logical' path from Genesis to Daleks - either that Daleks was towards the end of the Dalek story and they had regressed a bit or that Daleks was set (a long time) after Genesis but before they gain the ability to rampage round the galaxy. I prefer the second hypothesis.
As you say continuity was never a strong point of the series.
I'm not too convinced about the Nazi Allegory (despite the uniform worn by Nyder in Genesis) - to me it's more of a cautionary tale about following a too de-humanising and militarisitc path. Similar but not quite the same. Dr Who did just as much in the way of cautionary tales as Doomwatch without being so heavy-handed about it, think The Seeds of Doom, The Green Death, Inferno etc.
In the first Dalek adventure (the Daleks 21/12/63) the Daleks were powered by 'static' electricity and had to stay on the metal floors of their city.
Re:Eccleston made a good doctor.
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 1
Sad who fan speaking:
The daleks are the result of forced directed evolution of the Thals who are/were humanoid. Thus the Daleks are what we could become if follow an unremittingly militaristic and depersonalising path - and people wonder if Who is pointing up any moral comment on world trends now, never mind 1963!
The same sort of comments could also apply to the cybermen (Pertwees favourite monster) who appear in series 2 (or 28?) iirc.
That was Sarah and Harry - later on there were three companions for a while - Nyssa, Tegan and Adric, in fact for the Hartnell/Troughton years there were always 2 or more companions iirc, starting with Susan, Ian and Barbara...
Not that I'm a Who geek, of course - now can I be bothered to go through all the episodes for the first seven incarnations and calculate the average number of companions - and is that per episode or per story? Er, probably not.
You young whippersnappers have no idea, you can't make a good film without someone paying the pianey in the pit at the front under the nickelodeon screen!
I've checked the online book, can anyone point me at some information on how to interact with the OS from clisp? I want to start/monitor kill processes, check process ids etc. From Windows (2000) and linux.
I like lisp and would like to use it but I can't find any info on how to do os api interaction.
Sounds like you're doing what a lot of us have to do... the boss is an idiot, penny-wise and pound-foolish and you're making do with what you can.
That about sums it up, but it's more like unbearable beaurocracy - as we're a 'services' company we have to go through hoops to get the client to pay for things. We've just got them to pay for £300k of new hardware but I can't get a £250 copy of Visual Studio. Go figure.
Fortunately I got laid off from the bosses that were mired in the 1980's and got hired by someone forward-looking, smart and who respects my opinion.
Congratulations, it's nice to have some respect and a decent job.
It's why I use Excel/Access - because I can't get the OK to use anything else on a server. We're just setting up a new server and I'm having to get Office put on it to run my xls and mdb hosted precessing. It's a bit depressing to me that I need MS Office on a server, but I do.
Have you found anything you can't do in VBA that you can in VB? Any limitation I've found I've got round by using the win32 API and/or creating my own objects to replicate whatever I find I need.
Where I develop on Excel is at work, so yes everybody has excel. I mainly use excel for process automation type stuff on an application server actually - I can use perl and lots of other FOSS on my workstation, but getting approval to use it on a production server is another thing entirely. The reason I use excel is because I can do just about anything I want (using a nice library of API function wrappers I've written) and it doesn't cost anything - they won't buy me a full copy of VB6 so I can get away from the stupidity of using a spreadsheet to 'host' an application...
Excel is a very good tool (unlike Access which has no redeeming qualities)
Not that I'm a big fan of Access but I use that in preference to excel now for one reason - you can pass parameters using the cli. Excel is very weird from this p.o.v - you can sort of pass a parameter from the cli but only if it's exactly 4 chars! At least that's what I found with excel97 and I haven't bothered checking since I found that Access is more useful - well if you don't mind having to parse your command line parameters in a macro (not VBA) and then calling a VBA function to handle the paramters. I didn't say it wasn't ugly, I just said it worked.
I just wish they'd let me use perl or Java/JNI - I'd give common lisp a shot too if I could work out how to access the win32 api..Notice that they're all free - I know I won't get a budget.
Well neither the S3 nor the A10 need high power, it's not part of the requirement for the role. IIRC endurance is a much higher priority than speed for the S3. The A10 isn't meant to be a high speed 'plnae either, in fact that would be counter-productive, it lso uses the honking great turbofans to reduce the infra-red signature and possible as another layer of protection for the pilot. You forgot the C5 and whatever other non turboprop planes MAC is using these days. For all of these the turbofan is the right engine for the job.
I'm sure the military would use a nice efficient turbofan for the F22 if it would produce enough power and fit, which it won't - it's not the right engine for the job.
I haven't been able to access the link to this article. Has it already been/.ed? If so, does anyone have another link so that I can read the article before I comment on it.
I'm not sure I understand, you want to read the article before you comment on it? Oh, now I get it "you must be new around here!":->
You can't make as much money with open source software as you can with closed source software. Making profit is a good thing.
This is true if you are talking about companies that sell software. Companies that 'merely' use software while carrying out their real business to make money will have reduced overheads. In this case it's quite possible to make more money with FOSS than proprietary software, making money is indeed a good thing.
For example I've been writing software for over twenty years and none of it has ever been sold, it's all been in-house to support the business functions of the various companies for which I've worked. FOSS is very useful as it means I don't have to squeeze any more budget to pay for proprietary software which may be 'end of lifed'.
Before my time, but Jon Pertwee was well known for "The Navy Lark". And (not before my time) Peter Davidson was famous for playing Tristran Farnon in "All Creatures Great and Small" - which was one of the biggest TV hits of it's day. But yes, most of the Doctors have been surprise unknowns.
Pertwee was a radio star in the late thirties too and very well known when he took the part (my favourite). If you ever get the chance read Moon Boots and Dinner Suits, it's a good read, I especially liked his Naval career (he was the inspiration for The Navy Lark - he went on parade as an ordinary Rating wearing a monocle, funny story. Not so funny was him being taken off the Hood a few days before she was sunk to go to Officer training. Mind you he ended up in Intelligence and went round with an id card with a photo of Hitler(or a close facsimile). Thoroughly recommened but very hard to get a copy.
Hartnell had a long career before playing the Doctor, lots of Stage and Film work and a TV hit with The Army Game. Similar Story with Troughton.
The point is most of the previous doctors had distinguished careers before taking on the Doctor. The fact that most of them are best remembered for their years in the tardis is more to do with the cult status of Dr Who than their careers.
Now that the Time Lords are gone, I'm curious how that'll play out
That ticked me off and was totally unnecessary. If you don't want to use the backstory then don't. There's no need to trash it for future storylines - unless they're going to bring Gallifray back of course. It's also a bit anachronistic - when are the Time Lords dead - in 50 billion ad? Go back in time to when they're still around. Trek screwed around with crap time travel stories for years, let's have the Doc meddle some more.
Still, it could be worse, you could be older than Dr. Who
the character.:-)
I am.
Your point is?
I think Tennant has the potential to be a good doctor - I wasn't sure until I saw him in Casanova. Now I'm looking forward to seeing his realisation of the role, even if I wanted Richard E. Grant myself - at least he's older than I am! (And he'd be great in the part too).
I hope they stop doing such short story lines - most of the better Who stories were 4-6 parters. Oh and my pet gripe is the credits - Ecclestone should be credited as The Doctor and not Doctor Who, sad geek that I still am.
It was flat out stated in Battlefield iirc - but that was in a parallel universe. It was an idea I liked, I always felt McCoy was under-rated and there were plenty of hints of all sorts of dark secrets for his Doctor. Think Silver Nemesis and you'll see what I mean. Shame about the silliness of some plots (Dragonfire,The Happiness Patrol and The Greatest Show In The Galaxy).
Personally I'd just quietly ignore the McGann incarnation...
Oh, and I'd vote for Richard E. Grant - and then the audio episode doesn't count as a seperate regeneration and he'd make a fantastic Dr. - he could flip between the characters of the other Doctors quite brilliantly. From Withnail to The Scarlet Pimpernel.
On the other hand Sean Pertwee has been mentioned as in the running which would keep it nicely in the family.
There's some pretty flakey ads on uk tv at present with him being some sort of annoying (unwanted?) house guest - and another for the same product where he can't say his lines - at the end he isn't even saying words any more.
Actually if it had an associated cost I wouldn't be allowed to. On the other hand if it saved money I'm sure it would be compulsory.
Actually there's no project manager for this yet, just me. I'm, er, doing a feasibility study at present, of course sometimes the only way to determine if something is possible is to do it...
And in my case it's definitely quicker to punch in one minute ten seconds than one minute eleven.
Why? My microwave has seperate buttons for ten minutes, 1 minutes, ten seconds and one seconds. So one-ten is three kepresses where one-eleven would be four (I have to press Start too). There's a shortcut too, if I only press Start it cooks on full power for one minute - so the quickest way to get something cooked for one minute ten seconds is to press Start twice and open the door when the clock says 50 seconds remaining.
What's my point? The analogy (like most) falls over quickly because not every microwave has the same interface. My mother-in-law has a microwave with a rotary digital control. Nielsen summed this up well in his criticism of the Quicktime player with it's pointless mimicking of a physical device.
Slashdot Mirror
OK seriously I don't have a problem here but I am training myself to use two hands rather than one for this to reduce wrist problems. I use the right meta keys for shortcuts on the left and vice versa - it does also make all keys easily accesible.
I don't care which OS is being lauded or lambasted - all the ones I've come across have had things I thought good and bad. The trick is only to copy the good ones. To do that you have to decide which is which though.
If you were sane you wouldn't use vi!.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
More seriously it's about defaults. You can customize OS X, Windows and Linux to behave mostly like you want - but you may need to know a fair bit to do it.
e.g. I have alt-gr mapped to plain alt under windows so I can reduce the RSI and that was an obscure registry hack. I would just like all operating systems to be easier to customize - and to be a bit saner out of the box.
I still watched Dr Who - it was on before going out and looking for girls while I was getting ready.
Another way of looking at it is that the TV series show the Doctors personal time line and that he has changed 'objective' reality several times so that there really aren't any continuity problems - all the apparent contradictions are only showing different states of external reality at different points in the Drs (or the Tardis?) peregrinations.
As you say continuity was never a strong point of the series.
I'm not too convinced about the Nazi Allegory (despite the uniform worn by Nyder in Genesis) - to me it's more of a cautionary tale about following a too de-humanising and militarisitc path. Similar but not quite the same. Dr Who did just as much in the way of cautionary tales as Doomwatch without being so heavy-handed about it, think The Seeds of Doom, The Green Death, Inferno etc.
In the first Dalek adventure (the Daleks 21/12/63) the Daleks were powered by 'static' electricity and had to stay on the metal floors of their city.
The daleks are the result of forced directed evolution of the Thals who are/were humanoid. Thus the Daleks are what we could become if follow an unremittingly militaristic and depersonalising path - and people wonder if Who is pointing up any moral comment on world trends now, never mind 1963!
The same sort of comments could also apply to the cybermen (Pertwees favourite monster) who appear in series 2 (or 28?) iirc.
Not that I'm a Who geek, of course - now can I be bothered to go through all the episodes for the first seven incarnations and calculate the average number of companions - and is that per episode or per story? Er, probably not.
You young whippersnappers have no idea, you can't make a good film without someone paying the pianey in the pit at the front under the nickelodeon screen!
I like lisp and would like to use it but I can't find any info on how to do os api interaction.
Pointers would be appreciated, thanks.
Have you found anything you can't do in VBA that you can in VB? Any limitation I've found I've got round by using the win32 API and/or creating my own objects to replicate whatever I find I need.
The reason I use excel is because I can do just about anything I want (using a nice library of API function wrappers I've written) and it doesn't cost anything - they won't buy me a full copy of VB6 so I can get away from the stupidity of using a spreadsheet to 'host' an application... Not that I'm a big fan of Access but I use that in preference to excel now for one reason - you can pass parameters using the cli. Excel is very weird from this p.o.v - you can sort of pass a parameter from the cli but only if it's exactly 4 chars! At least that's what I found with excel97 and I haven't bothered checking since I found that Access is more useful - well if you don't mind having to parse your command line parameters in a macro (not VBA) and then calling a VBA function to handle the paramters. I didn't say it wasn't ugly, I just said it worked.
I just wish they'd let me use perl or Java/JNI - I'd give common lisp a shot too if I could work out how to access the win32 api. .Notice that they're all free - I know I won't get a budget.
IIRC endurance is a much higher priority than speed for the S3. The A10 isn't meant to be a high speed 'plnae either, in fact that would be counter-productive, it lso uses the honking great turbofans to reduce the infra-red signature and possible as another layer of protection for the pilot.
You forgot the C5 and whatever other non turboprop planes MAC is using these days. For all of these the turbofan is the right engine for the job.
I'm sure the military would use a nice efficient turbofan for the F22 if it would produce enough power and fit, which it won't - it's not the right engine for the job.
For example I've been writing software for over twenty years and none of it has ever been sold, it's all been in-house to support the business functions of the various companies for which I've worked. FOSS is very useful as it means I don't have to squeeze any more budget to pay for proprietary software which may be 'end of lifed'.
Hartnell had a long career before playing the Doctor, lots of Stage and Film work and a TV hit with The Army Game. Similar Story with Troughton.
The point is most of the previous doctors had distinguished careers before taking on the Doctor. The fact that most of them are best remembered for their years in the tardis is more to do with the cult status of Dr Who than their careers.
Trek screwed around with crap time travel stories for years, let's have the Doc meddle some more.
As opposed to playing the same character saying the same lines every night in the theatre you mean?
Your point is?
I think Tennant has the potential to be a good doctor - I wasn't sure until I saw him in Casanova. Now I'm looking forward to seeing his realisation of the role, even if I wanted Richard E. Grant myself - at least he's older than I am! (And he'd be great in the part too).
I hope they stop doing such short story lines - most of the better Who stories were 4-6 parters. Oh and my pet gripe is the credits - Ecclestone should be credited as The Doctor and not Doctor Who, sad geek that I still am.
Personally I'd just quietly ignore the McGann incarnation...
Oh, and I'd vote for Richard E. Grant - and then the audio episode doesn't count as a seperate regeneration and he'd make a fantastic Dr. - he could flip between the characters of the other Doctors quite brilliantly. From Withnail to The Scarlet Pimpernel.
On the other hand Sean Pertwee has been mentioned as in the running which would keep it nicely in the family.
There's some pretty flakey ads on uk tv at present with him being some sort of annoying (unwanted?) house guest - and another for the same product where he can't say his lines - at the end he isn't even saying words any more.
Actually there's no project manager for this yet, just me. I'm, er, doing a feasibility study at present, of course sometimes the only way to determine if something is possible is to do it...
Why? My microwave has seperate buttons for ten minutes, 1 minutes, ten seconds and one seconds. So one-ten is three kepresses where one-eleven would be four (I have to press Start too).
There's a shortcut too, if I only press Start it cooks on full power for one minute - so the quickest way to get something cooked for one minute ten seconds is to press Start twice and open the door when the clock says 50 seconds remaining.
What's my point? The analogy (like most) falls over quickly because not every microwave has the same interface. My mother-in-law has a microwave with a rotary digital control. Nielsen summed this up well in his criticism of the Quicktime player with it's pointless mimicking of a physical device.