I'm also in the pencil camp wrt this issue.
If, as you say, you don't press hard when writing, a normal 0.5mm pencil may suit you - if darkness/clarity of lines is an issue, you could try different lead densities - "B" for example is slightly less-dense / draws-darker-lines than "HB" (which is approx. equiv. to the familiar standard "#2"), or you might prefer "2B", "3B", or etc.
Another thought is ultra-fine-felt-tip artist markers. I know there is a full line by Staedtler, down to at least 0.3mm. You should be able to find a good variety at any decent-sized art-supply store. A felt-tip pen avoids all the drawbacks you cite, and, in my experience, draws a line as consistent as the pressure you write it with.
Personally, I use 0.9mm mech.pencils for everything (except legal docs). I'm not aware that there's a difference in drawn thickness - as opposed to the more common 0.5 or 0.7mm units (or, no difference that can't be moderated by attack pressure). As a bonus the 0.9mm leads don't constantly break under your hand.
I'd love to see a percentage (killed projects vs total google projects), attached to these periodic google "spring cleaning" stories. The total would have to be somewhat hypothetical, but... I just use gmail, reader, and 'drive', and the top nav bar is way crowded from my perspective. I'd bet most goog.users would just make vastly different housekeeping decisions.... Never forget: features and choices are a/cost/. (Though, all those terms are relative)
70% disbelieve the country is on the right track
80% are dissatisfied with the pattern of governance
23% have confidence in banks
19% have confidence in big business
< 50% have "a great deal" of confidence in, schools, and religions
Sounds like an excellent recipe of statistics to confuse the shit out of most anyone.
The use of (natural) language in this article is m-f-ing fascinating. All programmers should take note, of this and such efforts to "program" public mind.. i mean, the "minds of the public", i mean, there isn't really a right, agreed-upon terminology wrt this. To wit. You should listen to me. Is that so?
Use of rhetorical technique, winding, folding into, with, among, other rhetorical technique, in the manner of this (TFA) article,/should/ be a red flag, to anyone. How the fuck can that be taught / conveyed to children, to look out for such tripe and claptrap?
Pah. In an era where O'Reilly-ism competes with Limbaugh-gic, which pretend together to compete with.. actual, legit critical reasoning skills..
Heavens, I am glad it is not up to me and I am not to blame for this noize. Read, Live, and Wonder, at your own risk, bizzle.
(paranthetically: really? i have to insert friggen html <br> tags to distinguish lines? %$#*@ on this rig?? wot a (nother) joke...)
I think the critical point is that, upon clicking the link to the article, one is presented with the NYT banner / site framework, which gives the (op-ed) some vague, extra perceived authority. Not really a content problem; almost certainly a presentation problem. Douche-bag who's opinion is represented in the article, is off his nut/rocker. Total nonsense. With the NYT brand, apparently endorsing said (ostensible opinion) content to some extent, normal human idiots like myself and many others, may be liable to misunderstand the *cough* authority of the piece.
IOW: "can't we all just agree to attach 'reader beware' at the head of every statement we make? or hear?"
Or, is this not just the essence of the "halting problem".
[mod parent up]
Thanks for the link.
I would also recommend Douglas Crockford's thorough, concise, "JavaScript: The Good Parts".
(Yes, there/are/ good aspects to JS. As for the rest, Crockford does due justice, including "Appendix A: Awful Parts", and "Appendix B: Bad Parts".)
Indeed, i heard no mention of a bomb in any of the referenced videos.
As far as the "week ago" part, I'd put it down to journalistic error, based on the mention of/planning/ the operation a week ago - in combination with the d.n.a. verification delay. (In fact, if you watch the bbc(?) Assange interview, also posted here sometime today, the newsline footer says it happened a week ago, too.)
But then, my conspiracy-theorist credentials/credibility are rather weak (i even presume the moon landing actually happened!).. Not to say i'm certain of anything, in the natural world, but it helps to take/some/ things on trust, if you want to sleep at night. Let's agree to attack the credibility of the news-media-military-industrial complex, on better grounds, next week.. when the smoke has cleared a bit.
eticket http://eticket.sourceforge.net/ is a newer fork of osticket that's being actively maintained. (osticket doesn't seem to be available currently.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also in the pencil camp wrt this issue.
If, as you say, you don't press hard when writing, a normal 0.5mm pencil may suit you - if darkness/clarity of lines is an issue, you could try different lead densities - "B" for example is slightly less-dense / draws-darker-lines than "HB" (which is approx. equiv. to the familiar standard "#2"), or you might prefer "2B", "3B", or etc.
Another thought is ultra-fine-felt-tip artist markers. I know there is a full line by Staedtler, down to at least 0.3mm. You should be able to find a good variety at any decent-sized art-supply store. A felt-tip pen avoids all the drawbacks you cite, and, in my experience, draws a line as consistent as the pressure you write it with.
Personally, I use 0.9mm mech.pencils for everything (except legal docs). I'm not aware that there's a difference in drawn thickness - as opposed to the more common 0.5 or 0.7mm units (or, no difference that can't be moderated by attack pressure). As a bonus the 0.9mm leads don't constantly break under your hand.
Vonnegut said Trout was based on Theodore Sturgeon, and if you ask me Sturgeon belongs on the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilgore_Trout#Origins_of_the_character
I'd love to see a percentage (killed projects vs total google projects), attached to these periodic google "spring cleaning" stories. The total would have to be somewhat hypothetical, but ... I just use gmail, reader, and 'drive', and the top nav bar is way crowded from my perspective. I'd bet most goog.users would just make vastly different housekeeping decisions. ... Never forget: features and choices are a /cost/. (Though, all those terms are relative)
70% disbelieve the country is on the right track
80% are dissatisfied with the pattern of governance
23% have confidence in banks
19% have confidence in big business
< 50% have "a great deal" of confidence in, schools, and religions
Sounds like an excellent recipe of statistics to confuse the shit out of most anyone.
when they call you to schedule an interview, hang up on them.
.. software custodian -- ie: janitor.
there is no path from "software testing" to software engineering, in that paradigm.
freelance, intern, do anything but "testing". it's a euphemism for
The use of (natural) language in this article is m-f-ing fascinating. All programmers should take note, of this and such efforts to "program" public mind .. i mean, the "minds of the public", i mean, there isn't really a right, agreed-upon terminology wrt this. To wit. You should listen to me. Is that so?
/should/ be a red flag, to anyone. How the fuck can that be taught / conveyed to children, to look out for such tripe and claptrap?
.. actual, legit critical reasoning skills ..
Heavens, I am glad it is not up to me and I am not to blame for this noize. Read, Live, and Wonder, at your own risk, bizzle.
Use of rhetorical technique, winding, folding into, with, among, other rhetorical technique, in the manner of this (TFA) article,
Pah. In an era where O'Reilly-ism competes with Limbaugh-gic, which pretend together to compete with
(paranthetically: really? i have to insert friggen html <br> tags to distinguish lines? %$#*@ on this rig?? wot a (nother) joke...)
I think the critical point is that, upon clicking the link to the article, one is presented with the NYT banner / site framework, which gives the (op-ed) some vague, extra perceived authority. Not really a content problem; almost certainly a presentation problem. Douche-bag who's opinion is represented in the article, is off his nut/rocker. Total nonsense. With the NYT brand, apparently endorsing said (ostensible opinion) content to some extent, normal human idiots like myself and many others, may be liable to misunderstand the *cough* authority of the piece.
Point taken.
IOW: "can't we all just agree to attach 'reader beware' at the head of every statement we make? or hear?"
Or, is this not just the essence of the "halting problem".
"The most merciful quality of the human mind is its inability to correlate its contents" --HPL
who? http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=hpl
Celebrate the ironic memory of /. not having a gruesome banner add at page top.
[mod parent up] Thanks for the link. I would also recommend Douglas Crockford's thorough, concise, "JavaScript: The Good Parts". (Yes, there /are/ good aspects to JS. As for the rest, Crockford does due justice, including "Appendix A: Awful Parts", and "Appendix B: Bad Parts".)
Indeed, i heard no mention of a bomb in any of the referenced videos.
/planning/ the operation a week ago - in combination with the d.n.a. verification delay. (In fact, if you watch the bbc(?) Assange interview, also posted here sometime today, the newsline footer says it happened a week ago, too.)
.. Not to say i'm certain of anything, in the natural world, but it helps to take /some/ things on trust, if you want to sleep at night. Let's agree to attack the credibility of the news-media-military-industrial complex, on better grounds, next week .. when the smoke has cleared a bit.
As far as the "week ago" part, I'd put it down to journalistic error, based on the mention of
But then, my conspiracy-theorist credentials/credibility are rather weak (i even presume the moon landing actually happened!)
eticket http://eticket.sourceforge.net/ is a newer fork of osticket that's being actively maintained. (osticket doesn't seem to be available currently.)