Hmm, My immediate thought actually is that there's a fucking huge overlap. Print your own cornicing for your house
In 30cm pieces? Taking 12 hours for enough to do a single room?
... Print your own bath plugs...
Yes, you can save $0.5 USD just by waiting an hour.
Print your own custom pipes for the awkward places that are unique to your house...
No such thing - a variety of elbows, t-pieces and such are available to fit any sort of plumbing the average house has, which leaves us to the only legitimate use...
Print your own parts to customise fixtures and fittings.
And this is the option that requires the owner to be proficient enough to design his own stuff in the first place, which may take (from my experience) anything from 2 hours to twenty hours. If he is downloading a design off of the net, then it's not unique, is it?
The list is basically endless in the DIY landscape.
I do lots of DIY. Really lots. I've refloored my house with three different types of flooring (wood, carpets and tiles), rebuilt walls, built a pond, welded up 30m of palisade fencing. I've built tiny once-off tools for specialised purposes (especially when repairing newer models of cars). I've reroofed my garage, installed ceilings, rewired entire buildings. I've done the plumbing and cabling for much of my house. I've built cupboards, and constructed various sheet metal projects. I'm okay with electronics as well, having had a career in the embedded world.
And with all that experience of rolling my own, I can tell you one thing for certain - there is no decent ROI in any of the current consumer 3d printers (I've got unlimited access to one at work). You cannot print anything other than cosmetic items due to the lack of strength or rigidity. The pipes you think you will print? Maybe it will work as a straight length - a single bend is going to cause unpredictable rigidity. It will also still have to be milled/finished to fit into the other fittings. Or perhaps you want to print out enclosures for your rasberry pi/arduino projects? Rather than get an ugly plastic case with lines all over it, you can construct one from aluminium sheets in about ten minutes with a jigsaw and a $20 home-made brake.
The only worry home depot might have is that there might be too much overlap, and their sales of other things might drop!
I doubt it - you can't even print a spanner that will work more than once. Or anything that is supposed to look good.
And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item
at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.
You're arguing hypotheticals against reality.
What are you talking about? What's not a reality?
It's simply not a problem here. If it were it could be solved simply by requiring sufficient proof of identity to post the classified in the first place. A marketplace which gets a reputation for allowing sellers to get away with fraud is not going to last long.
Once again it comes down to trust - you trust that the marketplace has identified the scammer. What if you're the first person to respond to the ad? Regardless, you're still asking two parties who are unknown to each other to trust each other with no real evidence that the trust is warranted. My point still stands in this reality - transactions need to be completed when there is a lack of trust. Cash works for this. Waiting doesn't (hence the reason bitcoin is still less traded than actual toy money).
No.. We do these transactions with people I don't know all the time. And its fine. Last time i got a cell phone for my daughter, I am in Switzerland she is NZ the seller was some guy in a different city in NZ. We didn't need to see each other and use cash. We had no reason to trust each other.
You realise you're pointing out examples of doing transactions there are all trust based - even if you had no reason to trust that the seller would not disappear with the money, you still trusted that he would send the goods. If you trust that the seller would send the goods or that the payment would clear, then that is outside the scope of this discussion, which is "how to do EFT transactions with people you don't trust". The answer is not "trust them first, then do the transaction".
And if you don't trust someone, meeting them in person makes them no more trustworthy. How many mile on the clock on that car? Was it really looked after etc. Sooner or later you just have to trust. And mostly that works out. Cash does not fix or change that.
I don't trust what the seller says about a car's mileage, I check it out myself (last car I purchased went for and passed a full AA test before I parted with my money). The majority of the worlds population does untrusted transactions in person every day due to the ability of instant payment with cash and instant completion of sale. You're asking all these people that they should just trust other parties more?
Trade me in NZ has been doing with direct transfers since forever. And the only scams i hear about with Ebay are via Paypal.
So? This is a total non sequitor to what I said above: when you need to do a transaction where both parties have no reason to trust each other the only option is payment and possession at time of sale.
In this country direct bank transactions are used for a lot of this. It's not quite as easy as taking cash when you hand over the item but it's not much harder: give them your bank account number when they agree to the sale and then check that the money is there before handing over the item. If you're going to bank the money anyway it's actually easier. Obviously it's not practical for yard sales but it works pretty well for classifieds and online sales.
And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.
Put differently - the human assumes that the other human will understand him or ask for clarification. Sometimes they are wrong in this assumption but no harm is done. With a computer: if the human takes the chance that the computer understands him OR will ask for clarification and the computer assumes a different meaning then there will be hell to pay.
Why? Why does the human get to slide but the computer doesn't?
Because the human is nondeterministic and the computer isn't. A computer, given a certain input, will always respond with a certain output. Humans, dogs, cats and most other animals don't do this. I'm finding it hard to understand why you have trouble with determinism vs non-determinism.
For the input "fruit flies like a banana", the computer must always EITHER ask for clarification OR assume what the sentence means. It cannot do ask for clarification some of the time and not others as a human will do.
The computer can be built to do the same as the human in any of these cases.
No, it can't. In order to ask for clarity it first has to recognise that there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of ambiguity. This would result in it always asking for clarity. A human is allowed to make mistakes in comprehension because the producer of the sentence might recognise that there was incorrect understanding. Then again, they might not. The computer doesn't have the luxury of taking the chance that there is no ambiguity.
Put differently - the human assumes that the other human will understand him or ask for clarification. Sometimes they are wrong in this assumption but no harm is done. With a computer: if the human takes the chance that the computer understands him OR will ask for clarification and the computer assumes a different meaning then there will be hell to pay. In essence, what you are saying is "given the sentence 'I once saw a deer riding my bicycle' I want the machine to sometimes ask for clarification and sometimes not, but the machine won't be told in advance which time to ask for clarification and which time to assume non-ambiguity." This is clearly impossible.
TLDR: You're asking a deterministic machine to perform non-deterministic actions; mathematically this is impossible, hence it will never be a reality.
I'll repeat myself: Since I am able to figure it out, it stands to reason that sufficiently intelligent algorithm can do the same.
I'll repeat myself too: You haven't figured it out, you're only convinced that you have. How can you know that I'm not saying "All fruit have the same trajectory as a banana?".
Your problem is probably lack of interaction with the real world. Go to court some day and watch proceedings of a trial - there is no such thing that a sentence is "obvious". In even the most trivial of defences the defence attorney is going to argue, sometimes successfully, that a much structured and mostly unambiguous piece of legislation is too vague to apply to his client.
Humans can distinguish such ambiguous language constructs. For example: "I once saw a deer riding my bicycle." Although there are at least two ways to interpret the sentence, only one makes sense in nearly all contexts. Now since I am able to figure it out,
No, you haven't.
it stands to reason that sufficiently intelligent algorithm can do the same.
Well, you thought that I meant "I was out on my bicycle when I saw a deer", but what I actually meant was "I was in my yard when a deer rode past on my bicycle". How the hell can you be sure that I meant the former and not the latter?
Worst case scenario, if the language interpreter cannot figure it out, it does what humans do in the same situation: it asks for clarification.
Nope, wrong again - worst case scenario is that the language interpreter does not figure it out, and doesn't realise that it hasn't figured it out!. Best case scenario in case of errors is the interpreter managing to figure out that it got the incorrect meaning.
Emacs' shell wrapper is just that: shell wrapper. Typing anywhere but at command prompt makes no sense. Command goes at the bottom. Output after it. Command at the bottom. Output. Rinse and repeat. You can't have (a) commands/outputs out of order, (b) non-shell commands or (c) re-execute in-place part of output as command.
Well, perhaps my emacs is broken then, because it lets me type anywhere and accepts the line as a command upon pressing enter. I can also scroll up and position the cursor on any line in the emacs window and press enter and it will accept that line as a command to execute, even if that line was not a command previously but the output of a command.
Probably you simply never met with such problems so it is hard for you to even realize where from I'm (and apparently authors of xiki are) coming.
I'm afraid you are correct - I simply cannot see anything in that video which I cannot also do using a shell from emacs, and I'm way too lazy to make and post a video of myself doing emacs-as-a-shell. There's a slime video on youtube somewhere that shows the user using emacs exactly as the FA video shows, but with more functionality (and with software from over a decade ago).
Ruby is a wonderful language for [...] mobile devices, like phones, tablets, smart watches, smart glasses, and all the "Internet of things" that the buzzspeakers are so excited about.
It's hard to take a 'reviewer' seriously when they make goofs of such epic proportions, such as these. This blogger is obviously unaware that the IoT devices (along with a lot of the 'smart' devices) aren't going to be able to run ruby crap.
I dunno about the rest, but for filesystem browsing you can use vim:e on a directory which vim will then let you navigate
Well, you really have to try it first to understand the difference.
Browsing a directory in VIM - ':E' - shows you the content of directory in a buffer. What xiki demo shows is more of ^X^F (because you edit the path right in the editor window, with the rest of your text) but allowing you to actually dynamically run ^X^F on different parts of the dir/file name, changing content of the window accordingly. IOW, while ':E' is a dedicated browser, xiki does something like ^X^F to allow to edit/browse/etc inline, right in the middle of the text file, at any time when you need it.
And that's where the "innovation" comes. The tools to do all the things exist. But they all have different (and typically graphical) user interfaces. Xiki/etc try to combine the tools by putting them into an text editor, and making their output interactive and/or ready to be fed to the another tool. Because despite all the chrome, the basic nature of the content of the editor's window doesn't change: it is plain text. Commands are just text lines. Output are just text lines. It all becomes alive when special macro is run, which looks at the current line and tries to decide what to do with it.
Another way to look at it, and the way I often use my VIM hack, is that the same text file serves dual purpose: it is at the same time the script and the output of the script. The script and its output are interleaved. (That for example allows a very nice minor perk: rerun any command, flip between undo/redo and see the differences between then and now.)
I've used emacs for that (editing 'uneditable' things in the buffer and then re-executing). See my post above - handy link here
Xiki, being a cross of Ruby and a text editor, apparently does more: it recognizes and presents as interactive not only the shell commands, but also the file system hierarchy, the Ruby code, the SQL statements, the CSS, the HTML, and probably more.
I dunno about the rest, but for filesystem browsing you can use vim:e on a directory which vim will then let you navigate
Thank you. I've watched the screencast but I really do fail to see any utility in Xiki, only novelty. Can you describe something that Xiki can do that cannot be done with `:r!`? I would really love to add Xiki to my toolbox if it is useful, but I fail to see that.
If you want something better than:r! in vim, use emacs as a shell. I used emacs as a shell for years - you can cut-n-paste (multiple buffers), use the mouse to mark regions, save the entire session as a file, load a previously used session, search back, search forward, edit previous commands before running them, edit the output of previous commands (and then run them), execute the odd elisp expression (need a calculator quickly? It's built in), surf the web, read/send email, read usenet (or read slashdot), play rogue, elisa, snake or tetris, annotate previous commands, run multiple shells.
You still get all the normal stuff too - autocomplete, file and directory browsing, standard piping to forked processes, set/reset/unset variables, syntax highlighting of your shell, normal edit-compile-debug cycle, etc
(I've heard rumours that there's a text editor included with it too;-)
Re:"Undead" doesn't mean vibrant, though.
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 1
Sure... the only use for pass is to allow an empty block. But outside of canned examples and temporary debug hacking, empty blocks are not exactly used very often. Hence in the vast majority of cases, python has no "end-brace". Claiming that the pass keyword is a closing brace is disingenuous as it implies that it is always required. It *is* a no-op. You can use the pass keyword absolutely anywhere you want, and it will do nothing. It's only "useful" however in the largely useless case of empty blocks.
That's even worse. 'Exceptions to the rule' are the worst type of program structure rules there are. At least in other languages there is a rule that always applies - a block is delimited by braces. In python you now have to say 'a block is delimited by indentation, except for when the block is empty, or when the interpreter is unable to figure out indentation. When is the interpreter unable to figure out indentation? The interpreter can always figure out indentations, except for when the code is filtered through some third party like web2py".
Frankly, I like the programming language rules to be simple, not filled with exceptions to a general rule. Python has many flaws (what the hell is 'print'? A statement? It acts like a function call but doesn't look like one, except if you're using python 3, or if you import 'print_function') but it's biggest has got to be the people who defend all the exceptions to the general rules. In this regard its closest relation is PHP, which also has general-rules-plus-exceptions-to-them up the wazoo.
Regardless, my original point still stands - python has a non-optional start-brace anyway. They should have just stuck with an actual brace for delimiting 'start of program block' instead of being hipsterish different and using a colon. Of course that wouldn't fix everything but it would be a start.
Re:"Undead" doesn't mean vibrant, though.
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 2
pass is the equivalent of a nop, it has nothing to do with scoping. Have you ever read or written any python?
According to every single example given on the python documentation page, pass is used to end a block. It get's even more hilarious when you try embedding python into (for example) html pages like web2py does (I've been using web2py hence my discovery that python actually has to have an end brace of sorts).
'Pass' is not a 'noop', according to the documentation; it's simply an empty statement serving only a syntactical function. In other words, had python had an end-brace the way it has a start-brace, 'pass' would not be needed. The only use for 'pass' in python is to serve as an end-brace.
Re:"Undead" doesn't mean vibrant, though.
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 0
My senior colleague also does not get it. The thing is, with C-syntax you need braces + indentation. So python halves your work out of the box. In C when indentation and braces are mismatched you read the code one way, but the computer interprets it differently. In Python: fixed.
That's incorrect. Python already has open brace in the form of the ':'. The close brace is the keyword 'pass'. In addition to needing at least one brace, it also needs indentation. C-syntax only needs the braces, not the indentation so, technically, the python syntax is double the work, not half.
In python you need to put in the open brace ':' anyway, so why not just use '{' like every other language out there?
It has some similarities with the Drugs industry as well.
1. Both industries refer to their customers as "users"
2. If you don't know how to perform a certain task, instructions can be found online
4. Use of cheap components to make a complex product
5. Users always demand more
Not to mention that the first one is free, and before you know it you're hooked on your vendor for life.
Can you read? Maybe look into the press for the last few days?
I'm in Africa, you buffoon. This means that not only am I more familiar than most foreigners with African news, I'm also better informed. Boko Haram is doing what they are doing even thoughno one has ever attacked them, dropped bombs on them or slighted them in the least.
My original question still stands: if you (or anyone) claims that US/Colonialist/Whoever 'creates' terrorists because of their meddling, then please explain the majority of terror organisations who exist even though no aggression or meddling ever occurred.
When you apply a cheat like this, you are altering the game into game+cheat. This game+cheat is a derivative work of the original game.
Making derivative works without permission from the copyright holder is a violation of most copyright laws, and you won't get permission from Blizzard to make this kind of derivative work.
That seems to be the legal argument.
While it is indeed a derivative work it doesn't become a copyright violation until you redistribute the derivative work. Big distinction there. You can modify copyrighted works all you want, you just aren't allowed to redistribute without a license. I'd be interested in seeing how this turns out considering that the lawyers for the defence is almost certainly going to ask "Where's the redistribution happening?"
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, My immediate thought actually is that there's a fucking huge overlap. Print your own cornicing for your house
In 30cm pieces? Taking 12 hours for enough to do a single room?
... Print your own bath plugs...
Yes, you can save $0.5 USD just by waiting an hour.
Print your own custom pipes for the awkward places that are unique to your house...
No such thing - a variety of elbows, t-pieces and such are available to fit any sort of plumbing the average house has, which leaves us to the only legitimate use ...
Print your own parts to customise fixtures and fittings.
And this is the option that requires the owner to be proficient enough to design his own stuff in the first place, which may take (from my experience) anything from 2 hours to twenty hours. If he is downloading a design off of the net, then it's not unique, is it?
The list is basically endless in the DIY landscape.
I do lots of DIY. Really lots. I've refloored my house with three different types of flooring (wood, carpets and tiles), rebuilt walls, built a pond, welded up 30m of palisade fencing. I've built tiny once-off tools for specialised purposes (especially when repairing newer models of cars). I've reroofed my garage, installed ceilings, rewired entire buildings. I've done the plumbing and cabling for much of my house. I've built cupboards, and constructed various sheet metal projects. I'm okay with electronics as well, having had a career in the embedded world.
And with all that experience of rolling my own, I can tell you one thing for certain - there is no decent ROI in any of the current consumer 3d printers (I've got unlimited access to one at work). You cannot print anything other than cosmetic items due to the lack of strength or rigidity. The pipes you think you will print? Maybe it will work as a straight length - a single bend is going to cause unpredictable rigidity. It will also still have to be milled/finished to fit into the other fittings. Or perhaps you want to print out enclosures for your rasberry pi/arduino projects? Rather than get an ugly plastic case with lines all over it, you can construct one from aluminium sheets in about ten minutes with a jigsaw and a $20 home-made brake.
The only worry home depot might have is that there might be too much overlap, and their sales of other things might drop!
I doubt it - you can't even print a spanner that will work more than once. Or anything that is supposed to look good.
And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.
You're arguing hypotheticals against reality.
What are you talking about? What's not a reality?
It's simply not a problem here. If it were it could be solved simply by requiring sufficient proof of identity to post the classified in the first place. A marketplace which gets a reputation for allowing sellers to get away with fraud is not going to last long.
Once again it comes down to trust - you trust that the marketplace has identified the scammer. What if you're the first person to respond to the ad? Regardless, you're still asking two parties who are unknown to each other to trust each other with no real evidence that the trust is warranted. My point still stands in this reality - transactions need to be completed when there is a lack of trust. Cash works for this. Waiting doesn't (hence the reason bitcoin is still less traded than actual toy money).
No.. We do these transactions with people I don't know all the time. And its fine. Last time i got a cell phone for my daughter, I am in Switzerland she is NZ the seller was some guy in a different city in NZ. We didn't need to see each other and use cash. We had no reason to trust each other.
You realise you're pointing out examples of doing transactions there are all trust based - even if you had no reason to trust that the seller would not disappear with the money, you still trusted that he would send the goods. If you trust that the seller would send the goods or that the payment would clear, then that is outside the scope of this discussion, which is "how to do EFT transactions with people you don't trust". The answer is not "trust them first, then do the transaction".
And if you don't trust someone, meeting them in person makes them no more trustworthy. How many mile on the clock on that car? Was it really looked after etc. Sooner or later you just have to trust. And mostly that works out. Cash does not fix or change that.
I don't trust what the seller says about a car's mileage, I check it out myself (last car I purchased went for and passed a full AA test before I parted with my money). The majority of the worlds population does untrusted transactions in person every day due to the ability of instant payment with cash and instant completion of sale. You're asking all these people that they should just trust other parties more?
Trade me in NZ has been doing with direct transfers since forever. And the only scams i hear about with Ebay are via Paypal.
So? This is a total non sequitor to what I said above: when you need to do a transaction where both parties have no reason to trust each other the only option is payment and possession at time of sale.
In this country direct bank transactions are used for a lot of this. It's not quite as easy as taking cash when you hand over the item but it's not much harder: give them your bank account number when they agree to the sale and then check that the money is there before handing over the item. If you're going to bank the money anyway it's actually easier. Obviously it's not practical for yard sales but it works pretty well for classifieds and online sales.
And then you have scams arising where you pay your money and the "seller" vanishes. The only safe way to deal with a potential scam when trading through the classifieds is to hand over payment and take possession of the item at the same time. Not possible if one party has to wait to verify payment.
Put differently - the human assumes that the other human will understand him or ask for clarification. Sometimes they are wrong in this assumption but no harm is done. With a computer: if the human takes the chance that the computer understands him OR will ask for clarification and the computer assumes a different meaning then there will be hell to pay.
Why? Why does the human get to slide but the computer doesn't?
Because the human is nondeterministic and the computer isn't. A computer, given a certain input, will always respond with a certain output. Humans, dogs, cats and most other animals don't do this. I'm finding it hard to understand why you have trouble with determinism vs non-determinism.
For the input "fruit flies like a banana", the computer must always EITHER ask for clarification OR assume what the sentence means. It cannot do ask for clarification some of the time and not others as a human will do.
The human would ask for clarity.
The computer can be built to do the same as the human in any of these cases.
No, it can't. In order to ask for clarity it first has to recognise that there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of ambiguity. This would result in it always asking for clarity. A human is allowed to make mistakes in comprehension because the producer of the sentence might recognise that there was incorrect understanding. Then again, they might not. The computer doesn't have the luxury of taking the chance that there is no ambiguity.
Put differently - the human assumes that the other human will understand him or ask for clarification. Sometimes they are wrong in this assumption but no harm is done. With a computer: if the human takes the chance that the computer understands him OR will ask for clarification and the computer assumes a different meaning then there will be hell to pay. In essence, what you are saying is "given the sentence 'I once saw a deer riding my bicycle' I want the machine to sometimes ask for clarification and sometimes not, but the machine won't be told in advance which time to ask for clarification and which time to assume non-ambiguity." This is clearly impossible.
TLDR: You're asking a deterministic machine to perform non-deterministic actions; mathematically this is impossible, hence it will never be a reality.
I'll repeat myself: Since I am able to figure it out, it stands to reason that sufficiently intelligent algorithm can do the same.
I'll repeat myself too: You haven't figured it out, you're only convinced that you have. How can you know that I'm not saying "All fruit have the same trajectory as a banana?".
Your problem is probably lack of interaction with the real world. Go to court some day and watch proceedings of a trial - there is no such thing that a sentence is "obvious". In even the most trivial of defences the defence attorney is going to argue, sometimes successfully, that a much structured and mostly unambiguous piece of legislation is too vague to apply to his client.
Humans can distinguish such ambiguous language constructs. For example: "I once saw a deer riding my bicycle." Although there are at least two ways to interpret the sentence, only one makes sense in nearly all contexts. Now since I am able to figure it out,
No, you haven't.
it stands to reason that sufficiently intelligent algorithm can do the same.
Well, you thought that I meant "I was out on my bicycle when I saw a deer", but what I actually meant was "I was in my yard when a deer rode past on my bicycle". How the hell can you be sure that I meant the former and not the latter?
Worst case scenario, if the language interpreter cannot figure it out, it does what humans do in the same situation: it asks for clarification.
Nope, wrong again - worst case scenario is that the language interpreter does not figure it out, and doesn't realise that it hasn't figured it out!. Best case scenario in case of errors is the interpreter managing to figure out that it got the incorrect meaning.
Emacs' shell wrapper is just that: shell wrapper. Typing anywhere but at command prompt makes no sense. Command goes at the bottom. Output after it. Command at the bottom. Output. Rinse and repeat. You can't have (a) commands/outputs out of order, (b) non-shell commands or (c) re-execute in-place part of output as command.
Well, perhaps my emacs is broken then, because it lets me type anywhere and accepts the line as a command upon pressing enter. I can also scroll up and position the cursor on any line in the emacs window and press enter and it will accept that line as a command to execute, even if that line was not a command previously but the output of a command.
Probably you simply never met with such problems so it is hard for you to even realize where from I'm (and apparently authors of xiki are) coming.
I'm afraid you are correct - I simply cannot see anything in that video which I cannot also do using a shell from emacs, and I'm way too lazy to make and post a video of myself doing emacs-as-a-shell. There's a slime video on youtube somewhere that shows the user using emacs exactly as the FA video shows, but with more functionality (and with software from over a decade ago).
Ruby is a wonderful language for [...] mobile devices, like phones, tablets, smart watches, smart glasses, and all the "Internet of things" that the buzzspeakers are so excited about.
It's hard to take a 'reviewer' seriously when they make goofs of such epic proportions, such as these. This blogger is obviously unaware that the IoT devices (along with a lot of the 'smart' devices) aren't going to be able to run ruby crap.
I dunno about the rest, but for filesystem browsing you can use vim :e on a directory which vim will then let you navigate
Well, you really have to try it first to understand the difference.
Browsing a directory in VIM - ':E' - shows you the content of directory in a buffer. What xiki demo shows is more of ^X^F (because you edit the path right in the editor window, with the rest of your text) but allowing you to actually dynamically run ^X^F on different parts of the dir/file name, changing content of the window accordingly. IOW, while ':E' is a dedicated browser, xiki does something like ^X^F to allow to edit/browse/etc inline, right in the middle of the text file, at any time when you need it.
And that's where the "innovation" comes. The tools to do all the things exist. But they all have different (and typically graphical) user interfaces. Xiki/etc try to combine the tools by putting them into an text editor, and making their output interactive and/or ready to be fed to the another tool. Because despite all the chrome, the basic nature of the content of the editor's window doesn't change: it is plain text. Commands are just text lines. Output are just text lines. It all becomes alive when special macro is run, which looks at the current line and tries to decide what to do with it.
Another way to look at it, and the way I often use my VIM hack, is that the same text file serves dual purpose: it is at the same time the script and the output of the script. The script and its output are interleaved. (That for example allows a very nice minor perk: rerun any command, flip between undo/redo and see the differences between then and now.)
I've used emacs for that (editing 'uneditable' things in the buffer and then re-executing). See my post above - handy link here
Xiki, being a cross of Ruby and a text editor, apparently does more: it recognizes and presents as interactive not only the shell commands, but also the file system hierarchy, the Ruby code, the SQL statements, the CSS, the HTML, and probably more.
I dunno about the rest, but for filesystem browsing you can use vim :e on a directory which vim will then let you navigate
Thank you. I've watched the screencast but I really do fail to see any utility in Xiki, only novelty. Can you describe something that Xiki can do that cannot be done with `:r!`? I would really love to add Xiki to my toolbox if it is useful, but I fail to see that.
If you want something better than :r! in vim, use emacs as a shell. I used emacs as a shell for years - you can cut-n-paste (multiple buffers), use the mouse to mark regions, save the entire session as a file, load a previously used session, search back, search forward, edit previous commands before running them, edit the output of previous commands (and then run them), execute the odd elisp expression (need a calculator quickly? It's built in), surf the web, read/send email, read usenet (or read slashdot), play rogue, elisa, snake or tetris, annotate previous commands, run multiple shells.
You still get all the normal stuff too - autocomplete, file and directory browsing, standard piping to forked processes, set/reset/unset variables, syntax highlighting of your shell, normal edit-compile-debug cycle, etc
(I've heard rumours that there's a text editor included with it too ;-)
Sure... the only use for pass is to allow an empty block. But outside of canned examples and temporary debug hacking, empty blocks are not exactly used very often. Hence in the vast majority of cases, python has no "end-brace". Claiming that the pass keyword is a closing brace is disingenuous as it implies that it is always required. It *is* a no-op. You can use the pass keyword absolutely anywhere you want, and it will do nothing. It's only "useful" however in the largely useless case of empty blocks.
That's even worse. 'Exceptions to the rule' are the worst type of program structure rules there are. At least in other languages there is a rule that always applies - a block is delimited by braces. In python you now have to say 'a block is delimited by indentation, except for when the block is empty, or when the interpreter is unable to figure out indentation. When is the interpreter unable to figure out indentation? The interpreter can always figure out indentations, except for when the code is filtered through some third party like web2py".
Frankly, I like the programming language rules to be simple, not filled with exceptions to a general rule. Python has many flaws (what the hell is 'print'? A statement? It acts like a function call but doesn't look like one, except if you're using python 3, or if you import 'print_function') but it's biggest has got to be the people who defend all the exceptions to the general rules. In this regard its closest relation is PHP, which also has general-rules-plus-exceptions-to-them up the wazoo.
Regardless, my original point still stands - python has a non-optional start-brace anyway. They should have just stuck with an actual brace for delimiting 'start of program block' instead of being hipsterish different and using a colon. Of course that wouldn't fix everything but it would be a start.
pass is the equivalent of a nop, it has nothing to do with scoping. Have you ever read or written any python?
According to every single example given on the python documentation page, pass is used to end a block. It get's even more hilarious when you try embedding python into (for example) html pages like web2py does (I've been using web2py hence my discovery that python actually has to have an end brace of sorts).
'Pass' is not a 'noop', according to the documentation; it's simply an empty statement serving only a syntactical function. In other words, had python had an end-brace the way it has a start-brace, 'pass' would not be needed. The only use for 'pass' in python is to serve as an end-brace.
My senior colleague also does not get it. The thing is, with C-syntax you need braces + indentation. So python halves your work out of the box. In C when indentation and braces are mismatched you read the code one way, but the computer interprets it differently. In Python: fixed.
That's incorrect. Python already has open brace in the form of the ':'. The close brace is the keyword 'pass'. In addition to needing at least one brace, it also needs indentation. C-syntax only needs the braces, not the indentation so, technically, the python syntax is double the work, not half.
In python you need to put in the open brace ':' anyway, so why not just use '{' like every other language out there?
None of them are able to express regret at a bad decision ;-)
It has some similarities with the Drugs industry as well.
1. Both industries refer to their customers as "users" 2. If you don't know how to perform a certain task, instructions can be found online 4. Use of cheap components to make a complex product 5. Users always demand more
Not to mention that the first one is free, and before you know it you're hooked on your vendor for life.
But have you ever heard someone else say [she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks]?
No.
Hi, welcome to society. Browse this article discussion on -1 and you'll see plenty of examples.
I think you just disproved your own point - the fact that those sentiments (that you are accusing me and others of) are at -1 shows that:
Yes, we do drown the creeps out.
Yes, they are in a minority and not representative of the nerd group as a whole
Looks like everything else you said in this particular thread is proved incorrect by the above simple statement of yours.
The topic is about photos, not about payments for kids. If you don't want to pay for kids after a divorce: don't father any. It is that simple.
If you don't want someone holding nudie pics of yourself: don't give them any. It is that simple.
See? The issue of personal responsibility goes both ways.
Ah, you think women are minor to men and that guy has the right to do what ever he wants with HER PICTURES?
Ah, you think that men are minor to women and that girl has the right to do whatever she wants with HIS MONEY?
(That's how maintenance works - she doesn't have to prove that she's spending it on the kid)
Can you read? Maybe look into the press for the last few days?
I'm in Africa, you buffoon. This means that not only am I more familiar than most foreigners with African news, I'm also better informed. Boko Haram is doing what they are doing even though no one has ever attacked them, dropped bombs on them or slighted them in the least.
My original question still stands: if you (or anyone) claims that US/Colonialist/Whoever 'creates' terrorists because of their meddling, then please explain the majority of terror organisations who exist even though no aggression or meddling ever occurred.
No, you are not the only stupid cretin that does not understand how reality works. AQ would long have collapsed without this mindless US aggression.
If terrorist organisations need a visible enemy in order to exist please explain why Boko Haram exists.
When you apply a cheat like this, you are altering the game into game+cheat. This game+cheat is a derivative work of the original game.
Making derivative works without permission from the copyright holder is a violation of most copyright laws, and you won't get permission from Blizzard to make this kind of derivative work.
That seems to be the legal argument.
While it is indeed a derivative work it doesn't become a copyright violation until you redistribute the derivative work. Big distinction there. You can modify copyrighted works all you want, you just aren't allowed to redistribute without a license. I'd be interested in seeing how this turns out considering that the lawyers for the defence is almost certainly going to ask "Where's the redistribution happening?"