vi? Real programmers use ed. ED(1) Unix Programmer's Manual ED(1) NAME
ed - text editor SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ] DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor. --- Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed because it's ED! "Ed is the standard text editor." And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929/bin/ed -rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970/usr/ucb/vi -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990/usr/bin/emacs Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!! "Ed is the standard text editor." Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed: golem$ ed ? help ? ? ? quit ? exit ? bye ? hello? ? eat flaming death ? ^C ? ^C ? ^D ? --- Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm the novice with verbosity. "Ed is the standard text editor." Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all. ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!! When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!! Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED! ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!! TEXT EDITOR. When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their "edlin" on a Unix standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?/* the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you
I don't care, and I think if they reject it, it's their problem.
Not in a democracy. If they can vote, they make the policy that affects YOUR life. So your options are either to overthrow your democratic government or to convince these people to abandon their anti-science religious ideas.
The only religion that's by-nature perverted and anti-progressive is capital-A Atheism.
You must be new to religious debate on the internet! So let's clear this up: Atheism is a religion like not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.
Yes, even the atheists who are convinced that religion is harmful to humanity, and actively work to dispel religious ideas (what you might mean when you say "capital A") are not religious--just as people who work to prevent communist or racist ideologies from spreading are not practicing religion when doing so.
Why is this man's opinion moderated as "Troll?" Why is it acceptable to question every conceivable human idea EXCEPT for religious ideas?
Moderators: Without criticism and questioning, there is no progress! Lets keep the Spanish Inquisition out of Slashdot moderation--even when the criticism is controversial and passionate!
This man's opinion about the effect of religion on medical technology was on-topic and relevant. Yes, it was stated strongly, but I have seen more emotive attacks in vi versus emacs debates! Quit abusing the moderation system!
Well, from an evolutionary perspective, cultures that allow this medical technology will be "more fit" than those that do not. Additionally, those that reject this technology based on the anti-pig religious meme will likely spend more of their resources tending to the needs of disabled persons who would have been healed in cultures without this meme.
There is a religious sect in the USA which has a similar memetic restriction against blood transfusion. Also, a rather large percentage of the US population has the "cells-are-people-too" meme, which will prevent them from benefiting from stem cell tech.
If I may speculate: It seems to be true that at one point in human evolution, cultures which embraced religion were more successful than those that did not, because people who view themselves as part of the same religious group are more likely to help and share resources among their group (and not with others). But that time is passed. If medical technology continues to advance at the rate many predict, religious societies will be at ever-increasing economic and religious disadvantage vs. non-religious societies.
China and the more secular portions of Europe may well beat us all in the long run.
Oh Europe, why did you have to export all your religious crazies to the Americas???
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps our current theories on physics are grotesquely inaccurate approximations, just as, well, all the other theories that preceded them were? Sure, by our current best guess, we are all gonna freeze to death. But I don't have all that much confidence in our current theories being complete. We have only had "science" for a few hundred years.
Perhaps it is neither luck nor doom. Perhaps a Prime Directive-like philosophy is dominant throughout the galaxy, and everyone else has agreed simply to respect us and leave us alone until WE learn to communicate with THEM (using, say, some simple, immediate form of information exchange via a dimension our crude physics has not yet conceived).
I think it is possible that nobody uses EM to communicate because EM sucks for communication.
stereotyping religions is no[t] different [from] using stereotypes as a basis for racism.
A person has no choice as to his race. A thinking person does have a choice (theoretically) as to his religion. It is fair to criticize a person for his choices. It is not fair to criticize him for things outside of his control.
The only factor common to all religious people is the belief in magic. To an empirically-minded person, magical belief is just as wrong as believing oneself to be Napoleon. Both are unsupportable ideas worthy and deserving of criticism in the eyes of the empiricist. The fact that the ideas are claimed as "religion" is of no consequence. ALL ideas are fair targets for criticism. Religious ideas should have no special immunity to this.
Stereotyping is usually incorrect and often insensitive. But racism is many, many times worse.
When back-water places like Kansas abandon science in favor of superstition, my first reaction is to think "if they want their own mini-Dark Age, let them have it."
But this is one area where "think of the children" actually applies. It isn't the fault of these children that their parents want to stunt their intellectual and economic growth! Trying to hold innocent kids back from reaching their full potential is borderline abuse.
Additionally, in a Democracy, the people rule. You don't want your rulers to be uneducated nit-wits!
It really is the duty of every ethical person to fight against this sort of treatment of children. Brainwashing supernatural beliefs in to children is an evil act.
Yes, if you're going to come up with a stupid idea, at least be creative about it! I commend you for that delightfully retarded thought. Next thing you know, people will be building computers out of water and tubes.
I'm going to call BS on your entire post because of a flawed premise.
This gives anyone and everyone the ability to track my movements without my prior knowledge or consent.
No. We aren't talking about increasing information density on a hard drive platter. We are talking about powering a radio transmitter with a coil in a magnetic field.
That's old tech. If it could be done, it would have been done by now. The power requirements of generating magnetic fields have been understood for a long time. I just don't think your concern is valid because I highly doubt the technology to read tags this small will ever exist. B fields require too much power, and coils induce too little current.
Maybe with a nuclear power plant running a giant electromagnet...
Nope, that's a fantasy. Because these can be easily blocked or jammed, this is much ado about nothing.
I don't get it. You think someone could spread *powered* sensors at a 2-meter grid across an entire city without being noticed? Or do you think people would notice this and not start jamming them or demanding such devices be outlawed?
A person can't. A large company or government could. Quite easily, in fact.
I'm just going to call BS on that. It doesn't matter how much funding big-scary-government has. It can't violate the basic laws of physics. These tags are SMALL. They have to be hit with a magnetic flux powerful enough to induce a current in their tiny coils powerful enough to transmit a radio signal which can be picked up at a significant distance.
It can also be easily jammed / spoofed.
It would be cheaper and more reliable just to hire detectives to follow everyone around.
Most RFID systems I've seen transmit only a serial number. Such number could then be used to look up medical info in a central database (authenticated with already-established methods).
Can someone please explain to me how this is a violation of privacy? I'm seriously curious.
The medical benefits of EMTs being able to instantly know a person's blood type, allergies, and medical history are obvious.
What isn't obvious is why people think short-range RFID is the same as battery-powered wild animal tracking collars. Are they just stupid? Look at the way RFID works. A person CAN NOT use it to track someone as they walk around a city. A device capable of generating the power to operate these over more than a very short distance would be very obvious to spot and would probably break every PDA and wrist-watch in the area. Also, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to survey a large number of RFID devices at the same time because of the way collisions are handled.
If you are afraid of this yet you carry a cellphone, you are a hypocrite. For practical purposes, small* RFID tags are a slightly-longer-range barcode.
*I realize that large tags can be read from greater distances. But that's not what we are talking about here.
That may have been the most widely-accepted definition at some point. But today, I see "0-day" used most often when referring to exploits for which no patch exists.
If you're right, this definition is changing and there isn't really anything we can do about it (see the word "hacker").
Slashdot Mirror
vi? Real programmers use ed. /bin/ed /usr/ucb/vi /usr/bin/emacs
/* the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you don't need this retarded lameness filter crap. the slashdot lameness filter is really fucking lame. too few characters per line? taco, you have a moderation system for a reason. you
ED(1) Unix Programmer's Manual ED(1)
NAME
ed - text editor
SYNOPSIS
ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]
DESCRIPTION
Ed is the standard text editor.
---
Computer Scientists love ed, not just because it comes first
alphabetically, but because it's the standard. Everyone else loves ed
because it's ED!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
And ed doesn't waste space on my Timex Sinclair. Just look:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 24 Oct 29 1929
-rwxr-xr-t 4 root 1310720 Jan 1 1970
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 5.89824e37 Oct 22 1990
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Let's look at a typical novice's session with the mighty ed:
golem$ ed
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hello?
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
---
Note the consistent user interface and error reportage. Ed is
generous enough to flag errors, yet prudent enough not to overwhelm
the novice with verbosity.
"Ed is the standard text editor."
Ed, the greatest WYGIWYG editor of all.
ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA! ED HAS BEEN THE CHOICE OF EDUCATED
AND IGNORANT ALIKE FOR CENTURIES! ED WILL NOT CORRUPT YOUR PRECIOUS
BODILY FLUIDS!! ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR! ED MAKES THE SUN
SHINE AND THE BIRDS SING AND THE GRASS GREEN!!
When I use an editor, I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless
help screens and cursor positioning code! I just want an EDitor!!
Not a "viitor". Not a "emacsitor". Those aren't even WORDS!!!! ED!
ED! ED IS THE STANDARD!!!
TEXT EDITOR.
When IBM, in its ever-present omnipotence, needed to base their
"edlin" on a Unix standard, did they mimic vi? No. Emacs? Surely
you jest. They chose the most karmic editor of all. The standard.
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our three major weapons are -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait, and -1 Overrated.
Not in a democracy. If they can vote, they make the policy that affects YOUR life. So your options are either to overthrow your democratic government or to convince these people to abandon their anti-science religious ideas.
You must be new to religious debate on the internet! So let's clear this up: Atheism is a religion like not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.
Yes, even the atheists who are convinced that religion is harmful to humanity, and actively work to dispel religious ideas (what you might mean when you say "capital A") are not religious--just as people who work to prevent communist or racist ideologies from spreading are not practicing religion when doing so.
Why is this man's opinion moderated as "Troll?" Why is it acceptable to question every conceivable human idea EXCEPT for religious ideas?
Moderators: Without criticism and questioning, there is no progress! Lets keep the Spanish Inquisition out of Slashdot moderation--even when the criticism is controversial and passionate!
This man's opinion about the effect of religion on medical technology was on-topic and relevant. Yes, it was stated strongly, but I have seen more emotive attacks in vi versus emacs debates! Quit abusing the moderation system!
Well, from an evolutionary perspective, cultures that allow this medical technology will be "more fit" than those that do not. Additionally, those that reject this technology based on the anti-pig religious meme will likely spend more of their resources tending to the needs of disabled persons who would have been healed in cultures without this meme.
There is a religious sect in the USA which has a similar memetic restriction against blood transfusion. Also, a rather large percentage of the US population has the "cells-are-people-too" meme, which will prevent them from benefiting from stem cell tech.
If I may speculate: It seems to be true that at one point in human evolution, cultures which embraced religion were more successful than those that did not, because people who view themselves as part of the same religious group are more likely to help and share resources among their group (and not with others). But that time is passed. If medical technology continues to advance at the rate many predict, religious societies will be at ever-increasing economic and religious disadvantage vs. non-religious societies.
China and the more secular portions of Europe may well beat us all in the long run.
Oh Europe, why did you have to export all your religious crazies to the Americas???
You win the prize for arrogant reductionism!
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps our current theories on physics are grotesquely inaccurate approximations, just as, well, all the other theories that preceded them were? Sure, by our current best guess, we are all gonna freeze to death. But I don't have all that much confidence in our current theories being complete. We have only had "science" for a few hundred years.
I think it is possible that nobody uses EM to communicate because EM sucks for communication.
The only factor common to all religious people is the belief in magic. To an empirically-minded person, magical belief is just as wrong as believing oneself to be Napoleon. Both are unsupportable ideas worthy and deserving of criticism in the eyes of the empiricist. The fact that the ideas are claimed as "religion" is of no consequence. ALL ideas are fair targets for criticism. Religious ideas should have no special immunity to this.
Stereotyping is usually incorrect and often insensitive. But racism is many, many times worse.
When back-water places like Kansas abandon science in favor of superstition, my first reaction is to think "if they want their own mini-Dark Age, let them have it."
But this is one area where "think of the children" actually applies. It isn't the fault of these children that their parents want to stunt their intellectual and economic growth! Trying to hold innocent kids back from reaching their full potential is borderline abuse.
Additionally, in a Democracy, the people rule. You don't want your rulers to be uneducated nit-wits!
It really is the duty of every ethical person to fight against this sort of treatment of children. Brainwashing supernatural beliefs in to children is an evil act.
Yes, if you're going to come up with a stupid idea, at least be creative about it! I commend you for that delightfully retarded thought. Next thing you know, people will be building computers out of water and tubes.
Or, it could mean "if this point were up for debate, I would argue X... but it is not up for debate, so I won't be arguing."
I often wonder if paranoia is a condition independent of intelligence. I also know a few too many "bright" people who seem affected by it.
You're wrong. Those scanners are designed to read tags far too large to be inserted under the skin.
No. We aren't talking about increasing information density on a hard drive platter. We are talking about powering a radio transmitter with a coil in a magnetic field.
That's old tech. If it could be done, it would have been done by now. The power requirements of generating magnetic fields have been understood for a long time. I just don't think your concern is valid because I highly doubt the technology to read tags this small will ever exist. B fields require too much power, and coils induce too little current.
Maybe with a nuclear power plant running a giant electromagnet...
Nope, that's a fantasy. Because these can be easily blocked or jammed, this is much ado about nothing.
I don't get it. You think someone could spread *powered* sensors at a 2-meter grid across an entire city without being noticed? Or do you think people would notice this and not start jamming them or demanding such devices be outlawed?
It can also be easily jammed / spoofed.
It would be cheaper and more reliable just to hire detectives to follow everyone around.
No, medical tag RFID fear is just irrational.
Do you carry a cell phone?
Then you are both a hypocrite and and idiot.
It would be MUCH easier and cheaper to just follow you around the city than to put ultra-high powered RFID readers on every corner.
Most RFID systems I've seen transmit only a serial number. Such number could then be used to look up medical info in a central database (authenticated with already-established methods).
Can someone please explain to me how this is a violation of privacy? I'm seriously curious.
The medical benefits of EMTs being able to instantly know a person's blood type, allergies, and medical history are obvious.
What isn't obvious is why people think short-range RFID is the same as battery-powered wild animal tracking collars. Are they just stupid? Look at the way RFID works. A person CAN NOT use it to track someone as they walk around a city. A device capable of generating the power to operate these over more than a very short distance would be very obvious to spot and would probably break every PDA and wrist-watch in the area. Also, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to survey a large number of RFID devices at the same time because of the way collisions are handled.
If you are afraid of this yet you carry a cellphone, you are a hypocrite. For practical purposes, small* RFID tags are a slightly-longer-range barcode.
*I realize that large tags can be read from greater distances. But that's not what we are talking about here.
That may have been the most widely-accepted definition at some point. But today, I see "0-day" used most often when referring to exploits for which no patch exists.
If you're right, this definition is changing and there isn't really anything we can do about it (see the word "hacker").
No, 0-day means an exploit was released on or before the day the patch was released.