[T]he core developers decided that working on new stuff was far more important than duplicating the interface.
And I certainly can't fault them for that. I was just curious if there was a reason (other than a high moocher-to-contributor ratio) why no one thought to stop idly complaining and start their own front-end project (something like the GUIs for Nethack (or are they official?)).
Regardless, what I'd like to see is a script or command-line ability to add just one transaction. My PC is showing its age, and starting X then GnuCash takes a while. Right now, I just save up everything until the weekend and do it all at once, but something like...
I know, I know: my itch, my job to scratch it. I'm just worried that the cost associated with scratching this one is a little too high.
Re:Excellent heat conductivity
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Of course, it isn't true love unless you've spent thousands on the rock. The composition of the rock itself doesn't matter (except for the all-important crap to show it's 'real'), it's how much debt you're willing to incurr to show your love.
Please tell me you're joking: "Hi, I've no concept of fiscal responsibility. I've thrown away thousands of dollars on a bauble. Would you like to tie your economic future to mine?"
I'm going to assume from your use of the word "we" that you're one of the seven (if not, my apologies). My question is this: are the front-end and back-end severable? That is: would it be reasonably simple for someone to write a front-end that uses the KDE libraries, if only to silence the critics? Something like: "Download gnucash-back-2.0.0.tar.gz and your choice of gnucash-front-gnome-2.0.0.tar.gz, gnucash-front-kde-2.0.0.tar.gz, or gnucash-front-ncurses-2.0.0.tar.gz"
I use GnuCash all the time; I certainly hope there's something I can do to keep it alive.
I don't know GnuCash's architecture, but what I'd like to see is a clean separation of front- and back-ends (perhaps into completely separate projects). A double-entry accounting system is a Good Thing (TM), IMHO, and if they just concentrated on the back-end, giving it a well-defined API, etc., we'd see front-ends all over the place.
I really like GnuCash, and I want to help out, but I don't have time to grok a quarter million lines of code.
Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious to me. In my defense, I was probably reading an old textbook. You'd think the concept of extraneous solutions would occur to me, but I guess not encountering this stuff on a daily basis as I did in college is making me dim.
But what about all those aliens coming to Earth that only wanted to share their knowledge and love of flying in formation with us? Huh? Insensitive bastard...
Man, that takes me back. One of my projects for Assembly class was to write a Space Invaders clone. My partner and I decided to make the "invaders" friendly, ASCII smileys that dropped ASCII hearts. The player's job was to obliterate the peaceniks.
Re:The legal details, for those interested
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 1
The RIAA appears to be actively NOT touching AOL.
I'm not even going to try to speculate on the reason for that, but I have no doubt there's quite a story behind it.
Warner Brothers Records is a member of the RIAA, and owned by AOL Time Warner. We can't be attacking our own customers, now can we?
E = mc**2 for [antimatter], just like for everything else in the universe.
It was my understanding that the actual equation is E**2 = (m**2)(c**4) + (p**2)(c**2). For objects at rest, p = 0, and we get E = +/- mc**2.
Given that, we have to accept the existence of a form of matter with either negative energy and positive mass, or positive energy and negative mass (or heck, both). I was always led to believe that antimatter was the latter, since when a particle and antiparticle collide, the result has no mass but twice the energy.
If I'm talking out of my ass, please feel free to correct me.
The real problem is that the bench doesn't know jack about software, let alone an OS kernel. So it comes down to who can convince the judge. IBM has done nothing thus far to establish their position. Our opinions of SCO aside, our hopes are unfortunately dependent on IBM and their response seems to be relative silence.
You kind of answered your own complaint there. IBM isn't saying anything to the public because the public's opinion doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is the judge's, and they're waiting for a chance to speak to him/her.
I agree with what you are saying, however it is still theft, regardless.
No, it's copyright infringement, which is a distinct crime.
Okay, now it seems you're suggesting that an album should only ever be sold... once?
I see no problem with this. The concept of royalties is becoming an anachronism is the age of digital copies. We should go to a model where people are paid in advance for creation of works.
That range [$35K - $60K] wouldn't qualify you an apartment in most metro areas.
Please define "most". I live in the nation's 15th largest city and live in a 1,000 sq. ft. apartment. I have no difficulty at all making my rent payment while earning a salary in the range being discussed.
...and sell off those other luxuries, like a family, that you can't afford anymore.
My spouse and I had no trouble living on my salary alone. If you're referring to children, then I have no sympathy for you. Having a child is a conscious choice in this era and if you couldn't afford it, you shouldn't have done it.
Besides, I see lots of people making less than $40K with two or three children. They might be driving a Ford P.O.S., but they get by just fine.
Um. The cliffhanger was that the only survivor was the guy "possessed" by Agent Smith. You know, the guy who's trying to kill Neo? Admittedly, it's kind of hard to tell because he's upside down.
"The Whatchamacallit brothers". Now that's comedy!
Body "art" is entirely your decision, and thus you must accept when you make that choice that not everyone will have the same views and beliefs as yourself.
I thought it was up to a judge to grant injunctions...
It is, but if you agree in writing, no less that they're entitled to the injunction, then if they go to a judge for an injunction, you can't really put up much of an argument.
Is there a reason you can't give your kids something of what you make during your life? Why is it necessary to hoarde it until your death?
I recommend reading Die Broke; a couple of financial planners wrote it. They make the case against inheritance better than I could.
As to your particular points:
Don't forget to add that if I can't pass my real property to my children, then where is my incentive to work for it in the first place?
Real property. Personally, I don't see any reason to have it. It ties you down geographically; you have to spend your own time maintaining it; and it saddles you with monstrous debt. I prefer to rent, myself. Besides, getting it "for the kids" isn't especially realistic. Most people I know who have lost their parents sold the house as soon as the bodies were in the ground. Cut out the middle man and give them the money directly (preferably while you're still around, so you can share in whatever they spend it on).
Why should I work for my whole life to accumulate real assets if I have nothing to show for it?
You won't have anything to show for it; you'll be dead. If you want something to show for your life, do something with it, and be happy.
I will just choose to live off of welfare because in the end, the result of my life is the same, but I can enjoy it more without having to work.
Because things like pride aren't worth having? No offense, but the real end-result of your life (you dead, your property no longer yours) already is the same whether you're on welfare or not. If you're having trouble finding purpose to your life, then you may want to hold off on having kids.
A lot of people will have that attitude; enough so that the few who still work won't be able to support everyone, and the whole system will come crashing down.
Hey, if the whole welfare system comes crashing down, I'm all for it.:-)
I am just saying that it is well within Microsoft's rights. It's their software,...
Saying, "It belongs to me," doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. Owning a gun does not give you permission to commit murder.
Of course monopolies should compete, but they have to compete on the merits of their product. Anti-competitive pricing is illegal, end of story. (Of course, the part I find incredibly humorous about this whole discussion is that everyone is trying to apply U.S. anti-trust laws to the whole world.)
Well, I can't go so far as to claim that it was supposed to be satire. But I, for one, can't take it seriously.
I suppose one could make the argument that there's been so much bad noir in the past several years that the game designers think that's the way noir ought to be. I sincerely hope they aren't that clueless, though.
I wouldn't have said anything, but you mentioned it twice, so I feel compelled to speak: Technically speaking, Max Payne isn't first-person; it's more of an over-the-shoulder game.
I'll agree with a lot of what you said about the game's shortcomings, but I chose to perceive a couple of them as a plus, in a kitsch-y sort of way. The mainstream is so full of sad attempts at noir these days, I can't help but be amused at a game that does it so badly. I choose to believe they're being deliberately tongue-in-cheek, because the alternative makes me want to cry.
SourceSafe aside, can you give specific examples of what irks you about VS.NET? I actually work on the Visual Studio team, and I am VERY interested in specific gripes and suggestions for improvement. Can you let me know what you most like and dislike?
I realize your question wasn't directed at me per se, but as this is a public forum, I'd like to relate a problem, if you don't mind.
Obligatory disclaimer: My only experience with.NET was Beta 2 or so, so this might no longer be a valid complaint.
My employer got a new CIO about a year or so ago, and he's decreed that.NET is the future. My team was asked to create a demo web service using VB.NET as a proof-of-concept.
Everything went fairly smoothly (except we couldn't access views in Oracle), until it was decided to change a Web service's return type.
At some point, we decided that this particular Web service needed to return a string instead of int, and we quickly discovered that the IDE wouldn't allow us to do this. Basically, it wouldn't allow us to delete the existing Web service. Oh, sure, we could remove it from the little list of available services, but when we went to replace it with the one we wanted, we were informed that a Web service with that signature already existed.
Ultimately, we were forced to shut down the IDE, and edit three different files in Notepad in order to change the return type. We restarted VB.NET, and everything went smoothly.
My gripe about all IDEs (not just VS.NET) is that they actively seek to keep the developer in the dark about what's really happening.
Slashdot Mirror
And I certainly can't fault them for that. I was just curious if there was a reason (other than a high moocher-to-contributor ratio) why no one thought to stop idly complaining and start their own front-end project (something like the GUIs for Nethack (or are they official?)).
Regardless, what I'd like to see is a script or command-line ability to add just one transaction. My PC is showing its age, and starting X then GnuCash takes a while. Right now, I just save up everything until the weekend and do it all at once, but something like...
gnucash --transaction "Liabilities:Credit Cards:Discover" "Expenses:Auto:Gas" "gas station" "13.75" --today
...would certainly be nice.
I know, I know: my itch, my job to scratch it. I'm just worried that the cost associated with scratching this one is a little too high.
Please tell me you're joking: "Hi, I've no concept of fiscal responsibility. I've thrown away thousands of dollars on a bauble. Would you like to tie your economic future to mine?"
I work for a Baby Bell; we've been infected. Draw your own conclusions.
I'm going to assume from your use of the word "we" that you're one of the seven (if not, my apologies). My question is this: are the front-end and back-end severable? That is: would it be reasonably simple for someone to write a front-end that uses the KDE libraries, if only to silence the critics? Something like:
"Download gnucash-back-2.0.0.tar.gz and your choice of gnucash-front-gnome-2.0.0.tar.gz, gnucash-front-kde-2.0.0.tar.gz, or gnucash-front-ncurses-2.0.0.tar.gz"
I use GnuCash all the time; I certainly hope there's something I can do to keep it alive.
I don't know GnuCash's architecture, but what I'd like to see is a clean separation of front- and back-ends (perhaps into completely separate projects). A double-entry accounting system is a Good Thing (TM), IMHO, and if they just concentrated on the back-end, giving it a well-defined API, etc., we'd see front-ends all over the place.
I really like GnuCash, and I want to help out, but I don't have time to grok a quarter million lines of code.
Thanks for pointing out what should have been obvious to me. In my defense, I was probably reading an old textbook. You'd think the concept of extraneous solutions would occur to me, but I guess not encountering this stuff on a daily basis as I did in college is making me dim.
Man, that takes me back. One of my projects for Assembly class was to write a Space Invaders clone. My partner and I decided to make the "invaders" friendly, ASCII smileys that dropped ASCII hearts. The player's job was to obliterate the peaceniks.
Warner Brothers Records is a member of the RIAA, and owned by AOL Time Warner. We can't be attacking our own customers, now can we?
It was my understanding that the actual equation is E**2 = (m**2)(c**4) + (p**2)(c**2). For objects at rest, p = 0, and we get E = +/- mc**2.
Given that, we have to accept the existence of a form of matter with either negative energy and positive mass, or positive energy and negative mass (or heck, both). I was always led to believe that antimatter was the latter, since when a particle and antiparticle collide, the result has no mass but twice the energy.
If I'm talking out of my ass, please feel free to correct me.
To be fair, the headline doesn't specify "Wizards of the Coast", just "Wizards". It took me a bit to figure out what they were talking about, too.
You kind of answered your own complaint there. IBM isn't saying anything to the public because the public's opinion doesn't matter. The only opinion that matters is the judge's, and they're waiting for a chance to speak to him/her.
I agree with what you are saying, however it is still theft, regardless.
No, it's copyright infringement, which is a distinct crime.
I see no problem with this. The concept of royalties is becoming an anachronism is the age of digital copies. We should go to a model where people are paid in advance for creation of works.
Please define "most". I live in the nation's 15th largest city and live in a 1,000 sq. ft. apartment. I have no difficulty at all making my rent payment while earning a salary in the range being discussed.
My spouse and I had no trouble living on my salary alone. If you're referring to children, then I have no sympathy for you. Having a child is a conscious choice in this era and if you couldn't afford it, you shouldn't have done it.
Besides, I see lots of people making less than $40K with two or three children. They might be driving a Ford P.O.S., but they get by just fine.
The only issue I can think of is that a popular movie like this might still be in the second-run theaters when the DVD arrives.
Um. The cliffhanger was that the only survivor was the guy "possessed" by Agent Smith. You know, the guy who's trying to kill Neo? Admittedly, it's kind of hard to tell because he's upside down.
"The Whatchamacallit brothers". Now that's comedy!
So, would religious prejudice be acceptable?
It is, but if you agree in writing, no less that they're entitled to the injunction, then if they go to a judge for an injunction, you can't really put up much of an argument.
Is there a reason you can't give your kids something of what you make during your life? Why is it necessary to hoarde it until your death?
I recommend reading Die Broke; a couple of financial planners wrote it. They make the case against inheritance better than I could.
As to your particular points:
Real property. Personally, I don't see any reason to have it. It ties you down geographically; you have to spend your own time maintaining it; and it saddles you with monstrous debt. I prefer to rent, myself. Besides, getting it "for the kids" isn't especially realistic. Most people I know who have lost their parents sold the house as soon as the bodies were in the ground. Cut out the middle man and give them the money directly (preferably while you're still around, so you can share in whatever they spend it on).
You won't have anything to show for it; you'll be dead. If you want something to show for your life, do something with it, and be happy.
Because things like pride aren't worth having? No offense, but the real end-result of your life (you dead, your property no longer yours) already is the same whether you're on welfare or not. If you're having trouble finding purpose to your life, then you may want to hold off on having kids.
Hey, if the whole welfare system comes crashing down, I'm all for it. :-)
Certainly. You didn't earn your parents' money; why do you deserve to have it?
Saying, "It belongs to me," doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. Owning a gun does not give you permission to commit murder.
Of course monopolies should compete, but they have to compete on the merits of their product. Anti-competitive pricing is illegal, end of story. (Of course, the part I find incredibly humorous about this whole discussion is that everyone is trying to apply U.S. anti-trust laws to the whole world.)
And now for a touch of levity...
I just finished reading The Dosadi Experiment. I really like the approach of the Gowachin legal system: two lawyers enter; one lawyer leaves.
Well, I can't go so far as to claim that it was supposed to be satire. But I, for one, can't take it seriously.
I suppose one could make the argument that there's been so much bad noir in the past several years that the game designers think that's the way noir ought to be. I sincerely hope they aren't that clueless, though.
I think "satire" would be a more appropriate word choice. Series 7 is a wonderful satire, but it's filled with all sorts of disturbing imagery.
I wouldn't have said anything, but you mentioned it twice, so I feel compelled to speak: Technically speaking, Max Payne isn't first-person; it's more of an over-the-shoulder game.
I'll agree with a lot of what you said about the game's shortcomings, but I chose to perceive a couple of them as a plus, in a kitsch-y sort of way. The mainstream is so full of sad attempts at noir these days, I can't help but be amused at a game that does it so badly. I choose to believe they're being deliberately tongue-in-cheek, because the alternative makes me want to cry.
I realize your question wasn't directed at me per se, but as this is a public forum, I'd like to relate a problem, if you don't mind.
Obligatory disclaimer: My only experience with .NET was Beta 2 or so, so this might no longer be a valid complaint.
My employer got a new CIO about a year or so ago, and he's decreed that .NET is the future. My team was asked to create a demo web service using VB.NET as a proof-of-concept.
Everything went fairly smoothly (except we couldn't access views in Oracle), until it was decided to change a Web service's return type.
At some point, we decided that this particular Web service needed to return a string instead of int, and we quickly discovered that the IDE wouldn't allow us to do this. Basically, it wouldn't allow us to delete the existing Web service. Oh, sure, we could remove it from the little list of available services, but when we went to replace it with the one we wanted, we were informed that a Web service with that signature already existed.
Ultimately, we were forced to shut down the IDE, and edit three different files in Notepad in order to change the return type. We restarted VB.NET, and everything went smoothly.
My gripe about all IDEs (not just VS.NET) is that they actively seek to keep the developer in the dark about what's really happening.