It's been a while since I've used it, but, IIRC, it was either that the keymappings didn't work the same, or that the text selection worked using the standard windows selection method, rather than Vim's selection method.
For example in the following list of files, if you wanted to remove the word "Pearl Jam" from each line, Vim for Linux made it possible to put the cursor at the beginning of the first occurance of the word "Pearl Jam" on line one, and press Control+V, and type "11l3jx", to accomplish this. In the windows version, I know this didn't work.
Well, good news, it works now, both in GVim, and well as console Vim, run either from the Start Menu or cmd.:)
FYI, you don't actually need an IDE to do GUI development. At least on the GTK side, you can just fire up Glade and go nuts.
No, crappy GUIs on Linux have a lot more to do with the fact that developers are *not* typically all that aesthetically atuned (at least in my experience).
Even for a 1 million lines of code large scale C++ project?
What does line count have to do with anything?
With a complex and deep class hierarchy?
If that's true, you're doing something wrong. Inheritance should be used *sparingly*. Only an amateur thinks inheritance is the magical solution to all code reuse problems.
Then I bought my mac and discovered XCode. It blew my mind. If I ever go back to linux I will be finding myself a good IDE.
How so? I mean, my major IDE experience comes with VS2k5, though VS is generally considered one of the better IDEs out there, and while I've found it useful, about the only things I find truly excellent is it's code completion features, and the ability to easily jump to a symbol definition with F12... but I'd hardly call those a "blew my mind"-type features (and they can certainly be done in Vim or Emacs).
He is using Windows, and by default, the Linux and Windows versions work differently. For example, the Visual mode commands do not work the same as they do in Linux.
Uh... huh? Now, granted, I use GVim on Windows, but at least AFAICT, it works identically to it's Linux counterpart. 'course, I'm also not what I'd call a true poweruser, but still... details?
It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code
Really? That's the whole point of closed-source software? Gee, and here I thought it was to make money based on the idea that software, like books, movies, and so forth, is property that is owned by the creator and can be controlled and sold at their discretion.
Richard Dawkins has has most certainly claimed that - The very front cover of his book "The Blind Watchmaker" is subtitled "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design".
Yes, that's right. Evolution precludes the idea of intelligent design as conceived of by the Disco-tute and their followers (the many mistakes in our "design" is enough to see that). But what it does not preclude is a "god" that established preconditions which, in it's infinite omniscience, knew would eventually lead to our existence.
These are two very different conceptions of "design"... the latter is not refuted by evolution. The former most certainly seems to be.
Just in the preface, he makes these statements. "I could not imagine being an Atheist before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published." "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.".
You misread. He doesn't say that evolution *precludes* creationism. He says that evolution makes it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled Atheist", because the theory of evolution provides a nice, neat, secular explanation for all the diversity we see around us.
Because the pedigree of a language is defined by the machine it targets?? Holy shit... you really are incompetent. Hell, by that argument, Java has as much in common with Pascal as it does Lisp.
Java is a hell of a lot closer to LISP than it is to C.
Good lord.
Your claim to understanding either Lisp or Java is extremely suspect after a statement like that. Last I checked, Java didn't support even the most basic of functional programming features (closures, anyone?), let alone Lisp's more advanced features (eg, it's macro system). I mean, the very heart of lisp is the s-expression, which allows code and data to be treated interchangeably. Java has no such thing, and never will, thanks to it's Algol-inspired syntax.
So to counter this, you try to provide them with an argument that will be incredibly easy to turn around and use to boost their own case.
Meh, if they "turn around" and use the argument to "boost their own case", that would mean admitting that evolution exists, and that god used it as a tool for creation. Personally, I think that's *massive* step forward, and would be absolutely fine by me.
Which is exactly the group this idea of classifying dogs as species was directed at, even if only in jest.
I see you missed my point. The point of the article is to refute creationism as put forward by the fundies. The approach put forward in the article does just that, as demonstrating the existence of evolution, guided or otherwise, goes against what said fundies are preaching.
Perhaps serious scientists should stick with doing science, rather than refuting creationists and others with ideological agendas to push.
Yeah, great idea! Then, when schools try to get creationism into text books, the scientists will have already lost the public relations battle. Boom, religion in schools. Good plan! Next, you get evolution-deniers in government. After all, the scientists aren't fighting back, so no one's pointing out how *incredibly fucking stupid* these people are. Next thing you know, you have public policy being driven by religious idealogues who don't understand basic scientific principles.
Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
Scientists have kept their mouths shut for a long time, letting creationists win the public relations debate. It's about damn time that stopped.
The author of the story obviously can't use Google. I found people talking about their mastiff/chihuaua mix dogs, among plenty of others.
And you obviously didn't read the article. Go re-read the part about fruit flies being forced to breed in captivity. Then think carefully about your example while applying said metaphor.
Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.
What's your point? No scientists has ever claimed that evolution, as the mechanism for diversity on this planet, precludes the idea of a creator. In fact, many a forward-thinking creationist has accepted evolution through the belief that evolution was the very mechanism "god" used to "design" man. In fact, the only people claiming evolution is in direct opposition to creationism, and thus must be completely, utterly invalid, are the wild-eyed Disco-tute fundies and their related brethren.
1) Creationists claim the science doesn't provide thorough enough proof of evolution 2) Evolutionary biologists should fudge their results to re-define something as being proof
Uh, it's the other way around. The entire fucking point of the article is that the fact that the Chihuahua and the Bull Mastif aren't listed as different species *is* evolutionary biologists fudging their results. Why? Because said animals would, in the wild, be reproductively isolated... which one of the fundamental components of the definition of "species".
Although, to be fair, there's a difference between destructive and non-destructive addiction. After all, many people are addicted to caffeine and nicotine, but you don't find them destroying their lives to maintain said addictions.
No. The biggest reason for virtualized servers is that everyone noticed that typical servers spend much of their time idle, so if we throw a 4 servers into one physical box, the hardware will stay utilized. This means we need fewer physical boxes, which means we need less power.
Except, of course, that those servers? Yeah, they're typically busy *at the same times*, because when they're busy, they're busy because people are working.
Personally, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that virtualization means that overall utilization of hardware settles in at a higher median. My bet is that what you really see are larger swings. ie, all the servers on the virtualization box becoming busy during the same times (ie, work hours during the week), and then going largely idle during the same times (ie, at night and on weekends).
I'll do you one better. How 'bout no top bar at all? My entire browser consists of a tab strip, a thin status line, and a thin input line. Lean and mean.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a while since I've used it, but, IIRC, it was either that the keymappings didn't work the same, or that the text selection worked using the standard windows selection method, rather than Vim's selection method.
For example in the following list of files, if you wanted to remove the word "Pearl Jam" from each line, Vim for Linux made it possible to put the cursor at the beginning of the first occurance of the word "Pearl Jam" on line one, and press Control+V, and type "11l3jx", to accomplish this. In the windows version, I know this didn't work.
Well, good news, it works now, both in GVim, and well as console Vim, run either from the Start Menu or cmd. :)
FYI, you don't actually need an IDE to do GUI development. At least on the GTK side, you can just fire up Glade and go nuts.
No, crappy GUIs on Linux have a lot more to do with the fact that developers are *not* typically all that aesthetically atuned (at least in my experience).
Do you also use a second terminal for typing in the "make" command?
Why would you do that when you could just type ":make"?
What about other terminals for viewing documentation or file structure?
That's why GNU Screen was invented. :)
Even for a 1 million lines of code large scale C++ project?
What does line count have to do with anything?
With a complex and deep class hierarchy?
If that's true, you're doing something wrong. Inheritance should be used *sparingly*. Only an amateur thinks inheritance is the magical solution to all code reuse problems.
Then I bought my mac and discovered XCode. It blew my mind. If I ever go back to linux I will be finding myself a good IDE.
How so? I mean, my major IDE experience comes with VS2k5, though VS is generally considered one of the better IDEs out there, and while I've found it useful, about the only things I find truly excellent is it's code completion features, and the ability to easily jump to a symbol definition with F12... but I'd hardly call those a "blew my mind"-type features (and they can certainly be done in Vim or Emacs).
So what else does XCode do that's so impressive?
He is using Windows, and by default, the Linux and Windows versions work differently. For example, the Visual mode commands do not work the same as they do in Linux.
Uh... huh? Now, granted, I use GVim on Windows, but at least AFAICT, it works identically to it's Linux counterpart. 'course, I'm also not what I'd call a true poweruser, but still... details?
It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code
Really? That's the whole point of closed-source software? Gee, and here I thought it was to make money based on the idea that software, like books, movies, and so forth, is property that is owned by the creator and can be controlled and sold at their discretion.
Of course he did so by the point of the gun and slave labor.
Just FYI, that's totalitarianism, not communism. Communism has never existed, any more than pure capitalism has.
Eh. I categorize that as something in New Age religions.
Right... you mean like that bastion of New Age-ism, the Roman Catholic Church?
Richard Dawkins has has most certainly claimed that - The very front cover of his book "The Blind Watchmaker" is subtitled "Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design".
Yes, that's right. Evolution precludes the idea of intelligent design as conceived of by the Disco-tute and their followers (the many mistakes in our "design" is enough to see that). But what it does not preclude is a "god" that established preconditions which, in it's infinite omniscience, knew would eventually lead to our existence.
These are two very different conceptions of "design"... the latter is not refuted by evolution. The former most certainly seems to be.
Just in the preface, he makes these statements. "I could not imagine being an Atheist before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published." "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.".
You misread. He doesn't say that evolution *precludes* creationism. He says that evolution makes it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled Atheist", because the theory of evolution provides a nice, neat, secular explanation for all the diversity we see around us.
Because the pedigree of a language is defined by the machine it targets?? Holy shit... you really are incompetent. Hell, by that argument, Java has as much in common with Pascal as it does Lisp.
Java is a hell of a lot closer to LISP than it is to C.
Good lord.
Your claim to understanding either Lisp or Java is extremely suspect after a statement like that. Last I checked, Java didn't support even the most basic of functional programming features (closures, anyone?), let alone Lisp's more advanced features (eg, it's macro system). I mean, the very heart of lisp is the s-expression, which allows code and data to be treated interchangeably. Java has no such thing, and never will, thanks to it's Algol-inspired syntax.
Where and when did communism work?
Never met a Hudderite? There's plenty of small-scale communes that've worked just fine.
Of course, the GP is wrong in that no large scale deployment of communism has ever existed.
So to counter this, you try to provide them with an argument that will be incredibly easy to turn around and use to boost their own case.
Meh, if they "turn around" and use the argument to "boost their own case", that would mean admitting that evolution exists, and that god used it as a tool for creation. Personally, I think that's *massive* step forward, and would be absolutely fine by me.
Which is exactly the group this idea of classifying dogs as species was directed at, even if only in jest.
I see you missed my point. The point of the article is to refute creationism as put forward by the fundies. The approach put forward in the article does just that, as demonstrating the existence of evolution, guided or otherwise, goes against what said fundies are preaching.
between race and species was species can't interbreed and produce viable offspring.
So, I take it the existence of fertile Ligers is evidence that Lions and Tigers are, in fact, part of the same species? Huh... news to me.
Perhaps serious scientists should stick with doing science, rather than refuting creationists and others with ideological agendas to push.
Yeah, great idea! Then, when schools try to get creationism into text books, the scientists will have already lost the public relations battle. Boom, religion in schools. Good plan! Next, you get evolution-deniers in government. After all, the scientists aren't fighting back, so no one's pointing out how *incredibly fucking stupid* these people are. Next thing you know, you have public policy being driven by religious idealogues who don't understand basic scientific principles.
Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
Scientists have kept their mouths shut for a long time, letting creationists win the public relations debate. It's about damn time that stopped.
The author of the story obviously can't use Google. I found people talking about their mastiff/chihuaua mix dogs, among plenty of others.
And you obviously didn't read the article. Go re-read the part about fruit flies being forced to breed in captivity. Then think carefully about your example while applying said metaphor.
Just remember if you argue that dog breeds are different species, especially the case of the mastiff and chihuahua, or the teacup yorkie and newfoundland, these different species are verifiably the result of intelligent design. Selection was involved, but not natural selection.
What's your point? No scientists has ever claimed that evolution, as the mechanism for diversity on this planet, precludes the idea of a creator. In fact, many a forward-thinking creationist has accepted evolution through the belief that evolution was the very mechanism "god" used to "design" man. In fact, the only people claiming evolution is in direct opposition to creationism, and thus must be completely, utterly invalid, are the wild-eyed Disco-tute fundies and their related brethren.
1) Creationists claim the science doesn't provide thorough enough proof of evolution
2) Evolutionary biologists should fudge their results to re-define something as being proof
Uh, it's the other way around. The entire fucking point of the article is that the fact that the Chihuahua and the Bull Mastif aren't listed as different species *is* evolutionary biologists fudging their results. Why? Because said animals would, in the wild, be reproductively isolated... which one of the fundamental components of the definition of "species".
Although, to be fair, there's a difference between destructive and non-destructive addiction. After all, many people are addicted to caffeine and nicotine, but you don't find them destroying their lives to maintain said addictions.
Except that MMO is not an 'addiction' . . . it is a 'habit.' His friend will go through no withdrawal if his account expired tomorrow.
Wait... so now addiction requires withdrawal? Well, good news for those former gambling "addicts"!
No. The biggest reason for virtualized servers is that everyone noticed that typical servers spend much of their time idle, so if we throw a 4 servers into one physical box, the hardware will stay utilized. This means we need fewer physical boxes, which means we need less power.
Except, of course, that those servers? Yeah, they're typically busy *at the same times*, because when they're busy, they're busy because people are working.
Personally, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that virtualization means that overall utilization of hardware settles in at a higher median. My bet is that what you really see are larger swings. ie, all the servers on the virtualization box becoming busy during the same times (ie, work hours during the week), and then going largely idle during the same times (ie, at night and on weekends).
I'll do you one better. How 'bout no top bar at all? My entire browser consists of a tab strip, a thin status line, and a thin input line. Lean and mean. :)
oO
Jebus. Of course they orbit. They just happen to have an orbital velocity that matches the rotational velocity of earth.