Borders is the store that pulled copies of an issue of Free Inquiry magazine from its shelves because it contained some cartoons of Mohammed. Now we have more room for real bookstores.
I think Dive Into Python is excellent and Shaw's objections are unjustified. Pilgrim's method is to show you a program that you're not expected to understand immediately and then explain it line by line. Shaw thinks this is too confusing for beginners, and is a bit of an hysterical ass about it.
Interesting how common it is for these pages to invite users to report the error. Is it that the site administrators don't know how to read their access logs, or something else?
Three replies, yet they all argue against straw men and fail to address what I actually said. I read another book review today, in the Atlantic, by Christopher Hitchens, reviewing Joseph Lelyveld's new book on M. Gandhi. The review was fascinating. The book happens to be published by Knopf. Should I check who published Prof. Hitchens' many books to make sure none of those were also published by Knopf or a company that owns Knopf or is owned by them? If it turns out that they were, should I worry about a "conflict of interest" because of that? I fail to see how that wouldn't be ridiculous, and a ridiculous reason to impugn someone's character.
I probably shouldn't bother challenging an AC, but I just don't understand your objections. The only useful reviews of Drupal books are going to be written by people who use Drupal. That doesn't make them "biased" in any meaningful way. Packt publishes a lot of Drupal books, so the fact that a reviewer might publish through the same company is not surprising or automatically some kind of conspiracy. It's frankly ridiculous say that it's a "conflict of interest" to review a book if you happen to have published a book with the same company.
Thank you. I've been noticing this lately, and wondered if it was somehow thought to be acceptable here to copy and paste someone else's work. I submit articles to/. occasionally, and always put things in my own words, with my own slant. What's going on here strikes me as plagiarism, too.
I'm talking about disgraceful, amateur-level code from Apple in programs as basic as their Finder. Your mention of "perfect or bug-free" is a straw man. You talk about students' inability to test sufficiently. Proper testing on Apple's part would have avoided these disasters. They are still shipping bad, insufficiently tested code, as if they either learned nothing from their past embarrassments or simply don't care. "you can be sure that their development has been far more rigorous than anything a student would do" - demonstrably false.
"so people could link to it?"
You are linking to it.
"people could comment on it?"
We're commenting on it right now. If I cared, I would write an article on it on my website.
"As a user all you get to do is to read it"
If you really need to copy and paste for some reason you can download the pdf. Really, what's the problem? It's too hard to steal?
robust, stable, or correct enough to release commercially, especially with an Apple brand on it.
This is hilarious. Do you need me to provide links for Apple Mail accidentally deleting mail, or the OS X Finder accidentally deleting files? And what about the bug-ridden iOS Mail program?
The entire article is incoherent. At the point we reach this particular garbled sentence, we have no idea what Prince's relationship is with Project Honey Pot. And we never hear anything further about DHS. We don't find out how exactly CloudFlare "makes sites faster," and I have no reason to believe it does that, or anything else useful.
Scribus is open source, but you can probably find someone who will let you pay for it if you want to.
I took a look at Scribus on the Mac recently. It has an interesting feature where you can embed some LaTeX source into the document, assiciated with a box on the layout. It will render the LaTeX using your TeX installation behind the scenes, setting the \textwidth to fit the box. So you can get, to some extent, the Scribus conveniences with the excellent TeX typesetting. I haven't actually used Scribus, but it seems to be designed to do things like lay out newspapers; this is possible but hard to do with LaTeX.
A standards body can't establish standards? You've lost me.
I'll partially concede your point about pedanticism, though, and that you're using "standard" in a common, colloquial sense that would pass without remark in other contexts. It's just that in this context (Slashdot, etc.) the term has other associations and I thought it was relevant to point out that there are no standards, in the more "pendantic" sense, for GUIs (unless there are). This is more than just a pendantic distinction. The fact that there is a standard for PDF but not for DOC (for example) is important to understand. If we could get the computer-naive to appreciate the issue, the computer ecology would be better for all of us.
There are several mechanisms. The standard for the format of an email message is an "rfc". There is the ISO. There are standards such as that for PDF files, published by Adobe. If there is a standard for a GUI, I'd be interested to learn about it.
Yes. There is no UI standard. You seem to be confusing "standard" with "most common way people are doing things at the moment." It's like when I tell people that I'm not going to open their Word attachment and that, if they want me to read their document, they should send it to me in a standard format. They complain that Word is a "standard" and that Windows is a "standard" and what am I talking about.
All mouse/keyboard UIs are essentially the same. *NIX and Windows both have it pretty standard that there is a send to taskbar button, an embiggen/shrink button and a close button in the top right.
Already wrong, sorry. My linux is set up to have none of those things.
Slashdot Mirror
Borders is the store that pulled copies of an issue of Free Inquiry magazine from its shelves because it contained some cartoons of Mohammed. Now we have more room for real bookstores.
Immune? At least in the TV show Batman was scrupulous in following all traffic laws and wearing seatbelts, sometimes to Robin's annoyance.
I like the "protective wire mesh container". Tell me it's not an office trash can.
I think Dive Into Python is excellent and Shaw's objections are unjustified. Pilgrim's method is to show you a program that you're not expected to understand immediately and then explain it line by line. Shaw thinks this is too confusing for beginners, and is a bit of an hysterical ass about it.
Interesting how common it is for these pages to invite users to report the error. Is it that the site administrators don't know how to read their access logs, or something else?
I'm running dwm on Ubuntu and no desktop environment. What do either KDE or Gnome offer that might entice me to switch?
Three replies, yet they all argue against straw men and fail to address what I actually said. I read another book review today, in the Atlantic, by Christopher Hitchens, reviewing Joseph Lelyveld's new book on M. Gandhi. The review was fascinating. The book happens to be published by Knopf. Should I check who published Prof. Hitchens' many books to make sure none of those were also published by Knopf or a company that owns Knopf or is owned by them? If it turns out that they were, should I worry about a "conflict of interest" because of that? I fail to see how that wouldn't be ridiculous, and a ridiculous reason to impugn someone's character.
I probably shouldn't bother challenging an AC, but I just don't understand your objections. The only useful reviews of Drupal books are going to be written by people who use Drupal. That doesn't make them "biased" in any meaningful way. Packt publishes a lot of Drupal books, so the fact that a reviewer might publish through the same company is not surprising or automatically some kind of conspiracy. It's frankly ridiculous say that it's a "conflict of interest" to review a book if you happen to have published a book with the same company.
Really? I consume novels, furniture, power tools, and ideas, and yet they're mostly still there.
I would have done it for half of that.
Thank you. I've been noticing this lately, and wondered if it was somehow thought to be acceptable here to copy and paste someone else's work. I submit articles to /. occasionally, and always put things in my own words, with my own slant. What's going on here strikes me as plagiarism, too.
I'm talking about disgraceful, amateur-level code from Apple in programs as basic as their Finder. Your mention of "perfect or bug-free" is a straw man. You talk about students' inability to test sufficiently. Proper testing on Apple's part would have avoided these disasters. They are still shipping bad, insufficiently tested code, as if they either learned nothing from their past embarrassments or simply don't care. "you can be sure that their development has been far more rigorous than anything a student would do" - demonstrably false.
"so people could link to it?"
You are linking to it.
"people could comment on it?"
We're commenting on it right now. If I cared, I would write an article on it on my website.
"As a user all you get to do is to read it"
If you really need to copy and paste for some reason you can download the pdf. Really, what's the problem? It's too hard to steal?
Four. You can distribute as a web app and hope that people pay you for it.
This is hilarious. Do you need me to provide links for Apple Mail accidentally deleting mail, or the OS X Finder accidentally deleting files? And what about the bug-ridden iOS Mail program?
Maybe "geeks" know about more sophisticated tools such as Privoxy, which work with any browser.
The entire article is incoherent. At the point we reach this particular garbled sentence, we have no idea what Prince's relationship is with Project Honey Pot. And we never hear anything further about DHS. We don't find out how exactly CloudFlare "makes sites faster," and I have no reason to believe it does that, or anything else useful.
Scribus is open source, but you can probably find someone who will let you pay for it if you want to.
I took a look at Scribus on the Mac recently. It has an interesting feature where you can embed some LaTeX source into the document, assiciated with a box on the layout. It will render the LaTeX using your TeX installation behind the scenes, setting the \textwidth to fit the box. So you can get, to some extent, the Scribus conveniences with the excellent TeX typesetting. I haven't actually used Scribus, but it seems to be designed to do things like lay out newspapers; this is possible but hard to do with LaTeX.
A standards body can't establish standards? You've lost me.
I'll partially concede your point about pedanticism, though, and that you're using "standard" in a common, colloquial sense that would pass without remark in other contexts. It's just that in this context (Slashdot, etc.) the term has other associations and I thought it was relevant to point out that there are no standards, in the more "pendantic" sense, for GUIs (unless there are). This is more than just a pendantic distinction. The fact that there is a standard for PDF but not for DOC (for example) is important to understand. If we could get the computer-naive to appreciate the issue, the computer ecology would be better for all of us.
That doesn't make any sense. How could a company establish, unilaterally, a standard for "a GUI"?
There are several mechanisms. The standard for the format of an email message is an "rfc". There is the ISO. There are standards such as that for PDF files, published by Adobe. If there is a standard for a GUI, I'd be interested to learn about it.
Yes. There is no UI standard. You seem to be confusing "standard" with "most common way people are doing things at the moment." It's like when I tell people that I'm not going to open their Word attachment and that, if they want me to read their document, they should send it to me in a standard format. They complain that Word is a "standard" and that Windows is a "standard" and what am I talking about.
Already wrong, sorry. My linux is set up to have none of those things.
That seems to be just stupid headline writing. Nowhere in the body of the article do we encounter a scientist expressing surprise at the result.
Indeed, that's where the root of vaccinate comes from: latin for "cow".