Fast to open, my ass. Virtually every time I reopen Notepad++ it complaints about having to update all the plugins and the dialog blocks the app, forcing a decision which potentially had to update the whole application.
If I want a reliable, instant plain-text empty buffer for pasting or typing, MS Notepad is the way to go. I hope this update doesn't screw it.
Your experience would be because you:
a) Have lots of plugins installed. b) Don't even actually update anything- just skip the update everytime c) or only use Notepad++ once a year so get caught with the update everytime you open it.
- I probably see a window telling me to upgrade one time out of every 2 or 3 hundred times I use Notepad++
Just as a follow up... (feel free to retest my experiment on your own PCs)... I completely unscientifically ran a test on my PC.
I put both Notepad and Notepad++ on my PC taskbar and tried to open them. Whereas they both open almost instantaneously- I think Notepad++ actually loads quicker than Notepad on my PC.
So, if you're trying to shave 0.05 seconds of waiting off your day, Notepad++ is for you.
Looks like they would need software to focus on different depths/cross sections - but the picture does look pretty cool. I doubt this will completely replace the tradition x-ray though where you can see everything in one picture in one go.
So what? It's a simple text editor. It does exactly what is needed.
It doesn't need bloat or "features". It allows one to get things done quickly without having to worry about this or that.
If you need functionality, use Notepad++. That's what it's there for. For the rest of us who want speed and ease of use, Notepad all the way.
Notepad++ is just as quick and easy as regular notepad. You can use it for simple things just like Notepad. The advanced features may take a little more knowledge- but the basics that notepad has are in the exact same place on Notepad++. No learning curve needed, and it opens just as quick.
Boston's streets were designed by cows, according to local lore.
Cows tend to walk in a North/South direction most of the time. For some unknown reason they seem to sense the earth's magnetic field and line up accordingly. I saw an article once (it might have been from Slashdot even) linking to satellite photos of cows- people noticed they almost faced North or South... EXCEPT when they were under powerlines... when under powerlines cows would face random directions. Cows might actually be useful in designing a North/South road system.
I really wouldn't want to live in a city where all the roads are straight and uniform in a grid.
But then I'm from yurp and used to small cities (but real ones: with actual city rights) full of twisty roads and bridges over canals and such like. And trees. A city is not livable if there aren't any trees. Even if it does mean the city'll have to clean up all the dead leaves come autumn. Trees!
To be fair, many American cities do have plenty of trees. It varies city-by-city, but a lot American cities do have tree-lined streets and large green-areas. There are some cities that lack them and look grey and boring. I can think of plenty of cities back home in Britain that were industrial dump towns with fewer trees and green spaces.
Can anyone explain Charlotte? It's the only one that looks like an ancient European city on it's graph rather than a city built in the last few centuries. Why are Charlotte's roads going all over the place in every direction. I've been to Charlotte several times and can't think of any geological reason.
You can probably guess the age of those cities by those graphs- at least how long they've been a major population centre. The ones under 250 years of age (most of the American ones) are very N-S E-W. Older ones like Rome show the roads go in every direction.
Madrid is interesting because it shows N-S E-W but with a big cluster in the middle. I don't know much about Madrid's history- obviously it is an old city, but the chart would suggest a rapid boom in population in the modern age of proper road planning.
Obviously, there is at least some demand because people are making them; but I really can't see VR being all that popular (beyond a fad hype at first). It feels to me like one of those things, that, whereas "cool tech", not something with a lot of sticking power.
Remember the Wii, the Kinect for Xbox. Those were really cool at the time- and for a while incredibly popular... but people went back to a keypad and a screen. VR will be cool and aweinspiring at first- and maybe for 5 years will be popular and a must have... but I can't see it really taking off- not this generation anyway. Who really wants to strap something to their face to play a game?
After an initial success it will go the way of the Wii and the Kinect.
To 'decimate' means to kill ONE TENTH of a group, hence the "dec" part of the word...
You're right in that the word originally meant kill one tenth. But it's also worth pointing out that "Awesome" was originally a synonym for "Awful". Somehow the meaning of awesome has completely swapped over time. In the 1800's if you said two people had intercourse, people would assume that they had had a conversation. In the 1800's if you said two people conversed, people would think that they had just had sex.
Words change meaning over time, and yes, it frequently is because people don't understand the real meaning and use them incorrectly. "Decimate" has been used so long (incorrectly) to mean to destroy a large percent that that is now the most commonly understood meaning of the word.
Personally, that grates with me a little too- but I try not to get too hung up on the fact that the modern meaning isn't what I originally learnt. The meaning of words change over time, they always have... All you can do is try and keep up and pick out meaning from context.
Are you counting films or television? I've seen numerous mentions of a "golden age" of scripted television ( a far cry from doomsday predictions of everything becoming reality TV a decade ago).
What would you point to in terms of originality/plot/content in previous decades that is unmatched in the current one.
Not being argumentative - I see these kinds of statements all the time and wonder if its just rose colored glasses on the past or folks having legitimate points. Certainly you can point to sequelitis, remakes, etc, but those are certainly not new in Hollywood, certainly not in the past 60-70 years.
In any age there is good and bad films and television programs. You can probably pick out an excellently written show and a poorly written show from any decade. Picking out individual shows doesn't really help define a trend; and yes, for writing my complaints is more about movies than shows. I will concede, there are actually a lot of really good shows right now (and a lot of really bad ones).
Any observation on a trend is subjective, I realize that... it's a very subjective industry.
There probably are some well written films made too- but they're not the ones that make it big, it feels like all the big films are Marvel or robots fighting each other these days and completely devoid of plot. There may be some great films written too- but they tend to get lost- and maybe the fault of that is the audience.
I do think acting has dramatically improved though; (especially in TV) if due to nostalgia I go back and watch a show from the 80's or earlier it's frequently quite shocking how bad some of the acting was back then- but I didn't even notice when I saw the shows decades ago.
It's impossible to empathise with a robot. When it's a human up there, even a human stunt performer made up to look like the hero or villain, and we know they're well-trained and well-paid, there's that little touch of engagement between us and the performer.
If it's a robot, who cares if the stunt goes wrong, it falls, and breaks its head?
Ideally, the trick is to make it not look like a robot. If you can tell it's a robot then they've failed miserably... and yes, I do realize they fail miserably fairly frequently.
I think plot, originality and content has generally gone down hill in recent decades- the writing has suffered. I think acting by and large has got better. If you look at a lot of TV or movies made in the 60's, 70's, and 80's there is a lot more shoddy acting that made it through to the final cut than today.
There is still bad acting even today, but even low budget stuff frequently has a better quality actor than say something from the 1970s. John Wayne? William Shatner? Silvester Stallone? They've been in some great stuff- but would they be able to establish themselves today as a new actor? (granted Shatner still gets roles- but I think that's from fame power more than ability) John Wayne was probably the "Rock Johnson" of his age- and whereas the rock is far from a steller actor and is eclipsed by many, he's not John Wayne wooden.
I'd like to point out an additional reason why we don't want to live in a world where we are constantly tracked and monitored. Everyone eventually screws up and does something illegal; frequently without even knowing that what we do is technically illegal. They throw something away that is supposed to be disposed of in a specific manner. They don't realize that a certain document needs to be filed. They perform an act that, seems socially normal, but is actually illegal.
No one wants to live in a police state where everyone is a criminal- or has something over their head. I guarantee there is not an adult in this country that has never broken a law (even if unwittingly). When everyone is a criminal- authorities get to pick and choose who to arrest. This is what happened in the Soviet Union where they would make obscure laws just to have an excuse to arrest people.
When everyone is under surveillance, everyone is a watched criminal- and big brother gets to pick which people pay for their crimes and which don't.
You clearly underestimate how many lizard-people are in the US. All the 1%ers are lizard people. Any non-lizard person who approaches their wealth are quickly stomped down.
Slashdot Mirror
It is false-colour not real colour imaging. The colours are based on density, not the true colour.
Personally, that grates with me a little too- but I try not to get too hung up on the fact that the modern meaning isn't what I originally learnt.
It shouldn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How to selectively quote someone and make it sound like the complete opposite of what they were saying 101.
Fast to open, my ass. Virtually every time I reopen Notepad++ it complaints about having to update all the plugins and the dialog blocks the app, forcing a decision which potentially had to update the whole application.
If I want a reliable, instant plain-text empty buffer for pasting or typing, MS Notepad is the way to go. I hope this update doesn't screw it.
Your experience would be because you:
a) Have lots of plugins installed.
b) Don't even actually update anything- just skip the update everytime
c) or only use Notepad++ once a year so get caught with the update everytime you open it.
- I probably see a window telling me to upgrade one time out of every 2 or 3 hundred times I use Notepad++
Just as a follow up... (feel free to retest my experiment on your own PCs)... I completely unscientifically ran a test on my PC.
I put both Notepad and Notepad++ on my PC taskbar and tried to open them. Whereas they both open almost instantaneously- I think Notepad++ actually loads quicker than Notepad on my PC.
So, if you're trying to shave 0.05 seconds of waiting off your day, Notepad++ is for you.
Looks like they would need software to focus on different depths/cross sections - but the picture does look pretty cool. I doubt this will completely replace the tradition x-ray though where you can see everything in one picture in one go.
So what? It's a simple text editor. It does exactly what is needed.
It doesn't need bloat or "features". It allows one to get things done quickly without having to worry about this or that.
If you need functionality, use Notepad++. That's what it's there for. For the rest of us who want speed and ease of use, Notepad all the way.
Notepad++ is just as quick and easy as regular notepad. You can use it for simple things just like Notepad. The advanced features may take a little more knowledge- but the basics that notepad has are in the exact same place on Notepad++. No learning curve needed, and it opens just as quick.
Sounds like it will still be behind Notepad++ or even Textpad in functionality.
No, if you look at Bostons street structure you would see why it was built like it was. Hint: the big blue blob in the middle of the city.
That's not a nice thing to call the Kennedy family.
Boston's streets were designed by cows, according to local lore.
Cows tend to walk in a North/South direction most of the time. For some unknown reason they seem to sense the earth's magnetic field and line up accordingly. I saw an article once (it might have been from Slashdot even) linking to satellite photos of cows- people noticed they almost faced North or South... EXCEPT when they were under powerlines... when under powerlines cows would face random directions. Cows might actually be useful in designing a North/South road system.
I really wouldn't want to live in a city where all the roads are straight and uniform in a grid.
But then I'm from yurp and used to small cities (but real ones: with actual city rights) full of twisty roads and bridges over canals and such like. And trees. A city is not livable if there aren't any trees. Even if it does mean the city'll have to clean up all the dead leaves come autumn. Trees!
To be fair, many American cities do have plenty of trees. It varies city-by-city, but a lot American cities do have tree-lined streets and large green-areas. There are some cities that lack them and look grey and boring. I can think of plenty of cities back home in Britain that were industrial dump towns with fewer trees and green spaces.
Can anyone explain Charlotte? It's the only one that looks like an ancient European city on it's graph rather than a city built in the last few centuries. Why are Charlotte's roads going all over the place in every direction. I've been to Charlotte several times and can't think of any geological reason.
You can probably guess the age of those cities by those graphs- at least how long they've been a major population centre. The ones under 250 years of age (most of the American ones) are very N-S E-W. Older ones like Rome show the roads go in every direction.
Madrid is interesting because it shows N-S E-W but with a big cluster in the middle. I don't know much about Madrid's history- obviously it is an old city, but the chart would suggest a rapid boom in population in the modern age of proper road planning.
Obviously, there is at least some demand because people are making them; but I really can't see VR being all that popular (beyond a fad hype at first). It feels to me like one of those things, that, whereas "cool tech", not something with a lot of sticking power.
Remember the Wii, the Kinect for Xbox. Those were really cool at the time- and for a while incredibly popular... but people went back to a keypad and a screen. VR will be cool and aweinspiring at first- and maybe for 5 years will be popular and a must have... but I can't see it really taking off- not this generation anyway. Who really wants to strap something to their face to play a game?
After an initial success it will go the way of the Wii and the Kinect.
...think it means...
But then, you American, aren't you...
To 'decimate' means to kill ONE TENTH of a group, hence the "dec" part of the word...
You're right in that the word originally meant kill one tenth. But it's also worth pointing out that "Awesome" was originally a synonym for "Awful". Somehow the meaning of awesome has completely swapped over time. In the 1800's if you said two people had intercourse, people would assume that they had had a conversation. In the 1800's if you said two people conversed, people would think that they had just had sex.
Words change meaning over time, and yes, it frequently is because people don't understand the real meaning and use them incorrectly. "Decimate" has been used so long (incorrectly) to mean to destroy a large percent that that is now the most commonly understood meaning of the word.
Personally, that grates with me a little too- but I try not to get too hung up on the fact that the modern meaning isn't what I originally learnt. The meaning of words change over time, they always have... All you can do is try and keep up and pick out meaning from context.
Some people think that's awesome, others don't.
Save the Tatas!
Are you counting films or television? I've seen numerous mentions of a "golden age" of scripted television ( a far cry from doomsday predictions of everything becoming reality TV a decade ago).
What would you point to in terms of originality/plot/content in previous decades that is unmatched in the current one.
Not being argumentative - I see these kinds of statements all the time and wonder if its just rose colored glasses on the past or folks having legitimate points. Certainly you can point to sequelitis, remakes, etc, but those are certainly not new in Hollywood, certainly not in the past 60-70 years.
In any age there is good and bad films and television programs. You can probably pick out an excellently written show and a poorly written show from any decade. Picking out individual shows doesn't really help define a trend; and yes, for writing my complaints is more about movies than shows. I will concede, there are actually a lot of really good shows right now (and a lot of really bad ones).
Any observation on a trend is subjective, I realize that... it's a very subjective industry.
There probably are some well written films made too- but they're not the ones that make it big, it feels like all the big films are Marvel or robots fighting each other these days and completely devoid of plot. There may be some great films written too- but they tend to get lost- and maybe the fault of that is the audience.
I do think acting has dramatically improved though; (especially in TV) if due to nostalgia I go back and watch a show from the 80's or earlier it's frequently quite shocking how bad some of the acting was back then- but I didn't even notice when I saw the shows decades ago.
They have decisions to make, live with green card laws or get naturalized. Consequences of that decision are their problem, not ours.
You miss the point of, in a surveillance state, everyone is a criminal.
It's impossible to empathise with a robot. When it's a human up there, even a human stunt performer made up to look like the hero or villain, and we know they're well-trained and well-paid, there's that little touch of engagement between us and the performer.
If it's a robot, who cares if the stunt goes wrong, it falls, and breaks its head?
Ideally, the trick is to make it not look like a robot. If you can tell it's a robot then they've failed miserably... and yes, I do realize they fail miserably fairly frequently.
I think plot, originality and content has generally gone down hill in recent decades- the writing has suffered. I think acting by and large has got better. If you look at a lot of TV or movies made in the 60's, 70's, and 80's there is a lot more shoddy acting that made it through to the final cut than today.
There is still bad acting even today, but even low budget stuff frequently has a better quality actor than say something from the 1970s. John Wayne? William Shatner? Silvester Stallone? They've been in some great stuff- but would they be able to establish themselves today as a new actor? (granted Shatner still gets roles- but I think that's from fame power more than ability) John Wayne was probably the "Rock Johnson" of his age- and whereas the rock is far from a steller actor and is eclipsed by many, he's not John Wayne wooden.
Good post and deserves to be up-voted.
I'd like to point out an additional reason why we don't want to live in a world where we are constantly tracked and monitored. Everyone eventually screws up and does something illegal; frequently without even knowing that what we do is technically illegal. They throw something away that is supposed to be disposed of in a specific manner. They don't realize that a certain document needs to be filed. They perform an act that, seems socially normal, but is actually illegal.
No one wants to live in a police state where everyone is a criminal- or has something over their head. I guarantee there is not an adult in this country that has never broken a law (even if unwittingly). When everyone is a criminal- authorities get to pick and choose who to arrest. This is what happened in the Soviet Union where they would make obscure laws just to have an excuse to arrest people.
When everyone is under surveillance, everyone is a watched criminal- and big brother gets to pick which people pay for their crimes and which don't.
Esperanto is a non-evolved, made up language that should be banished.
There are a couple of former world leaders who agreed with you. Hitler and Stalin both imprisoned people for speaking Esperanto.
You clearly underestimate how many lizard-people are in the US. All the 1%ers are lizard people. Any non-lizard person who approaches their wealth are quickly stomped down.
A unicorn is a woman who wants to be in a relationship with an established man/wife couple.
Since when?
I don't know when, but the term has been around at least a couple of decades.
> if you have a Green Card.
If you have a green card, you're not an illegal alien.
Thus this topic is not about you.
Why do some of you try so hard to conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so much ?
Because when law enforcement get overzealous- a lot of legal immigrants end up arrested if they can't immediately prove their immigration status.
I wonder if anyone would report someone wearing that as an illegal alien. LOL!
Deport them back to Esperanta-Lando!