What idiot moderator modded that post above post down?
Yeah it's pretty dumb:) BUT....
Your supposed to mod posts _UP_ (not waste valuable points modding down little posts like that one on such a quite little story).
Most people acting as moderators are idiots. I got so sick of the whole moderation thing I don't even bother myself now.
You should have to read slashdot for at least a year and have a resonably high karma in order to moderate. Every man and his dog moderating randomly is not a solution.
It's accurate to say that I like new technology more than most people, because it's an important, and at the present time - a defining - part of our social development, gobally. I think that this will be the case for at very least the next 100 years, and think that this will possibly only change when other goals, such as global stability and prosperity are assured, which will certainly take a lot longer than 100 years.
It's also accurate to say I don't want to stand in the way of anyone who only want's to use technolgy for simple benifts, not gratuatously.
Additionaly, I too do not want to pollute the environment, but there are better ways to avoid that than by avoiding technology, such as by using public transport rather than cars and by trying to using less gas and electricity, all of which I do. I remain, however, the very definition of the Sceptical Enviromentalist.
However, it's also fair to say that most people appreciate and desire technology for *more* than just basic nessities. Your stated goal is NOT everybodys goal, and I don't think it's even most people goal, it is at best a short term goal for the poorest of countries.
Technology is not just about giving us tools to do basic things better. It's also drives our economy. It makes things possible that we hadn't dreamed of before. Very little of todays technology is directly related to making us warmer, or giving us shelter or food.
-We already make enough food for the entire planet.
-We can already cloathe the entire planet.
-We can already build houses for the entire planet.
Technically, we can - or could - do all these things, within in the year. The problem is political and economic, not technological.
So technology will continue to advance. New things will become possible, once expensive technology will became cheap, commonplace and ultimately fit in your wristwatch. Technology keeps making our lives better and keeps driving business, creating new oppertunaties, even new problems, and so driving the economy.
Technology does not create oppressed work forces, and neither does my liking it. That is childish hocum.
Infact, technology ensures the current level of stability in our society, primarily though arms. Because we (modern, stable, societies) have better technology we can ensure our survival.
- UN, NATO and the US use superior technology to dominate the globe, defend their interests and ensure stability gobally.
- Japan and Asia use superiour technology to dominate ecnomically.
Technology is not evil and neither is science. They are both more often used to good ends. Until we invent killer robots who inslave man kind, *technology* or anyone liking it does NOT oppress people or cause irreprable harm to the planet.
As a final note, just to reiterate my point, technology is way -way- beyond clothing, food and basic survival.
The Amish use only basic survival technology. Even the Amish should apperciate that there very existance and continued unitterupted lifestyle is due *only* to technology way in advance of that they they use, as it is such levels of distain for technology are often from arrogance or utter incomprehension of technology, economics, politics or history. America is particualy bad at teaching these things to it's children, at least on a global scale.
The *Roman's* had a more advanced level of technology than the Amish, as any one who studied classics, ancient history or latin will be able to tell you. Even in pre-christianty, and that's very important.
Yet I doubt, given the standard of American education or the Amish desire to shun technology that anyone Amish would be able to what level of technology they had or WHY it was imporant.
This is not to pick on the Amish, as many Americans would also have difficulty, but I doubt anyone Amish could even touch on this, so I will provide an answer:
It's the reason why we and they speak the English language. It's the reason why they use a *roman alphabet* to write. Without the Romans (and the Greeks) we'd never had heard of the concept of a democracy. In all likely hood they'd all still be in Europe and we'd all still be living in stone hut's and be covered in mut, because no one would have shown us to make concreate buildings and we'd never have thought of having water in pipes (let alone *hot* running water, underfloor heating, mordern farming, state education, legal justice, that sort of thing)
If technology was as childishly simple as providing a place to live, clothing and food to eat we would have stopped developing it over 2000 years ago.
To quote:
>Most people, there and here, see technology
>as a necessary evil, not a blessing
If that were true then we wouldn't have any technology beyond an animal hide code, fire and sharp flint.
As rule, people like technology. That's why it dominates our world economy, that's why your life and mine is full of it
Our brains and our ability to use them to create technology (from fashioning simple tool's to building space stations) make us distinct from other species. We *love* technology. Axes, clothing, wheel's, mills, metal armour, weapons, trains, cars, calculators, digital watches, Space Shuttles, TV's, CD's, DVD's...
Are all the above a "necessary evil"? No.
We built them because we wanted to. For example, we can get along WITHOUT digital watches, but they are easier to read than analog watches, so we have them. They are not *necessary* nor are they *evil*.
New technology is built for a reason, usually because the existing technology was lacking in some way.
Don't be so arrogant as to suggest that people in Africa don't want new technology. They do. They WANT medical care they WANT better transport they WANT wells with clean water they WANT to grow crops.
They ALL require technology. I am FUCKED OFF with reading bullshit about *how EVIL* technology is. It's not that we are FORCED to use NEW TECHNOLOGY, we WANT TO. We *GRAVITATE TOWARDS IT*. The last 10,000 years has shown us that clearly, why do you have such a problem seeing that?
Technology is good and if you cant' see what makes punch cards a limited and retarded system to impliment then you should not be advocating policy. Take for example:
A horse and cart is better than walking.
Cars are better than a horse and cart.
I'm sure some people in parts of the world don't think there is anything wrong with a horse and cart. Primarily because they've not seen what a Car can do for them and their society. We have, THAT's why we drive cars.
By the same token, any system which uses punch cards (for anything other than storing 'tokens', as with a cookie) is linear and very limited in what it can do, it's not fully programmable and not flexible, that means it can't be modified to be more useful.
Newer usually IS better. If you can't see that, I suggest you try living with out some new technology (hey, you do NOT *need* that computer, you just want it, so don't make excuses). If technology is so bad, why arn't you amish?
In fairness it's not quite as structureless as Cobol. It kind of "pretends" to be structured (again not flamebait, but compared to other languages it's certainly lacking), and at first glance it looks to have a little scructure, but it's actually not got much (imo).
I mean, there is no way you could program anything heavy duty in it in an enjoyable way because there is not enough flexibility to create your own methadologies. What I love about Perl (sick and twisted as it is) is that you can very quickly easily create your own coding methadologies for a project - one that every one can agree on and that suits the project best.
HyperTalk had that (only slightly less so than Perl)
It's easy to do actions and then record them in AppleScript, so you can open an email or a file, send an email, modify a file, move folders, compress folders etc and you can very easily figure out how to modify the scripts and you never have to read documentation. That's a good jumping off point for users, but that is not the same thing as grokking the language and using it properly, and the lack of structure makes it difficult to get beyond this (or even want to get beyond this stage!) for all but the most bitterly determinted, meaning that most people look at it once and get board.
If you want to write something a regular Systems Admin might find easy, like say (just as an example):
Recursively open all the files in a directory and all it's subdirectories that end in ".c" , grep them for variables, permform subsituions on a couple of the variable names and then compress all the directories that contain files that haven't been modified in the last 30 days.
Then it's possible in AppleScript, but it will be ugly and you look at the code, and go, yuck! There would be just so much code, about the same as a C version of the same thing.
It's hard to imagine that Apple don't see these issues, but I get the impression that by trying to bring powerful scripting tools to users the engineers developing the software are loosing focus and don't realise how hard it really is to use for really useful day to day stuff. I think, in this instance, that they need to change AppleScript to be more like a typical scripting language - using some features of something like Rebol and Perl - and just have the users accept that they need to spend a *little* time learning it to actually use it well and to reap the rich rewards that it can offer.
Firstly, spelling ability has nothing to do with gammar.
Secondly, I don't think you understand the difference between *knowing a language very well* and *being dyslexic*.
Dyslexia means its's not a matter of how much time you put into it, it's mental condition, one *very* common among programmers as it happens. Unless you actually have difficulty reconising letter shapes (which is severe dyslexia), it doesn't get in the way either.
Actually I've been an Apple Beta tester for Operating Systems and Development tools from OS 7.5 through to Rhapsody (though I've been a Mac/user/ for much longer). I've also got one of the first 601 based PowerMac's off the production line on top of the wardrobe and I've got a shiny new G4 PowerBook on my lap. Age 19 I flew thousands of miles from Europe to San Francisco just to spend 11 days at MacWorld to gawk at this new thing called an iMac (actually I was sponsored to be there so that I could write an article for a Mac Tech pub.) I like Mac's.
But I can't spell very well. Despite going to an expensive and elitest school, to which only a small proprortion of hopefuls actually get to attend, I had to take a remedial spelling class while I was there.
I still can't spell well no matter how hard I try, I never will be able to (at least not without using a spell checker for *everything*).
But otherwise my language skills are well above par. Maybe I should switch back to OmniWeb, the ability to check spelling in boxes is pretty useful.
PS: Did you know Scott Adams (the cartoonist and author) is a reported Mac user. He is also dyslexic.
Actually, I do most of my code in Perl, some in Java and a bit in C (but Perl and Java mostly, because they are fun to use).
Despite being a Mac and AppleScript user for over 10 years (AppleScript since it's insception, but I can't remeber when that was), I still find it quite a pain in the arse to use because of the weird instances of things and the odd, seemingly haphazard way in which you call or reference things - there is no consistancy.
The grammer doesn't make any sense to me, it not as logical as Java and even Perl is simpler by comparison , and I don't mean that as flamebait.
Anyone can use AppleScript, but it's a lot of pain and greif to make it do something really useful. IMO, it's worth speding 2 weeks getting familer with Perl as you'll be able to do much more much faster.
AppleScript Studio is a cool idea, and allows you to do great things with the GUI, but the basic language is still pretty sucky. I hope Apple release the Perl interface to Interface Builder (so us Mac OS X users have a Perl Studio). It has been around internally for a while, but I'd like to see it released.
I'd *much* rather use Perl, Java or shell scripting to do the same things.
Though, if I could, I'd use HyperTalk, every time! As a languge rocks! Apple dropped the ball on that one, it was a great langauge. Really easy, easier than AppleScript even, but entirely logical and OO (without realising your were doing OO).
They are still extending AppleScript so maybe it will get better and make more sense over time..
There was a very cheap commercial solution available in the UK called Blown & Know. You got three use-once-only miniature tubes to blow in (the packet was a about the same size as a condom packet and IIRC, about the same cost).
The retarted police in the UK refused to back the solution because they said it would just encorage people to drink up to the limit. As the limit is only ~1.5 decent pints of larger that's very obviously FUD.
Their web site (www.blow-n-know.com) is down, so think they have gone bust.
>Yes, that was sarcasm. And I don't fault you for
>wanting to monitor the installation of packages.
>However, I do fault you for running unstable on
>your workstation, and furthermore for running
>your primary web server on the same machine.
Sounds like your running low on hubris.:)
I think Bruce's behavior is somewhat justifiable.
I mean the unstable tree's not *THAT* far behind CVS and he *IS* running a web server on that box...;P
>Oh, and did you mention your primary web server
>is a laptop with wireless connectivity? I'm
>guessing reliability is assured through HP's
>throwing some money at it. Unless you're
>nostalgic for Windows uptimes or something, that
>is.
Uhoh Incoming! [FUD Shields Up]:)
I have no reliability problems with wireless on my GNU/Linux (& Darwin) laptop (and I bought my own wireless equipment for the office [FWIW I also a web server on mine]). I have even burned CD's over the network with it.
You should try it, it *way* more fun that in looks! (checking out a new kernel from CVS while sitting on the john is a very liberating experience).
Linux. Pay for hardware and Windows. Open box, thereby agreeing to a EULA that says you can't sell Windows. Plug in. Push power button. Buy Linux distro. Erase Windows, and spend a weekend trying to get Linux to boot. If successful, go websurfing for free office software and a copy of DeCSS so you can use your DVD drive. If unsuccessful, reinstall Windows from recovery disk.
I see, and on what planet is this? Why in grud's name would anyone buy a copy of Windows if they want to install linux? And to be frank, If you would contemplate giving up on installing a bunch of kernel patches/modules to get your DVD working then you are a big girls blouse:P My Creative Labs DXR2 works very nicely thank-you-very-much.
What you said notwithstanding, you can of course:
A) Buy hardware, plugin, download/borrow/buy OS(for $5), install via GUI direct from CD/Floppy/Networked Interface. Use.
-- OR --
B) Buy hardware with Linux preinstalled. Plugin, turn on and use. -- Full GNOME or KDE office suite already installed.
Dell, IBM, Penguin Computing and many others will all do this, which is even simpler than your MacOS analogy (and not to mention, cheaper):
MacOS X. Pay for hardware and MacOS. Open box. Plug in. Push power button. Go websurfing for free office software. Use Unix. #
I think you forgot (i) Pay for software upgrades with a major revision number (ii) lament lack of hardware upgrade ability. Harsh, but fair...
Re: `Geeks' *can* be organised...
on
Lawsuits Suck
·
· Score: 1
>As much I hope this would happen, it never will.
>Geeks have neither the balls nor organisatory >skill to do it. Never, ever, ever.
Not organised? LOL.
What about the team work and organisational skills needed to create software such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Apache, Mozilla, GNU {anything}? What about ORBS / the RBL?
These take an immense about of organisation to maintain / develop.
>Prove me wrong. Please.
I think the above does, quite frankly.
As for `[not having] the balls', I don't think that's even an issue. It's not that they don't have the guts to do it, I think most of us can't be arsed. After all, there are plenty of jobs, most of us are well paid, why should we bother biting the hand that feeds us? --
>Sysadmins can choose to censor inbound mail to their customers.
>It's their bandwidth, there servers, etc. Just like the phone
>company can block incoming calls to your home phone whenever
>they want to, and your landlord can lock you or whoever else
>out of your house because you're just renting it, it's *the landlords* house.
In a situation where you pay a telephone company to receive a phone line or a landlord to live in a building you have the right to expect a certain level of service.
In reality, sysadmins filtering junk email is directly akin to the post office filtering out your mail. Which in the the UK, they do (for a nominal fee). People like the fact that they do that, they like it so much they PAY the post office to take out the junk mail.
It's worth bearing in mind, that if ORBS and RBL were not implimented, then we would all receive *much* more spam than most of us already do, which (for midsize to large ISPs) GB's more worth of hard diskspace and MB's more worth of bandwidth, which would drive the costs up for customers. And, top this, users who pay per-min connection fees would have to pay to download this junk (which they will promptly filter out and trash).
I don't know about you, but it seems lot more sensible for ISP's and sysadmins to filter it out, rather than force the users to do it themselves. --
Ruben, you are mistaken when you say the software is no longer avalible. Itis. I know it is, as I've already stated, I use it.
I refer you to http://opensource.creativelabs.com/
It is true the dxr2 has been replace by the dxr3, but I think that in time support for the dxr3 will be added. One of the pages linked to from creative labs web site suggests that users simply obtain a dxr2 card from ebay, which is not a bad idea. Many computing outlets still have dxr2 for sale.
On a further note: "There is no currently available DVD for Linux...." This is also untrue. The software is readily avalible and not illegal to use, despite what the MPAA wan't you to think (although in the USA, distrobution of such code is currently prohibited I believe...)
This is something of a metoo but I've been using this for all my dvd's and am very happy with it.
I would recommend a dxr2 card to any linux weenie who wants a cheap but high quality DVD solution, the howto's are a cinch to follow and the player is very simple to use (there are also a few GUI interfaces for the play, but I didn't like them).
BTW, one of the howto's descibes how to use an ATI card with video in in conjuction with the DXR2 to give VGA overlay.
I think the idea of a time delay on registered accounts (a minimum lurk period of say, 30 days) before a user can post with a starting score of 1 is an excellent idea.
If the posts of newly registered accounts were treaded the same way as Anonymous posts - posted with a starting score of, say, 0 this would in effect enforce a lurking period during which the new users could read (mostly) good posts and hopefully learn how to write (mostly) good posts themselves (rather than flames).
An option to show/hide Anonymous Coward posts would be icing on the cake.
I don't belive their is a complete solution, but this would in theory keep down the number of moronic Anon posts, and of course if someone abused the system as a registered user, you could pull their account (or it could be pulled automatically for a large number of repeated violations, as judged by moderators) and they would then have to wait 30 days before they could start posting again.
I can see problems with this, as a user could register many accounts at once and then sit back and wait for them to activate, but I think it's still not a bad idea [1].
[1] You could always look at the IP of the user when the account was created and if a bunch of generic accounts [1] are created by the same IP in a short space of time they could be nuked too. [2] Generic as judge by a bit of Perl set up to do pattern matching.
BT trials for ADSL are currently underway in the south of England (Anglia? I forget, so it might be in Sussex, or Essex...) and BT's ADSL service will be rolled out in September for a £30 per month flat fee.
Unfortunately the current version of mutt does not allow you to 'fake' e-mail. It only allows you to send 'real' e-mail. I sincerly hope the developers will consider add this feature in the future. Pretending to send e-mail is sure fun. If had a real computer instead of this card board box with screen dump of a VMS session taped to it, I'd send real e-mail.
PS: If you really feel the need to send a 'fake' e-mail, you can do it the hardcore way, if your up to it... (warning: only for the truly 3lit3) Okay, here it is, all you need to do is address a postcard to root@127.0.0.1 and drop it into the mail box. Works every time. Sounds simple doesn't it? It's really difficult to trace too!
Hey, have you ever gotten any bounced messages doing this?;-p
Slashdot Mirror
What idiot moderator modded that post above post down?
:) BUT....
Yeah it's pretty dumb
Your supposed to mod posts _UP_ (not waste valuable points modding down little posts like that one on such a quite little story).
Most people acting as moderators are idiots. I got so sick of the whole moderation thing I don't even bother myself now.
You should have to read slashdot for at least a year and have a resonably high karma in order to moderate. Every man and his dog moderating randomly is not a solution.
Welcome to the real world - you better get used to it
</quote>
Or, instead of being both lazy and cowardly, we could try and change it.
Perhaps you are anti revolution? All revolutions, even minor ones? Including the american revolution?
<irony>Best not to change anything, including da we we treat dem niggas, caus that's just the real world and the'd better get used it. </irony>
This came out ages ago and was posted on every other mac site.
this is anti-news.
It's accurate to say that I like new technology more than most people, because it's an important, and at the present time - a defining - part of our social development, gobally. I think that this will be the case for at very least the next 100 years, and think that this will possibly only change when other goals, such as global stability and prosperity are assured, which will certainly take a lot longer than 100 years.
It's also accurate to say I don't want to stand in the way of anyone who only want's to use technolgy for simple benifts, not gratuatously.
Additionaly, I too do not want to pollute the environment, but there are better ways to avoid that than by avoiding technology, such as by using public transport rather than cars and by trying to using less gas and electricity, all of which I do. I remain, however, the very definition of the Sceptical Enviromentalist.
However, it's also fair to say that most people appreciate and desire technology for *more* than just basic nessities. Your stated goal is NOT everybodys goal, and I don't think it's even most people goal, it is at best a short term goal for the poorest of countries.
Technology is not just about giving us tools to do basic things better. It's also drives our economy. It makes things possible that we hadn't dreamed of before. Very little of todays technology is directly related to making us warmer, or giving us shelter or food.
-We already make enough food for the entire planet.
-We can already cloathe the entire planet.
-We can already build houses for the entire planet.
Technically, we can - or could - do all these things, within in the year. The problem is political and economic, not technological.
So technology will continue to advance. New things will become possible, once expensive technology will became cheap, commonplace and ultimately fit in your wristwatch. Technology keeps making our lives better and keeps driving business, creating new oppertunaties, even new problems, and so driving the economy.
Technology does not create oppressed work forces, and neither does my liking it. That is childish hocum.
Infact, technology ensures the current level of stability in our society, primarily though arms. Because we (modern, stable, societies) have better technology we can ensure our survival.
- UN, NATO and the US use superior technology to dominate the globe, defend their interests and ensure stability gobally.
- Japan and Asia use superiour technology to dominate ecnomically.
Technology is not evil and neither is science. They are both more often used to good ends. Until we invent killer robots who inslave man kind, *technology* or anyone liking it does NOT oppress people or cause irreprable harm to the planet.
As a final note, just to reiterate my point, technology is way -way- beyond clothing, food and basic survival.
The Amish use only basic survival technology. Even the Amish should apperciate that there very existance and continued unitterupted lifestyle is due *only* to technology way in advance of that they they use, as it is such levels of distain for technology are often from arrogance or utter incomprehension of technology, economics, politics or history. America is particualy bad at teaching these things to it's children, at least on a global scale.
The *Roman's* had a more advanced level of technology than the Amish, as any one who studied classics, ancient history or latin will be able to tell you. Even in pre-christianty, and that's very important.
Yet I doubt, given the standard of American education or the Amish desire to shun technology that anyone Amish would be able to what level of technology they had or WHY it was imporant.
This is not to pick on the Amish, as many Americans would also have difficulty, but I doubt anyone Amish could even touch on this, so I will provide an answer:
It's the reason why we and they speak the English language. It's the reason why they use a *roman alphabet* to write. Without the Romans (and the Greeks) we'd never had heard of the concept of a democracy. In all likely hood they'd all still be in Europe and we'd all still be living in stone hut's and be covered in mut, because no one would have shown us to make concreate buildings and we'd never have thought of having water in pipes (let alone *hot* running water, underfloor heating, mordern farming, state education, legal justice, that sort of thing)
If technology was as childishly simple as providing a place to live, clothing and food to eat we would have stopped developing it over 2000 years ago.
To quote:
>Most people, there and here, see technology
>as a necessary evil, not a blessing
If that were true then we wouldn't have any technology beyond an animal hide code, fire and sharp flint.
As rule, people like technology. That's why it dominates our world economy, that's why your life and mine is full of it
Our brains and our ability to use them to create technology (from fashioning simple tool's to building space stations) make us distinct from other species. We *love* technology. Axes, clothing, wheel's, mills, metal armour, weapons, trains, cars, calculators, digital watches, Space Shuttles, TV's, CD's, DVD's...
Are all the above a "necessary evil"? No.
We built them because we wanted to. For example, we can get along WITHOUT digital watches, but they are easier to read than analog watches, so we have them. They are not *necessary* nor are they *evil*.
New technology is built for a reason, usually because the existing technology was lacking in some way.
Don't be so arrogant as to suggest that people in Africa don't want new technology. They do. They WANT medical care they WANT better transport they WANT wells with clean water they WANT to grow crops.
They ALL require technology. I am FUCKED OFF with reading bullshit about *how EVIL* technology is. It's not that we are FORCED to use NEW TECHNOLOGY, we WANT TO. We *GRAVITATE TOWARDS IT*. The last 10,000 years has shown us that clearly, why do you have such a problem seeing that?
Technology is good and if you cant' see what makes punch cards a limited and retarded system to impliment then you should not be advocating policy. Take for example:
A horse and cart is better than walking.
Cars are better than a horse and cart.
I'm sure some people in parts of the world don't think there is anything wrong with a horse and cart. Primarily because they've not seen what a Car can do for them and their society. We have, THAT's why we drive cars.
By the same token, any system which uses punch cards (for anything other than storing 'tokens', as with a cookie) is linear and very limited in what it can do, it's not fully programmable and not flexible, that means it can't be modified to be more useful.
Newer usually IS better. If you can't see that, I suggest you try living with out some new technology (hey, you do NOT *need* that computer, you just want it, so don't make excuses). If technology is so bad, why arn't you amish?
Well thanks for that.
In fairness it's not quite as structureless as Cobol. It kind of "pretends" to be structured (again not flamebait, but compared to other languages it's certainly lacking), and at first glance it looks to have a little scructure, but it's actually not got much (imo).
I mean, there is no way you could program anything heavy duty in it in an enjoyable way because there is not enough flexibility to create your own methadologies. What I love about Perl (sick and twisted as it is) is that you can very quickly easily create your own coding methadologies for a project - one that every one can agree on and that suits the project best.
HyperTalk had that (only slightly less so than Perl)
It's easy to do actions and then record them in AppleScript, so you can open an email or a file, send an email, modify a file, move folders, compress folders etc and you can very easily figure out how to modify the scripts and you never have to read documentation. That's a good jumping off point for users, but that is not the same thing as grokking the language and using it properly, and the lack of structure makes it difficult to get beyond this (or even want to get beyond this stage!) for all but the most bitterly determinted, meaning that most people look at it once and get board.
If you want to write something a regular Systems Admin might find easy, like say (just as an example):
Recursively open all the files in a directory and all it's subdirectories that end in ".c" , grep them for variables, permform subsituions on a couple of the variable names and then compress all the directories that contain files that haven't been modified in the last 30 days.
Then it's possible in AppleScript, but it will be ugly and you look at the code, and go, yuck! There would be just so much code, about the same as a C version of the same thing.
It's hard to imagine that Apple don't see these issues, but I get the impression that by trying to bring powerful scripting tools to users the engineers developing the software are loosing focus and don't realise how hard it really is to use for really useful day to day stuff. I think, in this instance, that they need to change AppleScript to be more like a typical scripting language - using some features of something like Rebol and Perl - and just have the users accept that they need to spend a *little* time learning it to actually use it well and to reap the rich rewards that it can offer.
Firstly, spelling ability has nothing to do with gammar.
Secondly, I don't think you understand the difference between *knowing a language very well* and *being dyslexic*.
Dyslexia means its's not a matter of how much time you put into it, it's mental condition, one *very* common among programmers as it happens. Unless you actually have difficulty reconising letter shapes (which is severe dyslexia), it doesn't get in the way either.
Now get off my fucking back you weird ass hole.
Actually I've been an Apple Beta tester for Operating Systems and Development tools from OS 7.5 through to Rhapsody (though I've been a Mac /user/ for much longer). I've also got one of the first 601 based PowerMac's off the production line on top of the wardrobe and I've got a shiny new G4 PowerBook on my lap. Age 19 I flew thousands of miles from Europe to San Francisco just to spend 11 days at MacWorld to gawk at this new thing called an iMac (actually I was sponsored to be there so that I could write an article for a Mac Tech pub.) I like Mac's.
But I can't spell very well. Despite going to an expensive and elitest school, to which only a small proprortion of hopefuls actually get to attend, I had to take a remedial spelling class while I was there.
I still can't spell well no matter how hard I try, I never will be able to (at least not without using a spell checker for *everything*).
But otherwise my language skills are well above par. Maybe I should switch back to OmniWeb, the ability to check spelling in boxes is pretty useful.
PS: Did you know Scott Adams (the cartoonist and author) is a reported Mac user. He is also dyslexic.
Actually, I do most of my code in Perl, some in Java and a bit in C (but Perl and Java mostly, because they are fun to use).
Despite being a Mac and AppleScript user for over 10 years (AppleScript since it's insception, but I can't remeber when that was), I still find it quite a pain in the arse to use because of the weird instances of things and the odd, seemingly haphazard way in which you call or reference things - there is no consistancy.
The grammer doesn't make any sense to me, it not as logical as Java and even Perl is simpler by comparison , and I don't mean that as flamebait.
Anyone can use AppleScript, but it's a lot of pain and greif to make it do something really useful. IMO, it's worth speding 2 weeks getting familer with Perl as you'll be able to do much more much faster.
AppleScript Studio is a cool idea, and allows you to do great things with the GUI, but the basic language is still pretty sucky. I hope Apple release the Perl interface to Interface Builder (so us Mac OS X users have a Perl Studio). It has been around internally for a while, but I'd like to see it released.
I'd *much* rather use Perl, Java or shell scripting to do the same things.
Though, if I could, I'd use HyperTalk, every time! As a languge rocks! Apple dropped the ball on that one, it was a great langauge. Really easy, easier than AppleScript even, but entirely logical and OO (without realising your were doing OO).
They are still extending AppleScript so maybe it will get better and make more sense over time..
There was a very cheap commercial solution available in the UK called Blown & Know. You got three use-once-only miniature tubes to blow in (the packet was a about the same size as a condom packet and IIRC, about the same cost).
:).
The retarted police in the UK refused to back the solution because they said it would just encorage people to drink up to the limit. As the limit is only ~1.5 decent pints of larger that's very obviously FUD.
Their web site (www.blow-n-know.com) is down, so think they have gone bust.
(#include I did the web site
>Yes, that was sarcasm. And I don't fault you for
:)
;P
:)
>wanting to monitor the installation of packages.
>However, I do fault you for running unstable on
>your workstation, and furthermore for running
>your primary web server on the same machine.
Sounds like your running low on hubris.
I think Bruce's behavior is somewhat justifiable.
I mean the unstable tree's not *THAT* far behind CVS and he *IS* running a web server on that box...
>Oh, and did you mention your primary web server
>is a laptop with wireless connectivity? I'm
>guessing reliability is assured through HP's
>throwing some money at it. Unless you're
>nostalgic for Windows uptimes or something, that
>is.
Uhoh Incoming! [FUD Shields Up]
I have no reliability problems with wireless on my GNU/Linux (& Darwin) laptop (and I bought my own wireless equipment for the office [FWIW I also a web server on mine]). I have even burned CD's over the network with it.
You should try it, it *way* more fun that in looks! (checking out a new kernel from CVS while sitting on the john is a very liberating experience).
Above.net block only domains relating to ORBS.org AFAIK (As do, it would seem, a growing number of backbone providers) See:
http://www.above.net/cgi-bin/trace?www.orbs.org
http://lg.carrier1.net/
While I do not believe the idea of an RBL is bad one, it must be run responsibly. Not the way Alan Brown (who in a very real sense *IS* ORBS) does it
I see, and on what planet is this? Why in grud's name would anyone buy a copy of Windows if they want to install linux? And to be frank, If you would contemplate giving up on installing a bunch of kernel patches/modules to get your DVD working then you are a big girls blouse :P My Creative Labs DXR2 works very nicely thank-you-very-much.
What you said notwithstanding, you can of course:
A) Buy hardware, plugin, download/borrow/buy OS(for $5), install via GUI direct from CD/Floppy/Networked Interface. Use.
-- OR --
B) Buy hardware with Linux preinstalled. Plugin, turn on and use. -- Full GNOME or KDE office suite already installed.
Dell, IBM, Penguin Computing and many others will all do this, which is even simpler than your MacOS analogy (and not to mention, cheaper):
MacOS X. Pay for hardware and MacOS. Open box. Plug in. Push power button. Go websurfing for free office software. Use Unix. #
I think you forgot (i) Pay for software upgrades with a major revision number (ii) lament lack of hardware upgrade ability. Harsh, but fair...
>As much I hope this would happen, it never will.
>Geeks have neither the balls nor organisatory >skill to do it. Never, ever, ever.
Not organised? LOL.
What about the team work and organisational skills needed to create software such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Apache, Mozilla, GNU {anything}? What about ORBS / the RBL?
These take an immense about of organisation to maintain / develop.
>Prove me wrong. Please.
I think the above does, quite frankly.
As for `[not having] the balls', I don't think that's even an issue. It's not that they don't have the guts to do it, I think most of us can't be arsed. After all, there are plenty of jobs, most of us are well paid, why should we bother biting the hand that feeds us?
--
>It's their bandwidth, there servers, etc. Just like the phone
>company can block incoming calls to your home phone whenever
>they want to, and your landlord can lock you or whoever else
>out of your house because you're just renting it, it's *the landlords* house.
In a situation where you pay a telephone company to receive a phone line or a landlord to live in a building you have the right to expect a certain level of service.
In reality, sysadmins filtering junk email is directly akin to the post office filtering out your mail. Which in the the UK, they do (for a nominal fee). People like the fact that they do that, they like it so much they PAY the post office to take out the junk mail.
It's worth bearing in mind, that if ORBS and RBL were not implimented, then we would all receive *much* more spam than most of us already do, which (for midsize to large ISPs) GB's more worth of hard diskspace and MB's more worth of bandwidth, which would drive the costs up for customers. And, top this, users who pay per-min connection fees would have to pay to download this junk (which they will promptly filter out and trash).
I don't know about you, but it seems lot more sensible for ISP's and sysadmins to filter it out, rather than force the users to do it themselves.
--
Yes, popup windows are evil. How are we supposed to get our pr0n and 0-day w4r3z with all these blinking ads poping up everywhere?
It's not fair, something should be done - I demand the write to advertisement free stolen pr0n and w4r3z! Damn the capitalist pigs!
Ruben, you are mistaken when you say the software is no longer avalible. Itis. I know it is, as I've already stated, I use it.
I refer you to http://opensource.creativelabs.com/
It is true the dxr2 has been replace by the dxr3, but I think that in time support for the dxr3 will be added. One of the pages linked to from creative labs web site suggests that users simply obtain a dxr2 card from ebay, which is not a bad idea. Many computing outlets still have dxr2 for sale.
On a further note:
"There is no currently available DVD for Linux...." This is also untrue. The software is readily avalible and not illegal to use, despite what the MPAA wan't you to think (although in the USA, distrobution of such code is currently prohibited I believe...)
This is something of a metoo but I've been using this for all my dvd's and am very happy with it.
I would recommend a dxr2 card to any linux weenie who wants a cheap but high quality DVD solution, the howto's are a cinch to follow and the player is very simple to use (there are also a few GUI interfaces for the play, but I didn't like them).
BTW, one of the howto's descibes how to use an ATI card with video in in conjuction with the DXR2 to give VGA overlay.
> Repeat after me: Windows CE is not only intended for PDA's.
While we're sort of on the subject, was there supposed to be version of WinCE for x86 desktops (or was that an urban myth)?.
If it's true, does anyone have a source for more info?
I think the idea of a time delay on registered accounts (a minimum lurk period of say, 30 days) before a user can post with a starting score of 1 is an excellent idea.
If the posts of newly registered accounts were treaded the same way as Anonymous posts - posted with a starting score of, say, 0 this would in effect enforce a lurking period during which the new users could read (mostly) good posts and hopefully learn how to write (mostly) good posts themselves (rather than flames).
An option to show/hide Anonymous Coward posts would be icing on the cake.
I don't belive their is a complete solution, but this would in theory keep down the number of moronic Anon posts, and of course if someone abused the system as a registered user, you could pull their account (or it could be pulled automatically for a large number of repeated violations, as judged by moderators) and they would then have to wait 30 days before they could start posting again.
I can see problems with this, as a user could register many accounts at once and then sit back and wait for them to activate, but I think it's still not a bad idea [1].
[1] You could always look at the IP of the user when the account was created and if a bunch of generic accounts [1] are created by the same IP in a short space of time they could be nuked too.
[2] Generic as judge by a bit of Perl set up to do pattern matching.
--
Enough wild speculation already! :-p
BT trials for ADSL are currently underway in the south of England (Anglia? I forget, so it might be in Sussex, or Essex...) and BT's ADSL service will be rolled out in September for a £30 per month flat fee.
PS: If you really feel the need to send a 'fake' e-mail, you can do it the hardcore way, if your up to it... ( warning: only for the truly 3lit3) Okay, here it is, all you need to do is address a postcard to root@127.0.0.1 and drop it into the mail box. Works every time. Sounds simple doesn't it? It's really difficult to trace too!
Hey, have you ever gotten any bounced messages doing this? ;-p