MindTerm was initially a GPLed product, and continued that way for a little over three years. Around the time that support for SSH2 was added, the people behind MindTerm started going more and more commercial (changing from MindBright to AppGate), and when MindTerm 2.0 was released, it was released as a purely commercial product, with no source code included.
However, on the positive side, another company, ISNetworks, has (somewhat) continued development of MindTerm 1.2.1 (the last GPLed version), making a few enhancements and updates. You can find their version at http://www.isnetworks.com/ssh/. You can also find stock releases of MindTerm 1.2.1 floating around on the web and ftp sites, or if you're running Debian, 'apt-get install mindterm'.
MindTerm is a really nifty little tool, as it allows you full SSH/SCP access to a host from any web browser, just by dropping the Java Applet in a web accessible spot on the host. I've been using it for years, and still make frequent use of it.
Ever heard of Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clements? Magically, he managed to keep a copyright on his shit. Or how about Lewis Carroll, aka. Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson?
Despite your flamish attitude, this is actually a very good and relevant point.
It is perfectly legal to "publish" works under a pseudonymn.
The short of it can be taken from the Library of Congress's site, specifically at the Copyright Office site (alternately found at http://www.copyright.gov). Here is a bit from the FAQ:
Do I have to use my real name on the form? Can I use a stage name or a pen name?
There is no legal requirement that the author be identified by his or her real name on the application form. For further information, see FL 101. If filing under a fictitious name, check the "Pseudonymous" box at space 2.
If you're really interested, you can get full details in this file (Note, it's a PDF), which specifically deals with copyrights and pseudonymns.
ezmlm has the advantage of tight integration with QMail, and extremely impressive speed. One suggestion I have with it, though, is to make sure you include the ezmlm-idx patch. This adds a few very important features, and greatly enhances ezmlm's usability.
I've run a couple of very large mailing lists with it and even under heavy traffic, it held up like a champ.
ezmlm supports a couple of different database backends for storage, although even without them it works remarkably well. I don't remember the name of it, as I don't really use it, but there is a web based mailing list management program available, as well.
And before anyone complains about the license of QMail/ezmlm, yes, that sucks. The license is a royal pain in the butt, as it doesn't allow direct distribution of modifications, only patches. It still works though, and works really well.
It's unreasonable like carving a roast beast-- er, sorry, too much Dr. Seuss-- carving a roast beef with a screwdriver is unreasonable. If the person doing the job finds the tool inappropriate, maybe the mandate should be reconsidered.
Or perhaps the person doing the job should realize that no job is perfect, and at some point they're going to have to accept some restrictions from their employer on how they do their job. At least, if they want to get paid.;-)
Your analogy of carving a roast with a screwdriver doesn't really hold up, because most of the things we're discussing here, LaTeX, XML, etc, were specifically designed for authors. A better analogy would be that you are carving a roast, and need to pick a knife. LaTeX would be one type of knife, while XML/DocBook would be another type.
Just because someone doesn't like the knife they were given doesn't mean that it's the wrong knife. They may just be ignorant of it. Or it may be that the company is standardizing on a single type of knife so that it can more easily share the knives among employees.
Ah, but that's the thing. Mandating the use of XML for technical writing gets in the way of the job. If you're spending time tweaking document structure in an obscure language, you're not writing.
Have you ever used XML (Assuming that we're specifically talking about DocBook, as that was designed specifically for use by authors, particularly technical writers)?
DocBook/XML was specifically designed for creating documents and books. Additionally, XML is not an osbscure language, nor very difficult to work with. Espcially in this age of the Web, everyone is familiar with HTML, making DocBook fairly easy to pick up. As if that wasn't easy enough, there are numerous XML editors available that can make it even easier to work with.
Unless all writing is done in plain text, you will have to deal with some work to make it presentable. Whether that be in a word processor, in LaTeX, in DocBook, whatever, it will have to be done. The question that has to be asked is which format will provide the greatest benefits with the fewest detriments. Depending on the goals of the company, the individual authors may very well not be the best person to make these decisions.
All I'm saying is this: you will almost certainly gain more efficiency and productivity by letting your people do their jobs with the tools they prefer than by requiring the use of any one tool, not matter what its technical or political merits might be.
Ah, but you're looking at this in a very limited way. Yes, you may gain more efficiency in the short run, by individual authors, by letting each person use whatever they want. But in the long run, you could end up spending literally 10 times as long making the end product meet the company's needs.
It's easy for an individual person to look at the situation and say, "I could write this document in only three hours if I could do it in 'foo', but doing it in DocBook/XML will take me four hours", and think that it would be much more efficient to write it in 'foo'. But if this individual is writing a single article that will be combined with four other articles into a single work, and it will take six hours for someone to combine the five differently formatted articles into that single work, then collectively, you've just lost an hours worth of work.
And no, this isn't a purely theoretical example. At a previous employer, we had a situation like this occur. Eventually, we standardized on a single framework for all technical writing and documentation. At first, it did slow people down a little bit, as they were forced to learn the new system. Once everyone became used to it, though, it worked *much* better than before. Being able to easily share and merge documents allowed us to create a single, central, information repository, easily accessible and usable by everyone.
Lastly, while you throw out technical merits with a single statement, it's not something to be overlooked. Depending on what your end goals are, you may *need* to consider technical merits in order to get the job done. For example, if your end result needs to be available as a PDF file, then you better be using tools that support PDF generation. If you're not, then no matter how productive you might think you are, you're never going to get your job done. Sometimes it's more important to fit your tools to your job, than to fit them to a specific person.
I think IT's requiring technical writers to use XML or LaTeX (which is a contrived example, of course) would be unreasonable.
Erm. . . How would this be unreasonable? How is it any more unreasonable than expecting a programmer to use language 'foo' for an application the company is developing? If the technical writer wishes to get paid, then they need to do their job, and that means doing what their employer tells them to do. If that includes using XML or LaTeX, then they either do their job, or find a new job.
When you put unreasonable demands on people-- people who are just trying to do their jobs, by the way-- it's pretty likely that people are going to respond unreasonably.
I'll note again that I don't think mandating a specific way of writing things is at all unreasonable. If these people are trying to do their jobs, then they'll do it as their told to. . . that *is* their job. Being told how to do your job is not an uncommon, nor unreasonable, thing (within reason of course, micro-managing is a Bad Thing (tm)).
My opinion on the whole matter is that people should use whatever tools they like to do their jobs-- to the extend that it's practical for them to do so. XML might have some technical merits over Microsoft Word, but if the writer wants to use Word, that's his call.
That's a great idea, but what do you do then, when you've got 10 different content authors using 11 (One of them got annoyed halfway through a project, and decided to try something new) different frameworks to develop their writing?
And worse yet, what happens when you decide to combine two different authors' works into a single work, when they've both used different tools?
While I'm all for people being allowed some individual choice in how they do their job, there is a limit that has to be considered. If they're working for a company, that company gets to decide both what they need to do for their job, and how they need to do it. If the company standardizes on a single format, such as XML/DocBook, or LaTeX, or HTML, or whatever it is, then everyone at that company should be using it. Regardless of whether they'd rather be using something else, they're being paid to do what their employer tells them to.
However, you're probably refering to a single part of the Lotus Notes package, the Lotus Notes Client. And you're right, that doesn't currently run on Linux.
However, in fairness, there's a reason for that. . . lack of demand. IBM has stated from the beginning that they will support Linux as much as their customers want. So far, their customers have wanted to run Lotus servers on Linux. There hasn't been enough demand for Lotus Notes Client, because most Client users are using Windows boxen.
As I recall, Lotus Notes Client doesn't even run on AIX. The reason, as above, is demand.
I hate to post a simple "Me too!", but I feel compelled to do so, here.
Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind is without a doubt the best Anime, and among the very best movies period, that I've ever seen. It's simply amazing.
My fondest (anime related) wish is that it will be released on DVD (sub at least, decent dub would be nice too) in the US, soon. (Actually, I'd be willing to buy a regionless DVD player and Japanese release of the DVD just for this movie).
As other people have mentioned, Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli have a very specific distribution contract that explicitely dissalows Disney the ability to make any edits or changes to the movies, with the sole exception being dubbing.
This clause came about due to the absolutely horrifying butchering of Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind (IMO, Miyazaki's best movie) which was released in the US (unfortunately) as Warriors of the Wind. Miayazaki was so angry at this that he's almost refused to allow any of his movies to be released outside of Japan until the Disney deal.
I actually saw this first, and while I thought it was interesting, I couldn't help but feel it was a little jumpy, made very little sense, and felt like there were huge holes in it.
Years later, I came across the full version of Nauscaa, and I was blown away. Absolutely amazed. After that, I realized how horrible Warriors was, and I've tried as hard as I could to forget about it.;-)
'blog' sounds like some sort of unpleasant bowel movement. It has to be one of the most horrible abbreviations I've ever heard.
Weblog is a much better choice, and also makes a lot more sense to those who aren't familiar with 'blogging' (once again, doesn't that sound like something you'd do on the toilet?).
Ugh.
Re:What's the difference between it and Mozilla?
on
Netscape 7.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Scripts & Plugins -> Open unrequested windows
Uncheck that, and your browsing time will be much happier.;-)
The goal of a class shouldn't be to see which students are more intelligent than other students. The goal of a class it to impart a certain amount of information to a student. Depending on how much of that information a student absorbs, they earn a certain grade.
If all of the students in the class gain a solid and firm understanding of all of the material that they need to cover in the class, then hell yes they all deserve an 'A'. They've done what they came to do, and that's learn the material.
Using a curve can be acceptable in some (few) certain cases, in order to smooth over the differences between your expectations and your classes abilities, but things like bell curves have absolutely no place in education grading.
You mention that in the average class score is 35% then the test should be immediately curved so that everyone doesn't fail. I disagree. This means that one of two things has occured. Either the teacher overestimated the students abilities, or the students failed learn the minimum required information for that test. Either way, the situation requires more examination, and you shouldn't simply curve it so people pass.
Later, you say that an 'A' should mean that a student is in the top 10% of their class. That's idiocy. What if the class only has 5 people? What if they are all exceptionally smart, or exceptionally stupid? As a different teacher, or prospective employer, what do I care how someone compares to their classmates? All I want to know is whether or not they learned the material that the class covered.
To repeat, grades should be based entirely on how well a student learned the material that was presented in the class they are in. If they learned everything they needed to, regardless of if everyone in the class also did as well, or if no one else in the class did, they deserve an 'A'. If they learned almost all of it, they've earned a 'B'. If they attained a solid grasp of it, they should be given a 'C'. If they know the minimum amount that they need to of the subject, then they get a 'D'. If they haven't managed to learn the minimum information that the course requires them to learn, then they've failed, and get an 'F'.
If you're curious as to where I'm coming from, I'm a part-time college professor who's also still taking classes (and who prolly always will be). I've also worked for a number of years in the private (business) sector doing computer stuff. Thus, I've been on all sides, as student, teacher, and business.
Here's one off the top of my head, since I haven't seen anyone mention it yet. ..
The Immortals, by Tracy Hickman (the guy who wrote all those Dragonlance novels with Margaret Weis, yes). This is a solo effort, and even it's publishing has an interesting story. It seems that due to it's subject matter and nature, Mr. Hickman, despite being a bestselling author, had a great deal of trouble getting this book initially published. I remember him being quoted once as saying that numerous editors and publishers told him that it was an excellent book, but that they'd never publish it.
The book deals with a dystopian society in 2010 where a deadly viral epidemic, V-CIDS, threatens the US and everyone in it. In a panic, the President allows for the creation of isolated camps for the "treatment" of those who are infected.
V-CIDS first began by spreading through the gay community, and this caused a backlash against homosexuals, much like what happened with AIDS in the early 90's. Only this disease is much, much, worse.
This book is definitely not without it's flaws, but it is still a great book, and well worth reading.
This isn't a a novel that would fit into a strict definition of dystopia, but if you enjoy that genre, you'll almost certainly love this book.
A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller Jr., is a simply amazing and excellent book. I'm firmly of the opinion that everyone should read this book before they're allowed to graduate High School.
Both of these books are pretty good. They do have a lot of overlap, but they also present things from different perspectives, and provide some different information. I'd strongly recommend skimming through them both.
If you're interested in a larger listing of (dead tree) books that are available, you can find a list here.
Why do you look forward to my reply? You've given me nothing to reply to.
So far, you've done absolutely nothing to back up your claim that "apache is dying". Until you provide some sort of evidence or proof, all you're doing is spouting an unsupported opinion.
Try making an informed argument, including some support for it, and I'll reply. Until then, I'm done with this thread.
You know, the first time you state something as fact without backing it up can be forgiven as accident, ignorance, or lack of understanding that you will be taken more seriously if you can provide any sort of evidence for your arguments.
The second time you do it, after having had evidence requested of you, and failing to provide it, labels you without a doubt as a troll, and a waste of time.
Re:apache is dying
on
High-End Apache
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Would you like to back up your statements with facts, or should I just file your post under the "useless trolling post filled with garbage passed off as facts"?
The latest Netcraft survey shows Apache having gained, with IIS having dropped slightly, and Apache is still well over 50%.
Apache 2.0 is progressing nicely, and the latest 1.3.x release was made only a few weeks ago. How exactly does that show that 2.0 isn't slated for release, and the code is going closed?
Lastly, even if your groundless statements were true, why in the world would we start over writing a web server? We've got the source for Apache, and it's a pretty slick web server. Don't you think it'd make more sense to continue it's development, forked if needed (which isn't needed)?
Actually, though, I've been doing silly things with parens in my writing for a *long* time, and I only started programming Lisp/Scheme a couple years ago.
You can download a CVS tree tarball (updated nightly) by grabbing the URL:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/PROJECTNA ME -cvsroot.tar.gz
Personally, considering some of the recent changes made to SourceForge (the one I dislike the most is the fact that SourceForge is no longer an open source project (you can no longer download the current source for SourceForge itself (actually, you haven't been able to for quite a long time)) and worse, they've worked hard at covering up the fact that they've closed sourced the project and killed it's development) I would suggest grabbing CVS tarballs of your project very frequently. . . just in case.
Just to let you know, the next release of boot-floppies (the debian "installer") should include an optional 2.4.x kernel (you can select either a 2.2.x kernel or a 2.4.x kernel for the installation).
This should make Woody a lot more useful for a lot more people.;-)
I'd give Scheme a try. It's a functional language, and a dialect of lisp. It's design makes mathematically oriented programming fairly intuitive.
Additionally, one of the best Computer Science books ever written, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, utilizes Scheme. Ths book takes a strong math styled for programming, particularly in the first chapter, and I think it'd be a great way to get yourself started.
Also, the book is available online, full text, for free here.
Re:a resounding yes--people r stupid & inconsi
on
Quoting in Emails?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And it's even better when they put the "YES!!!!" right at the bottom, so you have to scroll past your own message to see a single word of theirs!
Yep, it is, assuming they are in possession of half an ounce of intelligence, in which case they will quote only the specific question you asked (to which they are replying with "YES!!!!").
Chances are the question you asked is short enough (when properly quoted) that both it and the response will be visible immediately, without the need for any scrolling.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually a fairly recent change.
MindTerm was initially a GPLed product, and continued that way for a little over three years. Around the time that support for SSH2 was added, the people behind MindTerm started going more and more commercial (changing from MindBright to AppGate), and when MindTerm 2.0 was released, it was released as a purely commercial product, with no source code included.
However, on the positive side, another company, ISNetworks, has (somewhat) continued development of MindTerm 1.2.1 (the last GPLed version), making a few enhancements and updates. You can find their version at http://www.isnetworks.com/ssh/. You can also find stock releases of MindTerm 1.2.1 floating around on the web and ftp sites, or if you're running Debian, 'apt-get install mindterm'.
MindTerm is a really nifty little tool, as it allows you full SSH/SCP access to a host from any web browser, just by dropping the Java Applet in a web accessible spot on the host. I've been using it for years, and still make frequent use of it.
It is perfectly legal to "publish" works under a pseudonymn.
The short of it can be taken from the Library of Congress's site, specifically at the Copyright Office site (alternately found at http://www.copyright.gov). Here is a bit from the FAQ:
If you're really interested, you can get full details in this file (Note, it's a PDF), which specifically deals with copyrights and pseudonymns.
Hopefully this clears up your confusion.
I would have to agree with this.
ezmlm has the advantage of tight integration with QMail, and extremely impressive speed. One suggestion I have with it, though, is to make sure you include the ezmlm-idx patch. This adds a few very important features, and greatly enhances ezmlm's usability.
I've run a couple of very large mailing lists with it and even under heavy traffic, it held up like a champ.
ezmlm supports a couple of different database backends for storage, although even without them it works remarkably well. I don't remember the name of it, as I don't really use it, but there is a web based mailing list management program available, as well.
And before anyone complains about the license of QMail/ezmlm, yes, that sucks. The license is a royal pain in the butt, as it doesn't allow direct distribution of modifications, only patches. It still works though, and works really well.
It's unreasonable like carving a roast beast-- er, sorry, too much Dr. Seuss-- carving a roast beef with a screwdriver is unreasonable. If the person doing the job finds the tool inappropriate, maybe the mandate should be reconsidered.
;-)
Or perhaps the person doing the job should realize that no job is perfect, and at some point they're going to have to accept some restrictions from their employer on how they do their job. At least, if they want to get paid.
Your analogy of carving a roast with a screwdriver doesn't really hold up, because most of the things we're discussing here, LaTeX, XML, etc, were specifically designed for authors. A better analogy would be that you are carving a roast, and need to pick a knife. LaTeX would be one type of knife, while XML/DocBook would be another type.
Just because someone doesn't like the knife they were given doesn't mean that it's the wrong knife. They may just be ignorant of it. Or it may be that the company is standardizing on a single type of knife so that it can more easily share the knives among employees.
Ah, but that's the thing. Mandating the use of XML for technical writing gets in the way of the job. If you're spending time tweaking document structure in an obscure language, you're not writing.
Have you ever used XML (Assuming that we're specifically talking about DocBook, as that was designed specifically for use by authors, particularly technical writers)?
DocBook/XML was specifically designed for creating documents and books. Additionally, XML is not an osbscure language, nor very difficult to work with. Espcially in this age of the Web, everyone is familiar with HTML, making DocBook fairly easy to pick up. As if that wasn't easy enough, there are numerous XML editors available that can make it even easier to work with.
Unless all writing is done in plain text, you will have to deal with some work to make it presentable. Whether that be in a word processor, in LaTeX, in DocBook, whatever, it will have to be done. The question that has to be asked is which format will provide the greatest benefits with the fewest detriments. Depending on the goals of the company, the individual authors may very well not be the best person to make these decisions.
All I'm saying is this: you will almost certainly gain more efficiency and productivity by letting your people do their jobs with the tools they prefer than by requiring the use of any one tool, not matter what its technical or political merits might be.
Ah, but you're looking at this in a very limited way. Yes, you may gain more efficiency in the short run, by individual authors, by letting each person use whatever they want. But in the long run, you could end up spending literally 10 times as long making the end product meet the company's needs.
It's easy for an individual person to look at the situation and say, "I could write this document in only three hours if I could do it in 'foo', but doing it in DocBook/XML will take me four hours", and think that it would be much more efficient to write it in 'foo'. But if this individual is writing a single article that will be combined with four other articles into a single work, and it will take six hours for someone to combine the five differently formatted articles into that single work, then collectively, you've just lost an hours worth of work.
And no, this isn't a purely theoretical example. At a previous employer, we had a situation like this occur. Eventually, we standardized on a single framework for all technical writing and documentation. At first, it did slow people down a little bit, as they were forced to learn the new system. Once everyone became used to it, though, it worked *much* better than before. Being able to easily share and merge documents allowed us to create a single, central, information repository, easily accessible and usable by everyone.
Lastly, while you throw out technical merits with a single statement, it's not something to be overlooked. Depending on what your end goals are, you may *need* to consider technical merits in order to get the job done. For example, if your end result needs to be available as a PDF file, then you better be using tools that support PDF generation. If you're not, then no matter how productive you might think you are, you're never going to get your job done. Sometimes it's more important to fit your tools to your job, than to fit them to a specific person.
I think IT's requiring technical writers to use XML or LaTeX (which is a contrived example, of course) would be unreasonable.
Erm. . . How would this be unreasonable? How is it any more unreasonable than expecting a programmer to use language 'foo' for an application the company is developing? If the technical writer wishes to get paid, then they need to do their job, and that means doing what their employer tells them to do. If that includes using XML or LaTeX, then they either do their job, or find a new job.
When you put unreasonable demands on people-- people who are just trying to do their jobs, by the way-- it's pretty likely that people are going to respond unreasonably.
I'll note again that I don't think mandating a specific way of writing things is at all unreasonable. If these people are trying to do their jobs, then they'll do it as their told to. . . that *is* their job. Being told how to do your job is not an uncommon, nor unreasonable, thing (within reason of course, micro-managing is a Bad Thing (tm)).
My opinion on the whole matter is that people should use whatever tools they like to do their jobs-- to the extend that it's practical for them to do so. XML might have some technical merits over Microsoft Word, but if the writer wants to use Word, that's his call.
That's a great idea, but what do you do then, when you've got 10 different content authors using 11 (One of them got annoyed halfway through a project, and decided to try something new) different frameworks to develop their writing?
And worse yet, what happens when you decide to combine two different authors' works into a single work, when they've both used different tools?
While I'm all for people being allowed some individual choice in how they do their job, there is a limit that has to be considered. If they're working for a company, that company gets to decide both what they need to do for their job, and how they need to do it. If the company standardizes on a single format, such as XML/DocBook, or LaTeX, or HTML, or whatever it is, then everyone at that company should be using it. Regardless of whether they'd rather be using something else, they're being paid to do what their employer tells them to.
Erm. . . they have.
However, you're probably refering to a single part of the Lotus Notes package, the Lotus Notes Client. And you're right, that doesn't currently run on Linux.
However, in fairness, there's a reason for that. . . lack of demand. IBM has stated from the beginning that they will support Linux as much as their customers want. So far, their customers have wanted to run Lotus servers on Linux. There hasn't been enough demand for Lotus Notes Client, because most Client users are using Windows boxen.
As I recall, Lotus Notes Client doesn't even run on AIX. The reason, as above, is demand.
I hate to post a simple "Me too!", but I feel compelled to do so, here.
Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind is without a doubt the best Anime, and among the very best movies period, that I've ever seen. It's simply amazing.
My fondest (anime related) wish is that it will be released on DVD (sub at least, decent dub would be nice too) in the US, soon. (Actually, I'd be willing to buy a regionless DVD player and Japanese release of the DVD just for this movie).
It's fully intact and un-edited.
As other people have mentioned, Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli have a very specific distribution contract that explicitely dissalows Disney the ability to make any edits or changes to the movies, with the sole exception being dubbing.
This clause came about due to the absolutely horrifying butchering of Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind (IMO, Miyazaki's best movie) which was released in the US (unfortunately) as Warriors of the Wind. Miayazaki was so angry at this that he's almost refused to allow any of his movies to be released outside of Japan until the Disney deal.
Warriors of the Wind. . .
;-)
I actually saw this first, and while I thought it was interesting, I couldn't help but feel it was a little jumpy, made very little sense, and felt like there were huge holes in it.
Years later, I came across the full version of Nauscaa, and I was blown away. Absolutely amazed. After that, I realized how horrible Warriors was, and I've tried as hard as I could to forget about it.
I can't agree more.
'blog' sounds like some sort of unpleasant bowel movement. It has to be one of the most horrible abbreviations I've ever heard.
Weblog is a much better choice, and also makes a lot more sense to those who aren't familiar with 'blogging' (once again, doesn't that sound like something you'd do on the toilet?).
Ugh.
Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Scripts & Plugins -> Open unrequested windows
;-)
Uncheck that, and your browsing time will be much happier.
You're looking at things entirely wrong.
The goal of a class shouldn't be to see which students are more intelligent than other students. The goal of a class it to impart a certain amount of information to a student. Depending on how much of that information a student absorbs, they earn a certain grade.
If all of the students in the class gain a solid and firm understanding of all of the material that they need to cover in the class, then hell yes they all deserve an 'A'. They've done what they came to do, and that's learn the material.
Using a curve can be acceptable in some (few) certain cases, in order to smooth over the differences between your expectations and your classes abilities, but things like bell curves have absolutely no place in education grading.
You mention that in the average class score is 35% then the test should be immediately curved so that everyone doesn't fail. I disagree. This means that one of two things has occured. Either the teacher overestimated the students abilities, or the students failed learn the minimum required information for that test. Either way, the situation requires more examination, and you shouldn't simply curve it so people pass.
Later, you say that an 'A' should mean that a student is in the top 10% of their class. That's idiocy. What if the class only has 5 people? What if they are all exceptionally smart, or exceptionally stupid? As a different teacher, or prospective employer, what do I care how someone compares to their classmates? All I want to know is whether or not they learned the material that the class covered.
To repeat, grades should be based entirely on how well a student learned the material that was presented in the class they are in. If they learned everything they needed to, regardless of if everyone in the class also did as well, or if no one else in the class did, they deserve an 'A'. If they learned almost all of it, they've earned a 'B'. If they attained a solid grasp of it, they should be given a 'C'. If they know the minimum amount that they need to of the subject, then they get a 'D'. If they haven't managed to learn the minimum information that the course requires them to learn, then they've failed, and get an 'F'.
If you're curious as to where I'm coming from, I'm a part-time college professor who's also still taking classes (and who prolly always will be). I've also worked for a number of years in the private (business) sector doing computer stuff. Thus, I've been on all sides, as student, teacher, and business.
There's 8 bits in each byte.
Here's one off the top of my head, since I haven't seen anyone mention it yet. . .
The Immortals, by Tracy Hickman (the guy who wrote all those Dragonlance novels with Margaret Weis, yes). This is a solo effort, and even it's publishing has an interesting story. It seems that due to it's subject matter and nature, Mr. Hickman, despite being a bestselling author, had a great deal of trouble getting this book initially published. I remember him being quoted once as saying that numerous editors and publishers told him that it was an excellent book, but that they'd never publish it.
The book deals with a dystopian society in 2010 where a deadly viral epidemic, V-CIDS, threatens the US and everyone in it. In a panic, the President allows for the creation of isolated camps for the "treatment" of those who are infected.
V-CIDS first began by spreading through the gay community, and this caused a backlash against homosexuals, much like what happened with AIDS in the early 90's. Only this disease is much, much, worse.
This book is definitely not without it's flaws, but it is still a great book, and well worth reading.
This isn't a a novel that would fit into a strict definition of dystopia, but if you enjoy that genre, you'll almost certainly love this book.
A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller Jr., is a simply amazing and excellent book. I'm firmly of the opinion that everyone should read this book before they're allowed to graduate High School.
These books are:
- PostgreSQL: Introduction and Concepts by Bruce Momjian
- Practical PostgreSQL by John Worsley and Joshua Drake
Both of these books are pretty good. They do have a lot of overlap, but they also present things from different perspectives, and provide some different information. I'd strongly recommend skimming through them both.If you're interested in a larger listing of (dead tree) books that are available, you can find a list here.
I know this is nitpicking, but I just wanted to throw out that slander is *spoken*, while libel is written. Though related, they are different.
Why do you look forward to my reply? You've given me nothing to reply to.
So far, you've done absolutely nothing to back up your claim that "apache is dying". Until you provide some sort of evidence or proof, all you're doing is spouting an unsupported opinion.
Try making an informed argument, including some support for it, and I'll reply. Until then, I'm done with this thread.
You know, the first time you state something as fact without backing it up can be forgiven as accident, ignorance, or lack of understanding that you will be taken more seriously if you can provide any sort of evidence for your arguments.
The second time you do it, after having had evidence requested of you, and failing to provide it, labels you without a doubt as a troll, and a waste of time.
Would you like to back up your statements with facts, or should I just file your post under the "useless trolling post filled with garbage passed off as facts"?
The latest Netcraft survey shows Apache having gained, with IIS having dropped slightly, and Apache is still well over 50%.
Apache 2.0 is progressing nicely, and the latest 1.3.x release was made only a few weeks ago. How exactly does that show that 2.0 isn't slated for release, and the code is going closed?
Lastly, even if your groundless statements were true, why in the world would we start over writing a web server? We've got the source for Apache, and it's a pretty slick web server. Don't you think it'd make more sense to continue it's development, forked if needed (which isn't needed)?
Bah.
The parens give it away? ;-)
Actually, though, I've been doing silly things with parens in my writing for a *long* time, and I only started programming Lisp/Scheme a couple years ago.
Yes, there is.
A ME -cvsroot.tar.gz
You can download a CVS tree tarball (updated nightly) by grabbing the URL:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/PROJECTN
Personally, considering some of the recent changes made to SourceForge (the one I dislike the most is the fact that SourceForge is no longer an open source project (you can no longer download the current source for SourceForge itself (actually, you haven't been able to for quite a long time)) and worse, they've worked hard at covering up the fact that they've closed sourced the project and killed it's development) I would suggest grabbing CVS tarballs of your project very frequently. . . just in case.
[Wow, that's one long, convoluted sentence.]
Just to let you know, the next release of boot-floppies (the debian "installer") should include an optional 2.4.x kernel (you can select either a 2.2.x kernel or a 2.4.x kernel for the installation).
;-)
This should make Woody a lot more useful for a lot more people.
I'd give Scheme a try. It's a functional language, and a dialect of lisp. It's design makes mathematically oriented programming fairly intuitive.
Additionally, one of the best Computer Science books ever written, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, utilizes Scheme. Ths book takes a strong math styled for programming, particularly in the first chapter, and I think it'd be a great way to get yourself started.
Also, the book is available online, full text, for free here.
And it's even better when they put the "YES!!!!" right at the bottom, so you have to scroll past your own message to see a single word of theirs!
Yep, it is, assuming they are in possession of half an ounce of intelligence, in which case they will quote only the specific question you asked (to which they are replying with "YES!!!!").
Chances are the question you asked is short enough (when properly quoted) that both it and the response will be visible immediately, without the need for any scrolling.