Since people have listed the most obvious zsh features, I'll list some of the less major, but still cool ones:
RPS1: easily set a prompt that is right aligned, opposite the normal left-aligned prompt. This is where many people put their current path. It means that as you change directories, the prompt always appears in the same place on your screen. RPS1 also disappears if you type enough characters to obscure it, so it doesn't take up valuable needed real-estate
meta-x: Just like emacs, you can execute arbitrary zsh functions using meta-x
vared: Conveneient, built-in editing of shell variables
Named directories: first define a variable to refer to a directory and you get an easy alias to that directory (releases=/path/to/the/release/directory; cd ~releases)
Fine-grained shell files: zshrc, zshenv, zprofile, zlogin, zlogout. This means your zsh scripts don't need to include your interactive shell aliases, that you can easily define login and logout actions...
spelnig correction: My fingers are often too clumsy, when I type a command that is probably incorrect, zsh prompts me to see if it should correct my typo and execute the command I meant to type (optional of course but 90% of the time it does the right thing for me)
saner redirection: to redirect both standard error and standard out to a process: "cvs -n update |& less"
commandline editing: I have about 20 files that all start with a common prefix (us-2004- followed by month and day) and I want to use one of them in a command. Type "tar tf us" and it will fill in as much as it can, for me, the year. Hit again and it will list all the matches below the prompt. Hit yet again and I get a cursor on this list and I can use the arrow keys to select the list element that I want.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm not sure, maybe bash can do some or all of these things now, and I know I'm missing a lot of cool things I use all the time, but I just don't recall offhand what they are.
I started using zsh when I got an iBook running OS X and my two shell options were tcsh (default) and zsh. I hated tcsh, so I tried zsh, and I was hooked. Since then, OS X has come out with a bash version too, but I've seen no reason to switch back. In fact, all my linux boxen (servers included) all have my shell as zsh.
I would imagine that the whole "entering battle standing straight up on something that lifts you 1/4 metre up into the air" might be a bit of a drawback too.
I'm no military expert, but I would assume that a device that makes you a *bigger* target might be a drawback when people are shooting at you.
The difference is, those other status symbols are fancier versions of things that have a purpose. A Ferrari is a car, you can use it the same way you'd use any other car. A Rolex is a watch, you can use it the way you'd use any other watch, (including the Italian Rolexes that the spammers keep trying to sell me (hint Rolex is Swiss)).
A Segway, on the other hand, is not a fancier version of a useful thing. It's a status symbol with no real point. It's kinda neat to look at, and sorta fun to play with, but it's trying to fill a niche which basically doesn't exist.
I think the status symbol the segway is most similar to are those clacking metal beads that were all the rage for executive types a while back. Or they're like robot vacuums, or motorized shoe polishers. They're something that people like to pretend has a purpose, but that is about as good an investment as a lottery ticket.
Look, it's fune if you enjoy spending your money on these things. Just quit trying to convince the rest of us that they're anything more than a silly expensive toy.
Here's what they should do. Sell two versions, one that supports Creative cards, one that doesn't. Charge a little more (say $2) for the one that supports Creative cards. Make a very public explanation that the reason they had to do that is the Creative patent.
Voting is one of the activities that gives you the least say in the way the country is run. If you actually want to change something, you have to donate money and time. Those are the only things that really make a difference.
Here's hoping for revolution, takeover or natural disaster.
Earthlink was sneaky. The url was: "http://www.earthlink.net (about 80 spaces here) @curvet.co.kr/curvetdb/images/CVS/"
I got them all for one simple reason: view source. I looked at the source to the web pages (just as I would do for any potentially suspicious or dangerous email) and looked at where the links pointed. If you do that, it's easy and obvious.
In fact, I had to do that since I've got things up so that nothing is allowed to mess with my status bar, so their attempt to show me a URL in the status bar failed... This is the very reason that I have that disabled. Javascript affecting the status bar is evil. It should tell me what URL I'm about to click on, not some random ad, some "friendly message", and especially not an untrue URL.
Have I mentioned that HTML email is awful? Well that's a rant for another day.
P.S. down with white on light beige and light beige on white!
Voting is endorsing the political process. If you believe in the political process, great. If you don't believe in it, it's pretty hypocritical to vote.
As to whether or not it really has much of an effect on the course of your nation... that's a debate for another day.
In one case, the person is sitting in the seat beside you. If the traffic gets heavy, a driver pulls too close, etc. they'll notice too, and probably quit yakking so you can concentrate. If they're on the other end of a cell phone, they don't know what's going on, and will quit yakking no matter what. In addition, a passenger is unlikely to say something that might distract the driver so much, simply out of self-preservation. Someone on the other end of a cell phone call often doesn't realize that it isn't an appropriate time to talk about intense things.
We were prepared to use a two-pass algorithm that gave equivalent results at a speed hit, but we negotiated the deal with Creative so that we were able to use the zfail method without having to actually pay any cash. It was tempting to take a stand and say that our products were never going to use any advanced Creative/3dlabs products because of their position on patenting gaming software algorithms, but that would only have hurt the users.
Sadly, if Mr. Carmack won't take a stand against evil software patents, I doubt anybody will, or will at least do so successfully.
Think about it. John Carmack has influence and money. People will continue to buy the games id makes, whether or not they use this patented technology. Sure, they might be slightly slower, but considering all the other optimizations id is famous for, it's unlikely anybody would notice.
If a free software project wanted to challenge a patent like this, it wouldn't stand a chance. With no money, it couldn't defend itself. From the other side, the companies that have more power than id simply don't care to take a stand on issues like this.
I can't help but feel that Mr. Carmack wimped out of this fight. Saying that it hurts gameply is just an easy out. Would people really have noticed?
Maybe it's not too late. Maybe if enough people speak up about this, either id will decide to reverse their decision, or Creative will back down and make their patent available royalty-free.
Good lord, this got moderated up? And to think I just used up all my mod points about 2 minutes ago. Read the damn article again. It says that Java is 10x more complex than Alice, the language for which the tool was developed.
Go slashdot moderators!
I mean it. Go! Go Away! If you can't be bothered to read the article attached to the story you're moderating, you're worse than useless.
You're still using artificial tears 4 years later? I'd talk to your doctor, because that sounds wrong. It could be that you've just developed a dependency on those artificial tears.
FWIW, I had PRK in both eyes 6 years ago. I had -8.5 and -9 diopters vision with a strong astigmatism (essentially blind without glasses). I now have very good vision, no need for glasses at all. I do still have halos around bright things when it's really dark, like LEDs at night. I have really big pupils so this might not be a problem for everybody.
That's completely wrong. The cornea is at the outside, front of the eye, the retina is at the inside back of the eye. No laser technique ever touches the retina.
With LASIK, the doctor uses a scalpel to cut a flap off the cornea, then uses a laser to trim away the material under the flap (still part of the cornea) then puts the flap back and seals it.
With PRK, the doctor simply shaves away a few mm of the cornea surface with a laser (after removing a layer of epithelial cells).
Neither technique gets near the retina (i.e. the back of the eye) it only touches the cornea. Neither technique touches the "eye's innards". They both simply shape the cornea, the rest of the eye is unaffected.
I don't have any idea why the retina would detach due to this surgery. I know retinas routinely detach due to traumatic injury, and retinal detachments are a big problem for diabetic people, but neither of those explains what happened here. But one thing's for sure, this poster has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.
Not quite. Particularly in an atmospheric (aka dark) game like Doom 3, I bet most of the levels will be designed for a certain level of graphics performance. Although the game may play ok at the minimum settings, it will be really hard to get through these sections because you won't be seeing what the level designer saw.
It's like trying to play a modern flight sim at 320x240. The framerate might be OK, but your instruments would be unuseable, and because the designers assumed the instruments would be useable, it may not be possible to play it.
I bet your desktops have a GeForce 4 MX, not a true GeForce 4. The MX versions are essentially rehashed GeForce 2. I would bet that most work desktops don't actually meet the graphics card requirements (or that even if they meet them the game would play like crap). Aside from graphics cards, most modern business desktops would probably do just fine.
A radio? Are you serious? The whole reason I like iPods and the like is that they're a source of music *without* the annoying DJs and incessant ads.
I can't honestly remember the last time I listened to the radio. It would have to be at least 6 months ago.
Look, here's how portable music worked. First there were portable radios, then portable tape players (with radios), then the "walkman", integrating those two, then came portable CD players, then finally portable MP3 players. Each one of those has become better and better at providing music the way you want it.
As for emergencies, yeah, a radio that runs on batteries is great. But I don't expect my portable MP3 player to be a useful tool for emergencies. I'm quite happy having a standalone radio, just like I don't need to have a flashlight built into my cell phone.
If someone were to combine technologies, I'd much prefer improved PDA capabilities in my iPod, rather than a radio.
Maybe it's just me, but the idea of wanting a radio built into an iPod is as silly as wanting a buggy whip built into a remote car door unlocker. Sure, if there were a sudden severe gas shortage horses would become viable again, and a buggy whip could come in handy... but I, for one, am happy to leave the buggy whip behind.
Actually, it's more like when you go out to a bar with a friend who can't handle his booze. At some point he starts mouthing off, insulting anybody within earshot, and so on. If you're feeling generous, you either stand by him or at least try to calm the other bar patrons down. Sometimes though, he just gets to be a bit much and you pretend you never met him.
When you don't routinely piss people off, your needs for self defense are quite a bit less.
France has power on the world stage because their GNP is double that of Canada, and is #5 in the world. Sure, Canada's per-capita GNP is almost the same as that of Germany, Great Britain or France, it just doesn't have the population they do.
On the other hand, if seats on international bodies is all that counts, Canada may lack a seat on the Security council, but that's a historical artifact. Afterall, Japan and Germany also lack permanent seats but both France and Russia have one? Canada is, however, part of the British commonwealth, along with India, Australia, Pakistan and Tuvalu -- overall 30% of the world's population.
Clearly, the US believes that might makes right, and that the world operates on force. There are other countries that believe the same: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq (past and present)... On the other hand, the rest of the developed world thinks of using force as a last resort, only after diplomacy fails.
Back to the bar metaphor, if it comes to a fight, Canada doesn't have to worry about going in alone. If you're a decent person, and you don't start fights, you know there will always be plenty of people to back you up.
Anyhow, I can't wait until Parrot and Mono get far enough that your choice of language is decoupled from your choice of platform / runtime.
Re:Why should "cross platform" always mean Java/.N
on
Ars Technica Tours Mono
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Java compiles to bytecode, Python compiles to bytecode. If being a "scripting language" means that you're not *forced* to compile to bytecode to run a program, then aren't scripting languages simply a superior form of "programming languages"?
Verbosity in Java doesn't translate to flexibility. It may occasionally translate to more control, but that's rare. Most of the time, it's just due to the inflexibility of the language. Conversely, just because Python provides an easy way of dealing with files doesn't mean that it lacks flexibility. What kind of low-level things can you do with Java that you can't do with fileno and fcntl in python?
fileno()
Return the integer ``file descriptor'' that is used by the underlying implementation to request I/O operations from the operating system. This can be useful for other, lower level interfaces that use file descriptors, such as the fcntl module or os.read() and friends. Note: File-like objects which do not have a real file descriptor should not provide this method!
Commercial applications use Python and Java. Both are extensively used on servers (like Google uses Python for example). Java may have more desktop GUI use, but Python is used as a scripting engine in many applications, including games.
As for Java being pure-OO and Python not being pure OO? Mwhahahahahaha.
% python >>> (1).__add__(3) 4
Although the syntax may be somewhat ugly, even integers in Python are objects. Try that in Java. Java has Integer objects and 'int' types. That's not even slightly OO, let alone "pure" OO.
Having said all that, I don't even like Python. I happen to be a big fan of Ruby, and am not at all used to defending Python. I think Python's syntax is ugly. I think significant whitespace for indentation of loops and conditionals is a huge mistake, making the code really inflexible when it comes to copying and pasting. I think it's requirement to pass around self when defining methods within a class is simply stupid. And the few remnants of non-ooness bug me, like len(str) instead of str.len() On the other hand, there's even more I dislike about Java. Java is way too verbose, and incredibly inflexible in a lot of areas. By making things like 'int' types rather than classes, it defeats a lot of the purposes of object orientation. At the same time, it makes things more difficult for programmers by lacking a simple printf/sprintf function. Of languages with a C-like syntax, I guess Java is the best option in most cases, but it's lack of true OOness, and its static typing really annoy me. Misinformed people who think that there is something inherently superior about languages which you have to compile to use just make it worse.
Here government CREATED and GRANTED monopolies are illegal and unconstitutional.
Where in the constitution does it mention monopolies? As far as I know, monopolies are entirely legal, until they abuse their monopoly power. And the government regularly grants monopolies, like to ICANN or IANA.
They're inherently evil though, right? The public would be better served if there were all kinds of competing TLD registries, incompatible internet protocols, conflicting naming and numbering schemes, limited interconnection of networks and nodes...
The Internet is a success *because* of monopoly. There's one body setting standards, and although there are lots of people violating those standards, or extending them, or doing all kinds of nasty things, at least there's a standard there. There's a standard there because there's a monopoly behind the system.
If your college is turning out 500 people who are so specialized they can only do 1 job, and that job is already filled, your college isn't doing its job. Do you think that photocopiers are evil things because now scribes can't get jobs? Now 1 secretary can do the work of 500 secretaries from the days before automation. Are our gutters clogged with secretaries who couldn't find work, and were forced to live on the street? Nope, they just found new jobs.
As for that one secretary who gets the job, there's nothing saying she won't innovate. In fact, if her company isn't in such fierce competition, they may end up being more receptive to ideas that won't turn a profit immediately, but instead will only help in the long term. For example, say this secretary finds she spends hours photocopying the same documents, over and over again. She may suggest to her bosses that they make the documents electronic, so that instead of having to find the original, photocopy it, and re-file it, she can just print it out. The cost of putting this infrastructure in place is very high, so if the company is in fierce competition, they might not bother. If they have a cushy monopoly, they may see the long-term benefits of going all electronic and go for the idea. And guess what? There are some jobs being created, they have to hire people to set up the electronic document system, to maintain it, to transition from the old system. Guess what, this monopoly is creating jobs!
I agree with you that an unregulated monopoly, driven by the requirement to make as big a profit as possible is bad. But there are other kinds of monopolies, and more importantly, there is regulation.
Regulation doesn't have to be black and white, either leave the company alone until it breaks antitrust laws, then attack it and try to destroy it. That's not a great way to go.
Regulation can be what I described earlier, capping the profit the monopoly is allowed to make, or the rates they're allowed to charge. It can force the monopoly to do all kinds of other things that a company driven strictly by profit motives wouldn't do, like provide service to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it.
This isn't unheard of, even in the US. There are plenty of places that have monopolies in place, but regulate them. Admittedly, like in the case of California's power system, it fails. But other times it works, and the end result for consumers is a win.
Finally, a personal note about health care. I've lived on a country with government-provided health-care, and in a country with fully privatized health care, and the experience in the government-provided health care country was immeasurably better than the private system. In the free health care system I had a problem with my knee. I was able to see my doctor, who referred me to a specialist, the specialist decided I needed surgery, and so I had an operation. All this at no direct cost to me. Sure, I had to wait to see the specialist, and wait to have the surgery, but my problem wasn't life threatening. In the US I've also had knee probl
And the only way something can be unreal is elves and magic? What about aliens and future technology? What about cavemen and dinosaurs? What about cyborgs and plasma rifles? What about a midieval setting but without elves or magic?
I have no problem with unrealistic settings, but with all the variety out there, why do we always get stuck with the same old theme: elves and magic?
I'm actually a demicanadian hunter-strangler, not that there's nothing wrong with robot monks.
But it says something that Progress Quest can actually be mildly fun to play... er... watch. It kinda brings out some of the real stupidity of RPGs. For example, since there's a free Everquest trial on, I decided to try it. Progress Quest was far more fun.
In Everquest, not only did I have to play inventory tetris, but the quests were less obvious than the Progress Quest quests, dying was just as meaningless, and the main point of the game seems to be wandering around, killing random things, looting their corpses, and selling off the goods.
It also says something that the quests, items, classes and races in Progress Quest are more interesting than most RPGs.
Slashdot Mirror
Since people have listed the most obvious zsh features, I'll list some of the less major, but still cool ones:
This is just off the top of my head. I'm not sure, maybe bash can do some or all of these things now, and I know I'm missing a lot of cool things I use all the time, but I just don't recall offhand what they are.
I started using zsh when I got an iBook running OS X and my two shell options were tcsh (default) and zsh. I hated tcsh, so I tried zsh, and I was hooked. Since then, OS X has come out with a bash version too, but I've seen no reason to switch back. In fact, all my linux boxen (servers included) all have my shell as zsh.
Yeah, that was a problem for me, then my musical tastes changed and I stopped listening to 80s metal bands. Now ZSH does all I need.
(hint)
I would imagine that the whole "entering battle standing straight up on something that lifts you 1/4 metre up into the air" might be a bit of a drawback too.
I'm no military expert, but I would assume that a device that makes you a *bigger* target might be a drawback when people are shooting at you.
The difference is, those other status symbols are fancier versions of things that have a purpose. A Ferrari is a car, you can use it the same way you'd use any other car. A Rolex is a watch, you can use it the way you'd use any other watch, (including the Italian Rolexes that the spammers keep trying to sell me (hint Rolex is Swiss)).
A Segway, on the other hand, is not a fancier version of a useful thing. It's a status symbol with no real point. It's kinda neat to look at, and sorta fun to play with, but it's trying to fill a niche which basically doesn't exist.
I think the status symbol the segway is most similar to are those clacking metal beads that were all the rage for executive types a while back. Or they're like robot vacuums, or motorized shoe polishers. They're something that people like to pretend has a purpose, but that is about as good an investment as a lottery ticket.
Look, it's fune if you enjoy spending your money on these things. Just quit trying to convince the rest of us that they're anything more than a silly expensive toy.
Here's what they should do. Sell two versions, one that supports Creative cards, one that doesn't. Charge a little more (say $2) for the one that supports Creative cards. Make a very public explanation that the reason they had to do that is the Creative patent.
Voting is one of the activities that gives you the least say in the way the country is run. If you actually want to change something, you have to donate money and time. Those are the only things that really make a difference.
Here's hoping for revolution, takeover or natural disaster.
Earthlink was sneaky. The url was: "http://www.earthlink.net (about 80 spaces here) @curvet.co.kr/curvetdb/images/CVS/"
I got them all for one simple reason: view source. I looked at the source to the web pages (just as I would do for any potentially suspicious or dangerous email) and looked at where the links pointed. If you do that, it's easy and obvious.
In fact, I had to do that since I've got things up so that nothing is allowed to mess with my status bar, so their attempt to show me a URL in the status bar failed... This is the very reason that I have that disabled. Javascript affecting the status bar is evil. It should tell me what URL I'm about to click on, not some random ad, some "friendly message", and especially not an untrue URL.
Have I mentioned that HTML email is awful? Well that's a rant for another day.
P.S. down with white on light beige and light beige on white!
Oh, so somehow the person on the other end of the phone knows when traffic is heavy, and they should let you concentrate?
Voting is endorsing the political process. If you believe in the political process, great. If you don't believe in it, it's pretty hypocritical to vote.
As to whether or not it really has much of an effect on the course of your nation... that's a debate for another day.
In one case, the person is sitting in the seat beside you. If the traffic gets heavy, a driver pulls too close, etc. they'll notice too, and probably quit yakking so you can concentrate. If they're on the other end of a cell phone, they don't know what's going on, and will quit yakking no matter what. In addition, a passenger is unlikely to say something that might distract the driver so much, simply out of self-preservation. Someone on the other end of a cell phone call often doesn't realize that it isn't an appropriate time to talk about intense things.
Sadly, if Mr. Carmack won't take a stand against evil software patents, I doubt anybody will, or will at least do so successfully.
Think about it. John Carmack has influence and money. People will continue to buy the games id makes, whether or not they use this patented technology. Sure, they might be slightly slower, but considering all the other optimizations id is famous for, it's unlikely anybody would notice.
If a free software project wanted to challenge a patent like this, it wouldn't stand a chance. With no money, it couldn't defend itself. From the other side, the companies that have more power than id simply don't care to take a stand on issues like this.
I can't help but feel that Mr. Carmack wimped out of this fight. Saying that it hurts gameply is just an easy out. Would people really have noticed?
Maybe it's not too late. Maybe if enough people speak up about this, either id will decide to reverse their decision, or Creative will back down and make their patent available royalty-free.
His own military uniform? What, like a flight suit or something?
Good lord, this got moderated up? And to think I just used up all my mod points about 2 minutes ago. Read the damn article again. It says that Java is 10x more complex than Alice, the language for which the tool was developed.
Go slashdot moderators!
I mean it. Go! Go Away! If you can't be bothered to read the article attached to the story you're moderating, you're worse than useless.
You're still using artificial tears 4 years later? I'd talk to your doctor, because that sounds wrong. It could be that you've just developed a dependency on those artificial tears.
FWIW, I had PRK in both eyes 6 years ago. I had -8.5 and -9 diopters vision with a strong astigmatism (essentially blind without glasses). I now have very good vision, no need for glasses at all. I do still have halos around bright things when it's really dark, like LEDs at night. I have really big pupils so this might not be a problem for everybody.
That's completely wrong. The cornea is at the outside, front of the eye, the retina is at the inside back of the eye. No laser technique ever touches the retina.
With LASIK, the doctor uses a scalpel to cut a flap off the cornea, then uses a laser to trim away the material under the flap (still part of the cornea) then puts the flap back and seals it.
With PRK, the doctor simply shaves away a few mm of the cornea surface with a laser (after removing a layer of epithelial cells).
Neither technique gets near the retina (i.e. the back of the eye) it only touches the cornea. Neither technique touches the "eye's innards". They both simply shape the cornea, the rest of the eye is unaffected.
I don't have any idea why the retina would detach due to this surgery. I know retinas routinely detach due to traumatic injury, and retinal detachments are a big problem for diabetic people, but neither of those explains what happened here. But one thing's for sure, this poster has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.
Hmm, it seems to me that writing software is a lot like writing newspaper stories. We have code reviews, they have editors.
I wonder, if in its entire illustrious history, the paper has ever had to print a correction.
Not quite. Particularly in an atmospheric (aka dark) game like Doom 3, I bet most of the levels will be designed for a certain level of graphics performance. Although the game may play ok at the minimum settings, it will be really hard to get through these sections because you won't be seeing what the level designer saw.
It's like trying to play a modern flight sim at 320x240. The framerate might be OK, but your instruments would be unuseable, and because the designers assumed the instruments would be useable, it may not be possible to play it.
I bet your desktops have a GeForce 4 MX, not a true GeForce 4. The MX versions are essentially rehashed GeForce 2. I would bet that most work desktops don't actually meet the graphics card requirements (or that even if they meet them the game would play like crap). Aside from graphics cards, most modern business desktops would probably do just fine.
A radio? Are you serious? The whole reason I like iPods and the like is that they're a source of music *without* the annoying DJs and incessant ads.
I can't honestly remember the last time I listened to the radio. It would have to be at least 6 months ago.
Look, here's how portable music worked. First there were portable radios, then portable tape players (with radios), then the "walkman", integrating those two, then came portable CD players, then finally portable MP3 players. Each one of those has become better and better at providing music the way you want it.
As for emergencies, yeah, a radio that runs on batteries is great. But I don't expect my portable MP3 player to be a useful tool for emergencies. I'm quite happy having a standalone radio, just like I don't need to have a flashlight built into my cell phone.
If someone were to combine technologies, I'd much prefer improved PDA capabilities in my iPod, rather than a radio.
Maybe it's just me, but the idea of wanting a radio built into an iPod is as silly as wanting a buggy whip built into a remote car door unlocker. Sure, if there were a sudden severe gas shortage horses would become viable again, and a buggy whip could come in handy... but I, for one, am happy to leave the buggy whip behind.
P.S. his name is Steve Jobs.
Actually, it's more like when you go out to a bar with a friend who can't handle his booze. At some point he starts mouthing off, insulting anybody within earshot, and so on. If you're feeling generous, you either stand by him or at least try to calm the other bar patrons down. Sometimes though, he just gets to be a bit much and you pretend you never met him.
When you don't routinely piss people off, your needs for self defense are quite a bit less.
France has power on the world stage because their GNP is double that of Canada, and is #5 in the world. Sure, Canada's per-capita GNP is almost the same as that of Germany, Great Britain or France, it just doesn't have the population they do.
On the other hand, if seats on international bodies is all that counts, Canada may lack a seat on the Security council, but that's a historical artifact. Afterall, Japan and Germany also lack permanent seats but both France and Russia have one? Canada is, however, part of the British commonwealth, along with India, Australia, Pakistan and Tuvalu -- overall 30% of the world's population.
Clearly, the US believes that might makes right, and that the world operates on force. There are other countries that believe the same: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq (past and present)... On the other hand, the rest of the developed world thinks of using force as a last resort, only after diplomacy fails.
Back to the bar metaphor, if it comes to a fight, Canada doesn't have to worry about going in alone. If you're a decent person, and you don't start fights, you know there will always be plenty of people to back you up.
Or even easier:
Anyhow, I can't wait until Parrot and Mono get far enough that your choice of language is decoupled from your choice of platform / runtime.
Java compiles to bytecode, Python compiles to bytecode. If being a "scripting language" means that you're not *forced* to compile to bytecode to run a program, then aren't scripting languages simply a superior form of "programming languages"?
Verbosity in Java doesn't translate to flexibility. It may occasionally translate to more control, but that's rare. Most of the time, it's just due to the inflexibility of the language. Conversely, just because Python provides an easy way of dealing with files doesn't mean that it lacks flexibility. What kind of low-level things can you do with Java that you can't do with fileno and fcntl in python?
Commercial applications use Python and Java. Both are extensively used on servers (like Google uses Python for example). Java may have more desktop GUI use, but Python is used as a scripting engine in many applications, including games.
As for Java being pure-OO and Python not being pure OO? Mwhahahahahaha.
Although the syntax may be somewhat ugly, even integers in Python are objects. Try that in Java. Java has Integer objects and 'int' types. That's not even slightly OO, let alone "pure" OO.
Having said all that, I don't even like Python. I happen to be a big fan of Ruby, and am not at all used to defending Python. I think Python's syntax is ugly. I think significant whitespace for indentation of loops and conditionals is a huge mistake, making the code really inflexible when it comes to copying and pasting. I think it's requirement to pass around self when defining methods within a class is simply stupid. And the few remnants of non-ooness bug me, like len(str) instead of str.len() On the other hand, there's even more I dislike about Java. Java is way too verbose, and incredibly inflexible in a lot of areas. By making things like 'int' types rather than classes, it defeats a lot of the purposes of object orientation. At the same time, it makes things more difficult for programmers by lacking a simple printf/sprintf function. Of languages with a C-like syntax, I guess Java is the best option in most cases, but it's lack of true OOness, and its static typing really annoy me. Misinformed people who think that there is something inherently superior about languages which you have to compile to use just make it worse.
Where in the constitution does it mention monopolies? As far as I know, monopolies are entirely legal, until they abuse their monopoly power. And the government regularly grants monopolies, like to ICANN or IANA.
They're inherently evil though, right? The public would be better served if there were all kinds of competing TLD registries, incompatible internet protocols, conflicting naming and numbering schemes, limited interconnection of networks and nodes...
The Internet is a success *because* of monopoly. There's one body setting standards, and although there are lots of people violating those standards, or extending them, or doing all kinds of nasty things, at least there's a standard there. There's a standard there because there's a monopoly behind the system.
If your college is turning out 500 people who are so specialized they can only do 1 job, and that job is already filled, your college isn't doing its job. Do you think that photocopiers are evil things because now scribes can't get jobs? Now 1 secretary can do the work of 500 secretaries from the days before automation. Are our gutters clogged with secretaries who couldn't find work, and were forced to live on the street? Nope, they just found new jobs.
As for that one secretary who gets the job, there's nothing saying she won't innovate. In fact, if her company isn't in such fierce competition, they may end up being more receptive to ideas that won't turn a profit immediately, but instead will only help in the long term. For example, say this secretary finds she spends hours photocopying the same documents, over and over again. She may suggest to her bosses that they make the documents electronic, so that instead of having to find the original, photocopy it, and re-file it, she can just print it out. The cost of putting this infrastructure in place is very high, so if the company is in fierce competition, they might not bother. If they have a cushy monopoly, they may see the long-term benefits of going all electronic and go for the idea. And guess what? There are some jobs being created, they have to hire people to set up the electronic document system, to maintain it, to transition from the old system. Guess what, this monopoly is creating jobs!
I agree with you that an unregulated monopoly, driven by the requirement to make as big a profit as possible is bad. But there are other kinds of monopolies, and more importantly, there is regulation.
Regulation doesn't have to be black and white, either leave the company alone until it breaks antitrust laws, then attack it and try to destroy it. That's not a great way to go.
Regulation can be what I described earlier, capping the profit the monopoly is allowed to make, or the rates they're allowed to charge. It can force the monopoly to do all kinds of other things that a company driven strictly by profit motives wouldn't do, like provide service to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it.
This isn't unheard of, even in the US. There are plenty of places that have monopolies in place, but regulate them. Admittedly, like in the case of California's power system, it fails. But other times it works, and the end result for consumers is a win.
Finally, a personal note about health care. I've lived on a country with government-provided health-care, and in a country with fully privatized health care, and the experience in the government-provided health care country was immeasurably better than the private system. In the free health care system I had a problem with my knee. I was able to see my doctor, who referred me to a specialist, the specialist decided I needed surgery, and so I had an operation. All this at no direct cost to me. Sure, I had to wait to see the specialist, and wait to have the surgery, but my problem wasn't life threatening. In the US I've also had knee probl
And the only way something can be unreal is elves and magic? What about aliens and future technology? What about cavemen and dinosaurs? What about cyborgs and plasma rifles? What about a midieval setting but without elves or magic?
I have no problem with unrealistic settings, but with all the variety out there, why do we always get stuck with the same old theme: elves and magic?
I'm actually a demicanadian hunter-strangler, not that there's nothing wrong with robot monks.
But it says something that Progress Quest can actually be mildly fun to play... er... watch. It kinda brings out some of the real stupidity of RPGs. For example, since there's a free Everquest trial on, I decided to try it. Progress Quest was far more fun.
In Everquest, not only did I have to play inventory tetris, but the quests were less obvious than the Progress Quest quests, dying was just as meaningless, and the main point of the game seems to be wandering around, killing random things, looting their corpses, and selling off the goods.
It also says something that the quests, items, classes and races in Progress Quest are more interesting than most RPGs.