I've never noticed most of these (perhaps because I've been using Macs since, oh, '84), but these are interesting observations.
* Inconsistant PageUp/PageDown use. Some programs move the cursor, some just move the screen. Very annoying when only the page moves. Now if all aps standardized even on the annoying behavior at least we'd be consistant.
How does the app know whether you just want to "look" a few pages up or down (and not lose the location where your cursor aka your current work position is), or actually "move" there? I personally hate when the cursor moves because there's no guarantee you know where it lands- and half the time I wanted to "remain where I was". But I'm a heavy mouser I guess.
* Home/End keys. If you understand the logic, it's not bad. Command-left_arrow and command-right_arrow do the trick. But if you go in and change your OS X keybindings to restore normal windows/linux home/end behavior, you only get very spotty coverage with some apps honoring the keybindings, some not.
Might be a difference between Cocoa and Carbon apps. This is just a legacy Mac thing. Since I'm a legacy Mac guy though, I've never gotten used to using the home/end keys to begin with though;) Command-arrows I've known forever.
* Click to focus a window absorbs that click. But not always. Depends on the app. Really slows you down if you use dual-monitors and have lots of windows spread between them.
My habit that I guess makes this not bother me is that whenever I want to bring a window to the front I click in a "non-busy" part of it. Then it doesn't matter whether the click is absorbed or not, but yes, you would still have to click where you actually want to "go". I didn't know one extra click actually bothered people. though.
* Scroll wheel can only affect a focused windows. This means you can't have your browser slightly underneath your program editor and scroll up and down through API docs without clicking away from the editor window. This one is pretty close to being a show-stopper for me. Combined with the previous problem with the focus these leads to some serious impedence of work. In essence the UI fails in this aspect because it doesn't get out of the way and let you work. Instead it is in your face.
I don't quite understand. If you arrange the windows in a non-overlapping way, it's an alt-tab to change the focus. Not very expensive to do alt-tab, roll wheel, alt-tab back. There is a UI convention that says that the frontmost window should receive all events.
You know, I wanted focus follows mouse for a long time, but then I realized that if you had focus follows mouse, you'd never be able to choose anything in the menus, unless you dragged the window to the top of the screen first to make sure it was the topmost window on your way to the menubar. So not only would you have to have focus follows mouse, but also menus tied to individual apps instead of globally. Forget about it.
It really, really, really sucks, and I can't see how others don't see it the same way except that they've been brainwashed or have had their beliefs conditioned somehow.
I've used PC's since the DOS days and Macs since December 1984. Except for games, almost everything that exists in the PC world (especially the operating systems) has sucked. The only thing that hasn't sucked so bad, is SQL Server and maybe Analysis Services, and Microsoft apparently bought that core technology from someone else (just like the core of WinXP nee Win2000 nee NT came from DEC or whatever).
I have had a few gripes with Macs over the years (INIT/CDEV micromanagement/instability in the OS 9 days, insistence on one-button mice, the Dock... file-security model inferior to modern NTFS) but always way more gripes with Windows (Registry- worst invention ever?? Everyone running in admin mode, needing to run all sorts of scanning software that robs a ton of computer performance, the fact that you have to "uninstall" stuff instead of just "throwing it out"... and sometimes it doesn't work, the way Windows makes you think it's done booting but it spends another 10 minutes loading those stupid goddamn tray apps, the way the Windows mouse has always flickered way more than the Mac mouse... even stupid shit like having to hit Alt-F4 to close a goddamn window instead of the Mac's Command-W), and don't get me started on the "how many config files do I have to edit with magic incantations to get this new app to install" PC *nix variants;)
I was in the midst of bugging my parents to get a C-64 like "everyone else on the block" but then we walked into an Apple store on a fateful December day in 1984. After seeing a Macintosh 128k demo, I don't think to this day that I've ever been so dumbstruck in my whole life. After the demo was done, during which I completely lost track of time, we asked what time it was and the guy pulls down the Alarm Clock desk accessory from the Apple menu. Brilliant.
I stepped up my parental bugging (I was 12) and next thing I knew we had the first Macintosh on the block (perhaps even the town) for Christmas;) It was magic, that thing. Digital sound long before Soundblaster on the PC's... a mouse that didn't flicker across the screen like it STILL sometimes does on Windows... Printing papers on the ImageWriter, the professional look of which far outstripped the fledgling Print Shop type stuff coming from my friends' Apple II's... MacGolf, Dark Castle, MacPaint, a nice Apple training disk (with the cassette audio tape to accompany it!), Copy II Mac, Font Mover, figuring out why they called it the "Finder", HFS filesystem, gigantic 80mb SCSI hard disks, Microsoft BASIC, using ResEdit to edit the graphics, menu and sound resources of any Mac program (in 1985!)...
OK it totally makes sense that there are 1200 replies to this "story", ya geeks;)
Since our political system is divided in a very childish way (two parties)
Actually, it's not so childish (and I've given this a lot of thought, as I am also a little dissatisfied with the two-party system).
Here's the gist: The reason why things boil down to two parties more often than not, is because almost all issues/platforms only have two positions to take, and the major two parties tend to take opposite sides of those issues, thereby "absorbing" everyone who is on that side of that issue. Naturally, since the very nature of the issues/controversies is that there is no consensus on what the "good" or "right" decision is, and because there is sometimes very little affinity between any given two issues, you have some odd juxtapositions such as Republicans being pro-life AND pro-death-penalty.
In voting for a candidate who then wins, what you're getting is a situation where the majority of people are satisfied with the positions in the majority party (in theory). Ironically, if a third party were to come in, they would actually do a DISservice not only to the party whose platforms they share positions on (as they dilute the vote of people who believe in that issue) but also to the majority of people!
Here's a simple example. Suppose 60% of the people thought it was time to pay attention to the environment (regardless of party affiliation). These people are divided up between 30% Democratic, 10% Republican, and in an amazing comeback by a charismatic (as-yet-unnamed) representative, 20% Green Party. Meanwhile, the 40% who care more about business than the environment are 35% Republican, 4% Democratic, and 1% Green Party.
So what happens in an election? We get 45% of the votes for Republicans 34% of the votes for Democrats 21% of the votes for Green Party
Meanwhile, assuming an election where there is no Green Party (where 18% go Democratic and 3% go Republican): 48% of the votes for Republicans 52% of the votes for Democrats
Voila, the Green Party has successfully sabotaged the voting interests for the majority of the people. Even though most people wanted something done about the environment, it's not going to get done, as the minority opinion actually won.
This happens whenever a 3rd party shares a disproportionate portion of their interest with one of the existing parties. And it's extremely hard to get away from.
Thus, I concluded that the two-party system, while imperfect, is the best one we have and tends to satisfy the majority of interests, most of the time.
Sorry about the offtopic. I just see your opinion a lot out there.
I was always below average in height relative to my male peers growing up. I got pubes late, I didn't have to shave until I was 17, my voice changed late, women noticed me late, guys picked on me... basically, my testosterone kicked in way later than it might have ideally and it was a real pain in the ass for me, actually. I didn't date until after high school and I didn't have sex until 21. I was surprised when women finally started noticing me because I had gotten to the point where I assumed I would stay mostly invisible.
The only yang to that yin that I can come up with is that I'm now 6'2", the guy who I was always jealous of who got laid at 12 is now 30 with a nice beer gut and half bald (and looks 38), and I have to sort of beat off the women now. I'm 33 and everyone says I look 26. At my 10 year reunion I was like the skinniest guy there. So maybe it's related to an aging-speed thing. Both my sister and I absolutely look younger than our peers now (but some of that might have to do with me living the bachelor life and trying to look good).
But damn, the cost was high. I tried playing sports with neighborhood kids growing up but invariably I would get bloodied up, which then turned me off from team sports completely (I played tennis and rode my bike instead). I'm a really social guy now (and some team sports are OK) but from 7th-10th grade I was so shellshocked that I barely had a friend and spent most of my time indoors hacking away on a computer (Microsoft Basic on a Mac Plus, lol) with my mom yelling at me to go outside (caught between a rock and a hard place).
So perhaps being any kind of outlier is more painful in general.
Unless you reeeeally think the Gubamint is out to get us, I would definitely trust the cdc.gov and the nih.gov over, um, "fluoridealert.org".
Do you happen to live in Ithaca, NY by any chance? That's the only place I've ever lived (I went to Cornell) who didn't fluoridate the water.
I will not go into the years of dental work I've had to have done to repair the damage from just those 4 years (although admittedly, living in a fraternity and often crashing without brushing probably exacerbated it). I have 2 caps, multiple fillings and just... I had to spend a lot of money, put it that way. My oral hygiene habits didn't change THAT much from pre-Cornell, yet I got almost all my cavities there. Oh, yes, don't even get me started on the between-the-teeth cavities. Those were the best. (I floss like a motherf***er now)
I used and administered SQL Server for years, until Microsoft started (finally) leaving a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Unfortunately, I got used to the admin tools, which are (for the most part) nice.
I'm familiar with things like phpmyadmin and other web frontends to databases (a lesser solution, I feel). I noticed that the new MySQL 5 client tools for OS X that you get with the binary download are actually pretty awesome.
Meanwhile I don't know what the popular interfaces to Postgres or DB2 look like, and from what brief glimpse I got of Oracle, it has a whole mess of tools, emphasis on "mess".
So although I bet a lot of you DBA's are perfectly fine being terminal jockeys, what's it like actually administering these things via some sort of GUI? Etc.?
Actually, I found an example of what you mention
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I believe that this is what you are slandering on about, and this is one possible workaround.
I asked around in #ruby-lang about this, and this is not only the #1 bug in Ruby, it will be fixed in 2.0.
If you had a more concrete broken-lexical-scoping example, please feel free to provide.
In the meantime, if this is the biggest Ruby bug, I'm planning on sticking around for sure;) The readability alone is a huge win over other languages (IMHO).
Not seeing the forest for the trees
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1
Wow. You must be a Pythonista, with that kind of pedantry.
Imperfect lexical scoping is hardly a showstopper. Definitely a nice-to-have, though.
You know what? I'll take this (known, and will possibly be fixed) oversight, over looking at fugly code (all day, every day)...any day./disclaimer: quit my job to do ruby/rails after looking at the competition out there, needed a switch from ASP/SQL Server, very happy so far
Mac Dual 2.5ghz G5 Apple Cinema Display 30" (which is considerably cheaper than an only slightly larger HDTV display, plus the computer is fast enough to push HDTV content) TV adapter (EyeTV Wonder USB2) Fast Internet connection for sucking down content Bluetooth keyboard for "remote control" Hideaway desk that fits all of this perfectly and collapses into something considerably less geeky-looking Aeron chair that can be rolled out of the way Digital 5.1 sound via Logitech Z-5500 Déck ice blue keyboard Microsoft wheel mouse optical iSight with magnet attachment to top of monitor
I have it all set up in the living room in front of the sofa. Works fabulously. I don't own a CD or DVD player (other than the DVD drive), or even a TV for that matter. 100% digital.
I'm certain this setup is cheaper than procuring a separate computer, DVD player, expensive audio equipment, CD player, tapedeck, tivo, etc. etc...
You know, as soon as you hit 30 any day now, your 30+ friends will make fun of you for still being on myspace.;) (I know, because mine do... but then again i'm 33... my myspace profile is only there for my sub-30 friends...)
But I never saw such a concentration of vapid skinny teens creating incredibly awful webpages in my entire life.
I will say that if you want to find anything alternative (drugs, sex, music, what have you), myspace should be one of your bookmarks...
Every company is going to want to go from ONE proprietary vendors' product, to ANOTHER proprietary vendors' product (Microsoft being arguably the worse offender of the two). Now I know that philosophy and geek idealism are probably hard to come by when it comes to IT middle management, but when the shit hits the fan on your Very Expensive Application and it's due to a security hole/insidious bug/memory leak by Microsoft code, won't you be wishing that you could have your guys dig into the source and patch it yourself?
The whole point of relying on open source is that you have no vendor lock-in. Not to mention the cost-effectiveness. But if you want to bet that Microsoft is just aaaalways going to be there for you, go right ahead.
/quit my all-microsoft-tech-shop job, sick of windows and ASP and "microsoft uber alles" mentality //fulltime RoR developer ///already makin the kizzash
I released my first production Rails app last month. I like it a lot. I have a background in ASP/SQL Server/PHP. Not having to use Microsoft Windows itself is a huge win. But I like the design of the language and the framework and the built-in separation and a thousand little other things. Check out #rubyonrails on irc.freenode.net, great community there too.
Is a fairly amazing game for the PS2. You have to find and figure out how to climb up a series of huge, living, breathing, (sometimes even flying) painful monsters so that you can kill them. All you have is a sword, a bow, and a horse. The horse animation is unbelievable. The only annoying thing about the game is the camera dynamics- they often seem to be working for the enemy;) But holding on tight while the thing tries to shake you off, with your stamina draining... A quite exciting experience indeed.
I second the webmail thing. Before I quit my last windows-dominated job (to try my hand at this full-time), it was common for me to use the IE-based Outlook Web Access client since Outlook itself was often buggier.
A very interesting little experiment where thousands of slashdotters in a massive hive mind get to select whether to allow a single server to exist or not. All servers can also be viewed as coral cached over time, often showing just how close the server got to consistent 200 return codes before returning something closer to static.
Re:how to make an auto coral cache shortcut
on
Atari 800 XE Laptop
·
· Score: 1
I only tested it on Safari. All the resources I found indicated that location.hostname was a read/write property in all modern browsers. I suppose the port addition might have thrown some for a lurch.
I guess it just goes to show that web development has a long way to become an exact science when a single line of javascript that appears to conform to "the books" needs to be tested on multiple browsers...;)
how to make an auto coral cache shortcut
on
Atari 800 XE Laptop
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Create a link in your favorite browser that points to the following "location":
(remove the silly space that slashdot puts in the "nyud" part)
Then whenever you get to a site that is slashdotted or otherwise not very available, just hit your shortcut (ideally right on your top bar) and there you go!
where you'd have to somehow keep randomly but non-destructively tweaking the code (automated process, of course) by removing some portion of it that could be part of an md5 checksum, until part of the checksum actually matched the part of the obfuscated data that you removed... or something.
then again all you'd have to do to defeat this is substitute the first two characters from the md5 of the source... arggghhh
But really, is there in fact some clever way to tie the code to its form that is known?
I hate to say that I had thought of a similar method to obfuscate source, except that I was going to take it a step further and remove all obviously sensitive keywords by sort of translating them on the fly... only problem is that you can't get away with obfuscating the "eval" command itself.
The thing is, the method you cite will still discourage "casual hackers" and might therefore have some use.
Is there any clever way to actually make a reasonable attempt at tamper-resistant sourcecode when the source is available? (Smirch seems to do a pretty clever job in the Perl arena!)
Slashdot Mirror
Shapeshifter.
;)
Unsanity makes some other pretty cool stuff, too.
Welcome back into the fold
I've never noticed most of these (perhaps because I've been using Macs since, oh, '84), but these are interesting observations.
;) Command-arrows I've known forever.
* Inconsistant PageUp/PageDown use. Some programs move the cursor, some just move the screen. Very annoying when only the page moves. Now if all aps standardized even on the annoying behavior at least we'd be consistant.
How does the app know whether you just want to "look" a few pages up or down (and not lose the location where your cursor aka your current work position is), or actually "move" there? I personally hate when the cursor moves because there's no guarantee you know where it lands- and half the time I wanted to "remain where I was". But I'm a heavy mouser I guess.
* Home/End keys. If you understand the logic, it's not bad. Command-left_arrow and command-right_arrow do the trick. But if you go in and change your OS X keybindings to restore normal windows/linux home/end behavior, you only get very spotty coverage with some apps honoring the keybindings, some not.
Might be a difference between Cocoa and Carbon apps. This is just a legacy Mac thing. Since I'm a legacy Mac guy though, I've never gotten used to using the home/end keys to begin with though
* Click to focus a window absorbs that click. But not always. Depends on the app. Really slows you down if you use dual-monitors and have lots of windows spread between them.
My habit that I guess makes this not bother me is that whenever I want to bring a window to the front I click in a "non-busy" part of it. Then it doesn't matter whether the click is absorbed or not, but yes, you would still have to click where you actually want to "go". I didn't know one extra click actually bothered people. though.
* Scroll wheel can only affect a focused windows. This means you can't have your browser slightly underneath your program editor and scroll up and down through API docs without clicking away from the editor window. This one is pretty close to being a show-stopper for me. Combined with the previous problem with the focus these leads to some serious impedence of work. In essence the UI fails in this aspect because it doesn't get out of the way and let you work. Instead it is in your face.
I don't quite understand. If you arrange the windows in a non-overlapping way, it's an alt-tab to change the focus. Not very expensive to do alt-tab, roll wheel, alt-tab back. There is a UI convention that says that the frontmost window should receive all events.
You know, I wanted focus follows mouse for a long time, but then I realized that if you had focus follows mouse, you'd never be able to choose anything in the menus, unless you dragged the window to the top of the screen first to make sure it was the topmost window on your way to the menubar. So not only would you have to have focus follows mouse, but also menus tied to individual apps instead of globally. Forget about it.
It really, really, really sucks, and I can't see how others don't see it the same way except that they've been brainwashed or have had their beliefs conditioned somehow.
;)
I've used PC's since the DOS days and Macs since December 1984. Except for games, almost everything that exists in the PC world (especially the operating systems) has sucked. The only thing that hasn't sucked so bad, is SQL Server and maybe Analysis Services, and Microsoft apparently bought that core technology from someone else (just like the core of WinXP nee Win2000 nee NT came from DEC or whatever).
I have had a few gripes with Macs over the years (INIT/CDEV micromanagement/instability in the OS 9 days, insistence on one-button mice, the Dock... file-security model inferior to modern NTFS) but always way more gripes with Windows (Registry- worst invention ever?? Everyone running in admin mode, needing to run all sorts of scanning software that robs a ton of computer performance, the fact that you have to "uninstall" stuff instead of just "throwing it out"... and sometimes it doesn't work, the way Windows makes you think it's done booting but it spends another 10 minutes loading those stupid goddamn tray apps, the way the Windows mouse has always flickered way more than the Mac mouse... even stupid shit like having to hit Alt-F4 to close a goddamn window instead of the Mac's Command-W), and don't get me started on the "how many config files do I have to edit with magic incantations to get this new app to install" PC *nix variants
OS X isn't goin anywhere.
First computer I ever touched and programmed was this Commodore PET
;) It was magic, that thing. Digital sound long before Soundblaster on the PC's... a mouse that didn't flicker across the screen like it STILL sometimes does on Windows... Printing papers on the ImageWriter, the professional look of which far outstripped the fledgling Print Shop type stuff coming from my friends' Apple II's... MacGolf, Dark Castle, MacPaint, a nice Apple training disk (with the cassette audio tape to accompany it!), Copy II Mac, Font Mover, figuring out why they called it the "Finder", HFS filesystem, gigantic 80mb SCSI hard disks, Microsoft BASIC, using ResEdit to edit the graphics, menu and sound resources of any Mac program (in 1985!)...
;)
http://www.zimmers.net/cbmpics/cepets.html
I was in the midst of bugging my parents to get a C-64 like "everyone else on the block" but then we walked into an Apple store on a fateful December day in 1984. After seeing a Macintosh 128k demo, I don't think to this day that I've ever been so dumbstruck in my whole life. After the demo was done, during which I completely lost track of time, we asked what time it was and the guy pulls down the Alarm Clock desk accessory from the Apple menu. Brilliant.
I stepped up my parental bugging (I was 12) and next thing I knew we had the first Macintosh on the block (perhaps even the town) for Christmas
OK it totally makes sense that there are 1200 replies to this "story", ya geeks
Since our political system is divided in a very childish way (two parties)
Actually, it's not so childish (and I've given this a lot of thought, as I am also a little dissatisfied with the two-party system).
Here's the gist: The reason why things boil down to two parties more often than not, is because almost all issues/platforms only have two positions to take, and the major two parties tend to take opposite sides of those issues, thereby "absorbing" everyone who is on that side of that issue. Naturally, since the very nature of the issues/controversies is that there is no consensus on what the "good" or "right" decision is, and because there is sometimes very little affinity between any given two issues, you have some odd juxtapositions such as Republicans being pro-life AND pro-death-penalty.
In voting for a candidate who then wins, what you're getting is a situation where the majority of people are satisfied with the positions in the majority party (in theory). Ironically, if a third party were to come in, they would actually do a DISservice not only to the party whose platforms they share positions on (as they dilute the vote of people who believe in that issue) but also to the majority of people!
Here's a simple example. Suppose 60% of the people thought it was time to pay attention to the environment (regardless of party affiliation). These people are divided up between 30% Democratic, 10% Republican, and in an amazing comeback by a charismatic (as-yet-unnamed) representative, 20% Green Party. Meanwhile, the 40% who care more about business than the environment are 35% Republican, 4% Democratic, and 1% Green Party.
So what happens in an election? We get
45% of the votes for Republicans
34% of the votes for Democrats
21% of the votes for Green Party
Meanwhile, assuming an election where there is no Green Party (where 18% go Democratic and 3% go Republican):
48% of the votes for Republicans
52% of the votes for Democrats
Voila, the Green Party has successfully sabotaged the voting interests for the majority of the people. Even though most people wanted something done about the environment, it's not going to get done, as the minority opinion actually won.
This happens whenever a 3rd party shares a disproportionate portion of their interest with one of the existing parties. And it's extremely hard to get away from.
Thus, I concluded that the two-party system, while imperfect, is the best one we have and tends to satisfy the majority of interests, most of the time.
Sorry about the offtopic. I just see your opinion a lot out there.
I was always below average in height relative to my male peers growing up. I got pubes late, I didn't have to shave until I was 17, my voice changed late, women noticed me late, guys picked on me... basically, my testosterone kicked in way later than it might have ideally and it was a real pain in the ass for me, actually. I didn't date until after high school and I didn't have sex until 21. I was surprised when women finally started noticing me because I had gotten to the point where I assumed I would stay mostly invisible.
The only yang to that yin that I can come up with is that I'm now 6'2", the guy who I was always jealous of who got laid at 12 is now 30 with a nice beer gut and half bald (and looks 38), and I have to sort of beat off the women now. I'm 33 and everyone says I look 26. At my 10 year reunion I was like the skinniest guy there. So maybe it's related to an aging-speed thing. Both my sister and I absolutely look younger than our peers now (but some of that might have to do with me living the bachelor life and trying to look good).
But damn, the cost was high. I tried playing sports with neighborhood kids growing up but invariably I would get bloodied up, which then turned me off from team sports completely (I played tennis and rode my bike instead). I'm a really social guy now (and some team sports are OK) but from 7th-10th grade I was so shellshocked that I barely had a friend and spent most of my time indoors hacking away on a computer (Microsoft Basic on a Mac Plus, lol) with my mom yelling at me to go outside (caught between a rock and a hard place).
So perhaps being any kind of outlier is more painful in general.
Unless you reeeeally think the Gubamint is out to get us, I would definitely trust the cdc.gov and the nih.gov over, um, "fluoridealert.org".
Do you happen to live in Ithaca, NY by any chance? That's the only place I've ever lived (I went to Cornell) who didn't fluoridate the water.
I will not go into the years of dental work I've had to have done to repair the damage from just those 4 years (although admittedly, living in a fraternity and often crashing without brushing probably exacerbated it). I have 2 caps, multiple fillings and just... I had to spend a lot of money, put it that way. My oral hygiene habits didn't change THAT much from pre-Cornell, yet I got almost all my cavities there. Oh, yes, don't even get me started on the between-the-teeth cavities. Those were the best. (I floss like a motherf***er now)
I'll take the goddamn fluoride, thanks.
Best show (of ANY genre) I've seen in a loooong time. I had to download all the episodes to catch up as I just got into it recently. Well worth it.
I used and administered SQL Server for years, until Microsoft started (finally) leaving a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Unfortunately, I got used to the admin tools, which are (for the most part) nice.
I'm familiar with things like phpmyadmin and other web frontends to databases (a lesser solution, I feel). I noticed that the new MySQL 5 client tools for OS X that you get with the binary download are actually pretty awesome.
Meanwhile I don't know what the popular interfaces to Postgres or DB2 look like, and from what brief glimpse I got of Oracle, it has a whole mess of tools, emphasis on "mess".
So although I bet a lot of you DBA's are perfectly fine being terminal jockeys, what's it like actually administering these things via some sort of GUI? Etc.?
I believe that this is what you are slandering on about, and this is one possible workaround.
;) The readability alone is a huge win over other languages (IMHO).
I asked around in #ruby-lang about this, and this is not only the #1 bug in Ruby, it will be fixed in 2.0.
If you had a more concrete broken-lexical-scoping example, please feel free to provide.
In the meantime, if this is the biggest Ruby bug, I'm planning on sticking around for sure
Wow. You must be a Pythonista, with that kind of pedantry.
...any day. /disclaimer: quit my job to do ruby/rails after looking at the competition out there, needed a switch from ASP/SQL Server, very happy so far
Imperfect lexical scoping is hardly a showstopper. Definitely a nice-to-have, though.
You know what? I'll take this (known, and will possibly be fixed) oversight, over looking at fugly code (all day, every day)
Mac Dual 2.5ghz G5
Apple Cinema Display 30" (which is considerably cheaper than an only slightly larger HDTV display, plus the computer is fast enough to push HDTV content)
TV adapter (EyeTV Wonder USB2)
Fast Internet connection for sucking down content
Bluetooth keyboard for "remote control"
Hideaway desk that fits all of this perfectly and collapses into something considerably less geeky-looking
Aeron chair that can be rolled out of the way
Digital 5.1 sound via Logitech Z-5500
Déck ice blue keyboard
Microsoft wheel mouse optical
iSight with magnet attachment to top of monitor
I have it all set up in the living room in front of the sofa. Works fabulously. I don't own a CD or DVD player (other than the DVD drive), or even a TV for that matter. 100% digital.
I'm certain this setup is cheaper than procuring a separate computer, DVD player, expensive audio equipment, CD player, tapedeck, tivo, etc. etc...
You know, as soon as you hit 30 any day now, your 30+ friends will make fun of you for still being on myspace. ;) (I know, because mine do... but then again i'm 33... my myspace profile is only there for my sub-30 friends...)
But I never saw such a concentration of vapid skinny teens creating incredibly awful webpages in my entire life.
I will say that if you want to find anything alternative (drugs, sex, music, what have you), myspace should be one of your bookmarks...
Every company is going to want to go from ONE proprietary vendors' product, to ANOTHER proprietary vendors' product (Microsoft being arguably the worse offender of the two). Now I know that philosophy and geek idealism are probably hard to come by when it comes to IT middle management, but when the shit hits the fan on your Very Expensive Application and it's due to a security hole/insidious bug/memory leak by Microsoft code, won't you be wishing that you could have your guys dig into the source and patch it yourself?
/quit my all-microsoft-tech-shop job, sick of windows and ASP and "microsoft uber alles" mentality
//fulltime RoR developer
///already makin the kizzash
The whole point of relying on open source is that you have no vendor lock-in. Not to mention the cost-effectiveness. But if you want to bet that Microsoft is just aaaalways going to be there for you, go right ahead.
Try Ruby (the language) here. Integral to understanding much of Rails.
I released my first production Rails app last month. I like it a lot. I have a background in ASP/SQL Server/PHP. Not having to use Microsoft Windows itself is a huge win. But I like the design of the language and the framework and the built-in separation and a thousand little other things. Check out #rubyonrails on irc.freenode.net, great community there too.
Another roguelike game that I have found very entertaining, despite the lack of graphics. Sooner or later, you will become that @ sign...
I'm using a Nokia 6600 with the Opera web browser.
I had the same exact problem as you.
The workaround is to go to the regular gmail login page, log in to give your browser a cookie (check off "remember me"), then try again.
I assume they will fix that soon, but I now have it workin great!
Alas, I could not connect using the HTTPS protocol to keep all comm secure. Odd because I got a certificate acceptance message and THEN it failed.
Is a fairly amazing game for the PS2. You have to find and figure out how to climb up a series of huge, living, breathing, (sometimes even flying) painful monsters so that you can kill them. All you have is a sword, a bow, and a horse. The horse animation is unbelievable. The only annoying thing about the game is the camera dynamics- they often seem to be working for the enemy ;) But holding on tight while the thing tries to shake you off, with your stamina draining... A quite exciting experience indeed.
Download Locomotive to get a working Rails environment on OS X lickety-split.
was mozilla thunderbird completely overlooked in this FUD-filled article?
I second the webmail thing. Before I quit my last windows-dominated job (to try my hand at this full-time), it was common for me to use the IE-based Outlook Web Access client since Outlook itself was often buggier.
A very interesting little experiment where thousands of slashdotters in a massive hive mind get to select whether to allow a single server to exist or not. All servers can also be viewed as coral cached over time, often showing just how close the server got to consistent 200 return codes before returning something closer to static.
I only tested it on Safari. All the resources I found indicated that location.hostname was a read/write property in all modern browsers. I suppose the port addition might have thrown some for a lurch.
;)
I guess it just goes to show that web development has a long way to become an exact science when a single line of javascript that appears to conform to "the books" needs to be tested on multiple browsers...
Create a link in your favorite browser that points to the following "location":
n yud.net:8090"
javascript:location.hostname=location.hostname+".
(remove the silly space that slashdot puts in the "nyud" part)
Then whenever you get to a site that is slashdotted or otherwise not very available, just hit your shortcut (ideally right on your top bar) and there you go!
Anyone know of one?
l e),2))))
I was thinking of something along the lines of
eval(deflate(b64_decode('Ay7x8b'+left(md5($thisfi
where you'd have to somehow keep randomly but non-destructively tweaking the code (automated process, of course) by removing some portion of it that could be part of an md5 checksum, until part of the checksum actually matched the part of the obfuscated data that you removed... or something.
then again all you'd have to do to defeat this is substitute the first two characters from the md5 of the source... arggghhh
But really, is there in fact some clever way to tie the code to its form that is known?
I hate to say that I had thought of a similar method to obfuscate source, except that I was going to take it a step further and remove all obviously sensitive keywords by sort of translating them on the fly... only problem is that you can't get away with obfuscating the "eval" command itself.
The thing is, the method you cite will still discourage "casual hackers" and might therefore have some use.
Is there any clever way to actually make a reasonable attempt at tamper-resistant sourcecode when the source is available? (Smirch seems to do a pretty clever job in the Perl arena!)