Personally, I think that the trend towards XML based configuration files is not much better, because they seem to me as just another form of the example above.
I disagree:
You can still embed comments in XML files.
This:
[FOO] bar: baz
is not inherently superior to:
<foo> <bar>baz</bar> </foo>
CVS, SVN, and so on handle XML just as easily as text.
Authors don't have to write their own config file parsers. Every language comes with an XML parser these days. Code re-use is good.
You can write a DTD or Relax NG schema that describes the config file, then use any XML authoring or validation tool you want to generate and test the resulting file.
Unicode? Handled.
Basically, I see no disadvantage in XML config files and a whole lot of reasons why they're nice. That doesn't mean I always use them for my own code, but I'm starting to lean in that direction.
I was not asking for censorship; just some common sense and respect for corporate protocols.
Look, I really do understand your point, but that is censorship - even if seemingly reasonable. And frankly, asking the average Slashdotter to respect a corporation's thin skin is like asking water to not be wet.
What scares me is that $9,250 was a compromise. How much were the real asshats shooting for for that they were able to be talked down to a $200K penalty?
"Microsoft Releases IIS Fascist Module"? So I see they've made it official. On the other, it might be better than the "IIS Promiscuous Module" that seemed to be so popular a few years ago.
So you're saying that slavishly obeying three-letter file extensions is a good thing when OO does it?
Let's get this right: when someone opens a text file called something.txt and OOo decides to open that with the text editing component, that's slavish obedience?
If the numeric values happen to correspond to RGB colors, should it guess that the text file called something.txt ought to be opened with Draw instead?
Why is the King James version, as pointed out by my link, a part of public domain, whereas other versions are not?
It's 400 years old.
And that brings up another point which I already touched on...different versions of a religious text. That certainly cemets my belief into place knowing that there are different versions out there written by the same person who wrote the "original bible": Man.
There are even more translations of Plato. I suppose that means that his words are actually the product of a large group of people and not a single original source.
Honestly, I'm not interested in arguing for or against your position. It's just that your logic is pretty specious, regardless of whether I agreed with you or not.
We keep them away from sex until way beyond when they're physically ready for it, but we have no problem with them being indoctrinated in a religious faith long before they understand that some things their parents or other authority figures tell them might not be entirely the truth.
In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.
Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.
Every time I drive past a church that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing.
You're over-thinking it. Yes, some churches go overboard, but most of what you see is based on necessity and not avarice.
First, churches get built where people are. Sometimes that land is more expensive than the empty spaces in the middle of nowhere that people wouldn't bother driving to. Other times a church was built on cheap land that gets enveloped or gentrified later.
Now, imagine a largish church with 5,000 Sunday-morning worshippers. There is a set minimum size room that can comfortable accommodate that many people. Now, if it costs $X to built, would you rather see a gray cinder block box next to your house or a nice looking place that cost $X*1.1?
I tried, and failed, to think of any reason for that book to be banned.
If you look very closely at one specific image, you can see a topless woman on a beach. I have to admit that I was pretty surprised to see nudity in a Where's Waldo book (even of the silly, cartoony variety), although not so surprised that I'd want to run out and ban it.
L'Engle's liberal Christianity is unsettling to some. This novel is on the American Library Association list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 19902000 at number 22. Reasons given include the book's references to witches and crystal balls (although the characters are not in fact witches, and the crystal ball is a science fictional one), the claim that it "challenges religious beliefs", and the listing of Jesus "with the names of great artists, philosophers, scientists, and religious leaders".
Off-topic note: as a lifelong Christian, I have no problem with some concepts. Those complaints are specific to a vocal minority.
I'm not a parent and I'm not sure I will be any time soon (I'm 24, after all), but I will say that I can't imagine ever telling a child "you can't read that book ever".
Likewise. My parents told me a few times that they wished I'd read something other than the cheap sci-fi or horror novel I was carrying around that week, and they'd tell me why, but I don't remember ever being told that I couldn't read something. I imagine I'll be having the same conversation with my kids some day as they migrate from "Hank The Cowdog" to "The Shining".
Was there a summary of WHY the books were banned in the first place?
The ALA doesn't provide that information, at least not that I could find. Wikipedia has information on individual books, eg in the entry for "Flowers for Algernon":
While the full novel does contain material about the character's personal life (that is, flashbacks of experiences of puberty that may be objectionable to some readers), the original short story does not.
My wife and I make it a point to buy the books on their list of "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000". Seriously, people who want to ban "Huck Finn" or "A Wrinkle In Time" should be rounded up and shot (how's that for censorship?). I don't want to live in a society where my kids can't read "Flowers For Algernon" some day, so we make sure that those books will always be available to them.
Having said that, a lot of those books were challenged for being inappropriate for an age group, and I'm pretty OK with that kind of restriction. I can't think of a single reason why Madonna's "Sex" would be appropriate for a first grader, for example, and I'd be a bit irked if it showed up in the local early-elementary library.
Anyway, one big advantage for me with webmail is that it has the environment independence going for it. Not just platform or software independence, but usually not even dependent on your OS configuration or software installs. That's a pretty big one for me.
So, how often do you find yourself switching OSes for extended periods?
But anyway, we're all geeks here, right? So solve the problem yourself.
Build a mailserver and install Cyrus IMAP.
Migrate your client-side filtering rules into a server-side "Sieve" script. Example snippet from mine:
Install RoundCube webmail for those times when you're away from your own PC.
Realize that you have complete freedom to experiment with OSes and clients and browsers to your heart's content without having to worry about synchronizing your mail and making sure that your filters are identical everywhere.
The above is clearly not something I'd recommend to your average user. But again, we're all geeks here, right?
On October 1, McBride claimed that the rumors of SCO demise are greatly exaggerated.
And on September 18, McBride claimed that "[a]s a result of both the Court's August 10, 2007 ruling and our entry into Chapter 11, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. " He has a lithe relationship with reality.
Re:What is this crazy tags thing?
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
since the tagging system seems to be a complete failure...
I actually kind of like them. When I see an article slathered with "flamebait", "badsummary", "inaccurate", etc. then I have a pretty good idea that it's not worth getting worked up about and that I'll probably read its debunking a few comments down. I think that's a fairly nice service.
The real scoop behind Michael's departure
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
OK, this isn't exactly on the level of JFK assassination or moon landing hoax conspiracies, but nonetheless a lot of us want to know: what really happened to Michael Sims? He was the editor we loved to hate and one day he was just gone.
For those of you who aren't familiar with them, resource forks were a part of a file under the Classic MacOS (OS 9 and before) that contained icon information, filetype and creator codes, etc.
I'll be happy to see them kill that obsolete feature. It's hard to implement everything-is-a-file semantics when some things are files, and others are combinations of random amounts of metadata.
You see, whenever we express our displeasure by not buying their stuff, they see lost money on the bottom line.
Let them see whatever they want, as long as they go bankrupt in the process. Who cares if they see pink fairies flying away with bags of doubloons as they're watching their office furniture get auctioned off?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! I was given one of those this morning and I'm still trying to get it networked.
Amiga LoverThose were the days.
I disagree:
Basically, I see no disadvantage in XML config files and a whole lot of reasons why they're nice. That doesn't mean I always use them for my own code, but I'm starting to lean in that direction.
Here. Even more if you include fair brokers like CD Baby.
Look, I really do understand your point, but that is censorship - even if seemingly reasonable. And frankly, asking the average Slashdotter to respect a corporation's thin skin is like asking water to not be wet.
What scares me is that $9,250 was a compromise. How much were the real asshats shooting for for that they were able to be talked down to a $200K penalty?
"Microsoft Releases IIS Fascist Module"? So I see they've made it official. On the other, it might be better than the "IIS Promiscuous Module" that seemed to be so popular a few years ago.
It already is. The worst part is that it's a true story and I know the guy who wrote that. It made the rounds of our friend circle a few times.
How about .misspelled?
>Let's get this right: when someone opens a text file called something.txt and OOo decides to open that with the text editing component, that's slavish obedience?
If the numeric values happen to correspond to RGB colors, should it guess that the text file called something.txt ought to be opened with Draw instead?
I see we have different ideas of "huge problem".
It's 400 years old.
And that brings up another point which I already touched on...different versions of a religious text. That certainly cemets my belief into place knowing that there are different versions out there written by the same person who wrote the "original bible": Man.There are even more translations of Plato. I suppose that means that his words are actually the product of a large group of people and not a single original source.
Honestly, I'm not interested in arguing for or against your position. It's just that your logic is pretty specious, regardless of whether I agreed with you or not.
In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.
Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.
Of course they do: the translations are modern works.
You're over-thinking it. Yes, some churches go overboard, but most of what you see is based on necessity and not avarice.
First, churches get built where people are. Sometimes that land is more expensive than the empty spaces in the middle of nowhere that people wouldn't bother driving to. Other times a church was built on cheap land that gets enveloped or gentrified later.
Now, imagine a largish church with 5,000 Sunday-morning worshippers. There is a set minimum size room that can comfortable accommodate that many people. Now, if it costs $X to built, would you rather see a gray cinder block box next to your house or a nice looking place that cost $X*1.1?
They do realize that "Halo" may not mean the same thing that they're used to, don't they?
If you look very closely at one specific image, you can see a topless woman on a beach. I have to admit that I was pretty surprised to see nudity in a Where's Waldo book (even of the silly, cartoony variety), although not so surprised that I'd want to run out and ban it.
Thus spake Wikipedia:
Off-topic note: as a lifelong Christian, I have no problem with some concepts. Those complaints are specific to a vocal minority.
I'm not a parent and I'm not sure I will be any time soon (I'm 24, after all), but I will say that I can't imagine ever telling a child "you can't read that book ever".Likewise. My parents told me a few times that they wished I'd read something other than the cheap sci-fi or horror novel I was carrying around that week, and they'd tell me why, but I don't remember ever being told that I couldn't read something. I imagine I'll be having the same conversation with my kids some day as they migrate from "Hank The Cowdog" to "The Shining".
The ALA doesn't provide that information, at least not that I could find. Wikipedia has information on individual books, eg in the entry for "Flowers for Algernon":
My wife and I make it a point to buy the books on their list of "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000". Seriously, people who want to ban "Huck Finn" or "A Wrinkle In Time" should be rounded up and shot (how's that for censorship?). I don't want to live in a society where my kids can't read "Flowers For Algernon" some day, so we make sure that those books will always be available to them.
Having said that, a lot of those books were challenged for being inappropriate for an age group, and I'm pretty OK with that kind of restriction. I can't think of a single reason why Madonna's "Sex" would be appropriate for a first grader, for example, and I'd be a bit irked if it showed up in the local early-elementary library.
So, how often do you find yourself switching OSes for extended periods?
But anyway, we're all geeks here, right? So solve the problem yourself.
The above is clearly not something I'd recommend to your average user. But again, we're all geeks here, right?
And on September 18, McBride claimed that "[a]s a result of both the Court's August 10, 2007 ruling and our entry into Chapter 11, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. " He has a lithe relationship with reality.
I actually kind of like them. When I see an article slathered with "flamebait", "badsummary", "inaccurate", etc. then I have a pretty good idea that it's not worth getting worked up about and that I'll probably read its debunking a few comments down. I think that's a fairly nice service.
OK, this isn't exactly on the level of JFK assassination or moon landing hoax conspiracies, but nonetheless a lot of us want to know: what really happened to Michael Sims? He was the editor we loved to hate and one day he was just gone.
I'll be happy to see them kill that obsolete feature. It's hard to implement everything-is-a-file semantics when some things are files, and others are combinations of random amounts of metadata.
Let them see whatever they want, as long as they go bankrupt in the process. Who cares if they see pink fairies flying away with bags of doubloons as they're watching their office furniture get auctioned off?