For strict engineering cred, my vote goes to Peter Parker. Sure, he had super powers, but he also engineered some pretty spiffy tech on a shoe-string budget.
It was really only with the Reformation and the Enlightenment that certain Protestants and Freethinkers began to differentiate between faith and trust. The older usage is still reflected in some ways we use the term 'faith.' For example, making a business deal 'in good faith', being a 'faithful' spouse. In these contexts, faith and trust are equivalents. Moreover, in both cases faith is something earned by one party and given by the other only have experiencing the trustworthiness of the other party. But, beginning with the Anabaptists and extending to most of the Reformed sects, faith began to be redefined as something different. And by the time the scientific revolution got underway, Freethinkers had largely adopted the new dichotomy.
WVO Quine really gets to the heart of the matter: ``For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.''
In other words, scientific knowledge is ascendent over other forms of knowledge within a conceptual framework of the world that gives priority to science. One could contrive a testable worldview reliant on Homer (or any other religion for that matter) and find it adequate to describe the abstractions we consider to be facts. Why we generally do not do so is interesting. To do so is to violate the scientific method because Homer's pantheon of gods and goddesses is not parsimonious. But to say that, at a certain level, this makes it superior to other conceptual frameworks is to miss an obvious tautology. This tautology becomes apparent if we're explicit about what we're actually saying. The scientific evidence suggests that from a scientific point of view, the scientific method is the best warrant of scientific knowledge about the world.
But there are areas where science alone seems to me to be inadequate to describing reality. For example, from the view point of the scientific method, there is no good or evil. Hence, from the scientific point of view stating there can be no moral judgments. The assertion that taxation is theft (or that property is theft) are both vacuous from the scientific view point. Allegations of theft are contingent on "rightful" ownership. But science doesn't speak to that. To get to "rights" one needs to appeal to "self-evident truths" ala the US Declaration of Independence or the natural law or some deity, etc.
Scrabble does not allow acronyms, contractions, etc. Which is a shame, because WTF would be a great play.
Also, if you really want to beat your Grandma, learn strategy. Knowing odd words does help but the chief way to improve is to learn how to make every play (other than the first) build three or four words instead of just one.
Decent dictionaries usually remark that particular entries are considered obsolete, casual, slang, vulgar, regional dialect, etc. Asking them to break out distinct volumes for each (a) insults the intelligence of the dictionary user and (b) asks them to fleece dictionary users by selling multiple volumes when a single volume is sufficient.
Suppose the web interface is doing everything in Ajax?
It's possible, but I've yet to see a web based router do that. And, if it is, unless it's obfuscated, it makes things easier.
Widget names are fairly trivial to find in WSH. And, as I mentioned, they aren't necessary for the project.
The bottom line is this, you're presuming a well designed command line interface and a poorly designed Graphical interface. If the Graphical interface is properly designed, there is no prima facie reason why it can't be reliably manipulated programatically just as easily as the command line product.
That is to say, the problem isn't GUI vs. CLI but good engineering vs. poor engineering.
... it doesn't need an "API" proper. HTML allows for forms to be prefilled via URL calls. Since the fine article stipulated that the router had a web frontend as its GUI interace, a WSH script can prefill and submit any form thatt is displayed merely by calling a URL.
And, even were that were not the case, so long as the GUI widgets are named, WSH scripts can manipulate them programatically. And, even if they aren't named, there is the possibility that automation is possible via other mechanisms such as manipulation of hot keys, tabs, etc. I wrote some scripts in WSH to do performance testing circa 2005 that did just this. It called a series of proprietary programs, to time how long it would take to log into a database, complete specific tasks tasks, and log out.
New kids on the block may find the SSIS snap-in for MS Visual Studio to be a good example.
The problem isn't GUI vs, CLI per se. The problem is click and drool interfaces that sacrifice flexibility for simplicity and end up ony approriate for simple tasks.
... I think the fine article was completely misguided. For example, WSH script could have read the spreadsheet that eas mentioned, parsed the data into URLs that call the web interface for the "GUI" only router, and completed the task in much the same way as the article suggested that the CLI be used to solve the problem.
In other words, it's not the actual GUI holding the GUI Corp back, but a failure of admins to adequately understand the tools at their disposal. Given that the author is familiar with UNIX, he knows how to do things the Unix way. It should be no surprise that he doesn't know how to do an enterprise level roll out using Windows style tools.
Both are available as options on the iPad: it supports blue tooth keyboards and quite a few storage (and other) devices via the USB camera connection kit. Most users just don't have any desire to use those. Having had an iPad for about 9 months, there are few situations where the cloud (e.g. drop box, Google,.mac, etc.) has failed me in a way where removable storage would not have. And I do NOT have the 3g model.
The cartels already have the capital. If drugs get legalized, they'll just move more heavily into kidnapping and slavery.
Same thing as after Prohibition, organized crime just moved into other territories. There is no way to turn back the clock and prevent the cartels from coming to power in the first place.
Not that this is an argument against legalization, mind you. It's just the observation that one particular argument for legalization doesn't hold that much weight.
Per capita alcohol consumption in the US went down.
I don't have a link for that, but I get my numbers from a chart I saw in a museum at Mt. Vernon. Alcohol consumption per capita was massive at the end of the 19th century, but through Prohibition it stayed flat and when Prohibition ended, it decreased.
My first guess would be that the vicarious thrill of being a law-breaker increased consumption. I suspect that something like that is also true of drug consumption in the US. Take away the thrill of eating the forbidden fruit and consumption may just well drop.
My wife needed a Windows license to run the requisite software to allow her to work from home. She found the retail version of WIndows 7 Professional going for $80 and Windows 7 Ultimate for $90 on the local area Craig's List.
CDOs in themselves weren't sufficient to cause the meltdown, but there were a necesssary element without which the meltdown would not have ocurred.
Also, of relevance, was that the mathematical model used to calulcuate risk was deficient. It missed an entire area of risk. So part of the reason that the ratings of these rarified financial instruments looked so good is that they were being evaluated in a way that unintentionally hid many of the problems.
Take away CDOs (and other similar instruments) and you've lost (a) a mechanism that inherently hides several levels of risk, (b) the inability of institutions to farm out the risk for less than it ought to cost them to farm out that risk, (c) multiple levels of abstraction that allow for more shenanigans.
Number one according to whom? They've been consistent poor scorers at Consumer Reports, at least compared to Verizon.
It may be relevant that T-Mobile's organization is as a conglomerate. The customer service center you get in one region may not be managed by the same corporation as the customer service center you get in another region. This is one of the things that comes up every year in Consumer Reports, that T-Mobile doesn't have the consistency of a Verizon (consistently good) or AT&T (consistently bad).
T-Mobile USA is not part of T-Mobile International. Formerly Powertel, it was a separate acquisition of Deutsche Telekom and is not under the T-Mobile International umbrella.
That said, the mobile telecommunications sector in the US is pretty abysmal.
That chart depicts shipments (not sales) of smartphones in a single quarter. It doesn't reflect the installed base or non-phone gadgets such as the ipod touch or the ipad.
What you should compare is all iOS Devices in use to all Android devices in use. That would be a much better comparison.
Although, I do disagree with it not being normal that the teacher overhears. I know full well that my daughter calls me a buttmuch, asshat, jerk, tyrant, petty dictator, and worse when she's with her friends.
But that's quite different than if she calls me a pedophile. Were she to do that, it opens the door to a good many consequences that calling me a buttmunch does not.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the engineers on the list have the best labs that money can buy and virtually unlimited bank accounts to buy the most exotic of materials.
Meanwhile, Peter Parker gets by on a photojournalist's salary and tinkers in his spare time.
The bottomless bank account.
For strict engineering cred, my vote goes to Peter Parker. Sure, he had super powers, but he also engineered some pretty spiffy tech on a shoe-string budget.
It was really only with the Reformation and the Enlightenment that certain Protestants and Freethinkers began to differentiate between faith and trust. The older usage is still reflected in some ways we use the term 'faith.' For example, making a business deal 'in good faith', being a 'faithful' spouse. In these contexts, faith and trust are equivalents. Moreover, in both cases faith is something earned by one party and given by the other only have experiencing the trustworthiness of the other party. But, beginning with the Anabaptists and extending to most of the Reformed sects, faith began to be redefined as something different. And by the time the scientific revolution got underway, Freethinkers had largely adopted the new dichotomy.
WVO Quine really gets to the heart of the matter: ``For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.''
In other words, scientific knowledge is ascendent over other forms of knowledge within a conceptual framework of the world that gives priority to science. One could contrive a testable worldview reliant on Homer (or any other religion for that matter) and find it adequate to describe the abstractions we consider to be facts. Why we generally do not do so is interesting. To do so is to violate the scientific method because Homer's pantheon of gods and goddesses is not parsimonious. But to say that, at a certain level, this makes it superior to other conceptual frameworks is to miss an obvious tautology. This tautology becomes apparent if we're explicit about what we're actually saying. The scientific evidence suggests that from a scientific point of view, the scientific method is the best warrant of scientific knowledge about the world.
But there are areas where science alone seems to me to be inadequate to describing reality. For example, from the view point of the scientific method, there is no good or evil. Hence, from the scientific point of view stating there can be no moral judgments. The assertion that taxation is theft (or that property is theft) are both vacuous from the scientific view point. Allegations of theft are contingent on "rightful" ownership. But science doesn't speak to that. To get to "rights" one needs to appeal to "self-evident truths" ala the US Declaration of Independence or the natural law or some deity, etc.
Scrabble does not allow acronyms, contractions, etc. Which is a shame, because WTF would be a great play.
Also, if you really want to beat your Grandma, learn strategy. Knowing odd words does help but the chief way to improve is to learn how to make every play (other than the first) build three or four words instead of just one.
Decent dictionaries usually remark that particular entries are considered obsolete, casual, slang, vulgar, regional dialect, etc. Asking them to break out distinct volumes for each (a) insults the intelligence of the dictionary user and (b) asks them to fleece dictionary users by selling multiple volumes when a single volume is sufficient.
Suppose the web interface is doing everything in Ajax?
It's possible, but I've yet to see a web based router do that. And, if it is, unless it's obfuscated, it makes things easier.
Widget names are fairly trivial to find in WSH. And, as I mentioned, they aren't necessary for the project.
The bottom line is this, you're presuming a well designed command line interface and a poorly designed Graphical interface. If the Graphical interface is properly designed, there is no prima facie reason why it can't be reliably manipulated programatically just as easily as the command line product.
That is to say, the problem isn't GUI vs. CLI but good engineering vs. poor engineering.
... it doesn't need an "API" proper. HTML allows for forms to be prefilled via URL calls. Since the fine article stipulated that the router had a web frontend as its GUI interace, a WSH script can prefill and submit any form thatt is displayed merely by calling a URL.
And, even were that were not the case, so long as the GUI widgets are named, WSH scripts can manipulate them programatically. And, even if they aren't named, there is the possibility that automation is possible via other mechanisms such as manipulation of hot keys, tabs, etc. I wrote some scripts in WSH to do performance testing circa 2005 that did just this. It called a series of proprietary programs, to time how long it would take to log into a database, complete specific tasks tasks, and log out.
Just ask anyone old enough to remember Hypercard.
Or, for that matter, NetBeans.
New kids on the block may find the SSIS snap-in for MS Visual Studio to be a good example.
The problem isn't GUI vs, CLI per se. The problem is click and drool interfaces that sacrifice flexibility for simplicity and end up ony approriate for simple tasks.
... I think the fine article was completely misguided. For example, WSH script could have read the spreadsheet that eas mentioned, parsed the data into URLs that call the web interface for the "GUI" only router, and completed the task in much the same way as the article suggested that the CLI be used to solve the problem.
In other words, it's not the actual GUI holding the GUI Corp back, but a failure of admins to adequately understand the tools at their disposal. Given that the author is familiar with UNIX, he knows how to do things the Unix way. It should be no surprise that he doesn't know how to do an enterprise level roll out using Windows style tools.
Both are available as options on the iPad: it supports blue tooth keyboards and quite a few storage (and other) devices via the USB camera connection kit. Most users just don't have any desire to use those. Having had an iPad for about 9 months, there are few situations where the cloud (e.g. drop box, Google, .mac, etc.) has failed me in a way where removable storage would not have. And I do NOT have the 3g model.
I'm not the GP, but there are many low end android devices out there: TMobile Comet, LG Optimus line (C V and others), Huawei Ascend, etc.
They realistically had not idea?
Are you sure about that?
Sure, the cartels are alreadly invested in other market niches.
But if the grug niche were cut off, they wouldn't mobilize further into other niches?
The cartels already have the capital. If drugs get legalized, they'll just move more heavily into kidnapping and slavery.
Same thing as after Prohibition, organized crime just moved into other territories. There is no way to turn back the clock and prevent the cartels from coming to power in the first place.
Not that this is an argument against legalization, mind you. It's just the observation that one particular argument for legalization doesn't hold that much weight.
Per capita alcohol consumption in the US went down.
I don't have a link for that, but I get my numbers from a chart I saw in a museum at Mt. Vernon. Alcohol consumption per capita was massive at the end of the 19th century, but through Prohibition it stayed flat and when Prohibition ended, it decreased.
My first guess would be that the vicarious thrill of being a law-breaker increased consumption. I suspect that something like that is also true of drug consumption in the US. Take away the thrill of eating the forbidden fruit and consumption may just well drop.
Just saying.
My wife needed a Windows license to run the requisite software to allow her to work from home. She found the retail version of WIndows 7 Professional going for $80 and Windows 7 Ultimate for $90 on the local area Craig's List.
CDOs in themselves weren't sufficient to cause the meltdown, but there were a necesssary element without which the meltdown would not have ocurred.
Also, of relevance, was that the mathematical model used to calulcuate risk was deficient. It missed an entire area of risk. So part of the reason that the ratings of these rarified financial instruments looked so good is that they were being evaluated in a way that unintentionally hid many of the problems.
Take away CDOs (and other similar instruments) and you've lost (a) a mechanism that inherently hides several levels of risk, (b) the inability of institutions to farm out the risk for less than it ought to cost them to farm out that risk, (c) multiple levels of abstraction that allow for more shenanigans.
Number one according to whom? They've been consistent poor scorers at Consumer Reports, at least compared to Verizon.
It may be relevant that T-Mobile's organization is as a conglomerate. The customer service center you get in one region may not be managed by the same corporation as the customer service center you get in another region. This is one of the things that comes up every year in Consumer Reports, that T-Mobile doesn't have the consistency of a Verizon (consistently good) or AT&T (consistently bad).
You take Consumer's Union (independent, consumer driven) with a grain of salt and give credence to JD Powers (financed by the telecom industry)?
Feel free to do that but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
T-Mobile USA is not part of T-Mobile International. Formerly Powertel, it was a separate acquisition of Deutsche Telekom and is not under the T-Mobile International umbrella.
That said, the mobile telecommunications sector in the US is pretty abysmal.
You're joking, right?
According to Consumer's Union, of the national carriers, T*Mobile only ranks ahead of AT&T.
My experience with TMobile backs up that score. My plan is with them because they're the least expensive. Their customer service is absolute pants.
Yeah, if only there was punctuation symbol widely acknowledged to indicate sarcasm!
Or, failing that, perhaps even a widely used convention would be nice. Or not. ;)
That chart depicts shipments (not sales) of smartphones in a single quarter. It doesn't reflect the installed base or non-phone gadgets such as the ipod touch or the ipad.
What you should compare is all iOS Devices in use to all Android devices in use. That would be a much better comparison.
Although, I do disagree with it not being normal that the teacher overhears. I know full well that my daughter calls me a buttmuch, asshat, jerk, tyrant, petty dictator, and worse when she's with her friends.
But that's quite different than if she calls me a pedophile. Were she to do that, it opens the door to a good many consequences that calling me a buttmunch does not.