Tabs vs. spaces is already solved. In IDLE, the smart Python editor that comes bundled with Python for Windows, pressing the Tab key inserts four spaces.
That's part of the problem, not the solution. These half-functional 'features' makes people believe that somehow it's acceptable to indent with spaces instead of tabs.
Fact is, no editor can correctly read my mind as to when I want to indent and deindent when it's using spaces instead of the single character that was invented for the sole purpose of indentation:
neither of these needs any "cloud" storage, just transfers efficiently between your machines. The first one is Open Source and easy to use: GUI, CLI, cron... The second one is free but closed, runs as a daemon and can be installed on several NAS boxes.
you mentioned: Blender, Maya, 3DStudio Max, Lightwave none of these is a CAD program. these are 3D modellers, great for creating images and animations, but not CAD
AutoCAD, SolidWorks, OpenSCAD and FreeCAD are CADs. that's two different software categories. The fact that both can be used to create 3D models is irrelevant; the kind of elements used by each category is different, so the production cycle is totally different.
I remember dreaming at a keyboard, and when I snapped awake, I had found that I had typed words from my dream into my code. I decided that it was time to go home at that point.
it's more embarrassing to dream-type the commit message and get just wake enough to do "git push" so everybody can see it. (real story, less than a week old)
its a rush back the narrow vision that was the Macintosh in 83.
In '83 the Mac was anything but closed or 'narrow vision'. I was a huge leap in usability and programability. It was open to anybody who got the three-volume (soon expanded to 5 books) "Inside Macintosh", a great resource not only on the API but also a good primer on UI design.
Now, the last couple of Mac OSes, which are progresively tied to the app-store... and windows isn't far from that... currently, the easiest OS to install and configure applications is Linux, by a wide margin.
Fair enough. I'm curious then. What do you use for email?
SMTP / IMAP. that's all.
As for software, it's usually CommuniGate or Zimbra on the servers. For clients, I support Thunderbird, apple's Mail.app, kontact, Eudora, and the included clients on iOS and Android and even Blackberry. all of them work perfectly together when using standard protocols.
There are a couple of big bosses that insist on using Outlook, even though they can't say a single reason to prefer it, it's usually just "i'm too old to learn something new". One of them creates by himself easily more trouble than the three companies where i'm involved in support. What seems to be helping a little is that we created an isolation server running Fetchmail to keep a copy of all his mail and accessed exclusively from his one Outlook machine. all his other devices (two iPhones, an iPad, one Blackberry and a MacBook) work without a hitch directly on the CommuniGate server.
that started reasonable enough, citing real issues that make it the only option to use Windows, Word and Excel. That much, I concede, it's not worth it to fight.
But I draw the line, and Exchange and Outlook are way past it. No way I would support either on my networks. Simply put, these are the real implementations of the first Halloween document. in other words, it's baitware that works "nicely enough", and with several well-researched features to make them attractive, but as soon as you want anything non-microsoft in your setup, they create all kinds of obstacles and hoops you have to jump. It's not that other systems don't "work nicely with all the above" it's that these specific programs were designed from the start to create those problems.
I agree that MS isn't the 'evil' it once was, but in the email space, it hasn't changed a bit. And it's up to us not to tolerate it.
Where I live we prefer our buildings not to fall down every couple of years. Granted, there are few ones more than 30 stories high, but those that are there have survived several sizable quakes.
note, these aren't brick and stone; reinforced concrete is all the rage... and not too good for wifi, even at 2.5Ghz That's why I make sure my wireless phone is 900Mhz and not 2.4Ghz
Your happy with XFS because your machine has never lost power or crashed. If either of those things happened with the older versions of XFS it was nearly a 100% guarantee you would lose data. Now i'm told its more reliable.
It _is_ quite reliable, even on the face of hardware failure.
Several years ago, I hit the 8TB limit of ext3 and had to migrate to a bigger filesystem. ext4 wasn't ready back then (and still today it's not easy to use on big volumes). Already had bad experiences with reiserfs (which was standard on SuSE), and the "you'll lose data"warnings on XFS docs made me nervous. It was obviously designed to work on very high-end hardware, which I couldn't afford.
so, I did extensive torture testing. hundreds of pull-the-plug situations, on the host, storage box and SAN switch, with tens of processes writing thousands of files on million-files directories. it was a bloodbath.
when the dust settled, ext3 was the best by far, managing to never lose more than 10 small files in the worst case, over 70% of the cases recovered cleanly. XFS was slightly worse, never more than 16 lost files and roughly 50% clean recoveries. ReiserFS was really bad, always losing more than 50-70 files and sometimes killing the volume. JFS didn't lose the volume, but lost files count never went below 130, sometimes several hundred.
needless to say, i switched to XFS, and haven't lost a single byte yet. and yes, there has been a few hardware failures that triggered scary rebuilding tasks, but completed cleanly.
You mean that if I learn QT, my skills can build a simple NAS doing something incredible like SparkleShare/GIT, and a mobile interface for my cheap Nokia?
Electromagnetism and weak nuclear force have a solid unification theory and supporting experiments since the 70's (and a few nobel prizes as back as '79 at least). Higgs boson is involved in electroweak symmetry breaking, and possibly unification of electroweak with the strong force.
Positrons are naturally equivalent to electrons that are moving backward in time, and vice-versa.
yeah, they're funny in that. but it's more complete to say that there are particles exactly like electrons but with negative rest mass that can only move backwards in time. they can't stop and turn into 'normal' electrons. and that it's usually easier to think of them as positive electrons with normal positive rest mass and move forwards in time.
the non-convertibility is important, or else it would seem that normal matter can take a sharp turn an go backwards in time.
But having neutrinos that move faster than light doesn't mean you can take anything else along with it to make that thing move backward in time.
right. but the parent post said
if you can do FTL particles, then you can send information back in time.
and it _is_ easy to take information along with it to make it move backward in time.
first, you're mixing cluster file systems (like GFS, OCFS, CXFS) and distributed file systems (Lustre, GlusteFS, Ceph).
second, without backup hardware, you don't have backup; you'll lose data. at least, use a second offline or near-line array to copy to.
third: "snapshots are effective backups". wrong
fourth: "none of the mentioned solutions have support for (infiniband)". wrong
You're missing the goal: we need strong AI so that all web documents can be sentient. That way, they'll do a conscious effort to be usable on any kind of browser.
See? it's not because AI is cool, it's our only hope!
Even on scientific notation, a googolplex is quite hard to write, I don't think the auction forms have space for a hundred zeros. 10^10^100 isn't scientific notation, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it remove 4 spaces when i hit backspace, or just 1?
It depends on the context. IDLE removes 4 when at the start of a line of code or 1 when not.
Not enough, as I want other things to be indented. Also, the delete key in the leading whitespace doesn't fully emulate the correct behaviour.
Of course, the correct behaviour appears naturally and without any emulation if you use the right tool: the character.
Tabs vs. spaces is already solved. In IDLE, the smart Python editor that comes bundled with Python for Windows, pressing the Tab key inserts four spaces.
That's part of the problem, not the solution. These half-functional 'features' makes people believe that somehow it's acceptable to indent with spaces instead of tabs.
Fact is, no editor can correctly read my mind as to when I want to indent and deindent when it's using spaces instead of the single character that was invented for the sole purpose of indentation:
unison (http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/), BTSync (http://www.bittorrent.com/sync).
neither of these needs any "cloud" storage, just transfers efficiently between your machines. The first one is Open Source and easy to use: GUI, CLI, cron... The second one is free but closed, runs as a daemon and can be installed on several NAS boxes.
you mentioned: Blender, Maya, 3DStudio Max, Lightwave none of these is a CAD program. these are 3D modellers, great for creating images and animations, but not CAD
AutoCAD, SolidWorks, OpenSCAD and FreeCAD are CADs. that's two different software categories. The fact that both can be used to create 3D models is irrelevant; the kind of elements used by each category is different, so the production cycle is totally different.
I remember dreaming at a keyboard, and when I snapped awake, I had found that I had typed words from my dream into my code. I decided that it was time to go home at that point.
it's more embarrassing to dream-type the commit message and get just wake enough to do "git push" so everybody can see it. (real story, less than a week old)
You obviously have never used GNU/Emacs.
or Turbo Pascal
its a rush back the narrow vision that was the Macintosh in 83.
In '83 the Mac was anything but closed or 'narrow vision'. I was a huge leap in usability and programability. It was open to anybody who got the three-volume (soon expanded to 5 books) "Inside Macintosh", a great resource not only on the API but also a good primer on UI design.
Now, the last couple of Mac OSes, which are progresively tied to the app-store... and windows isn't far from that... currently, the easiest OS to install and configure applications is Linux, by a wide margin.
Fair enough. I'm curious then. What do you use for email?
SMTP / IMAP. that's all.
As for software, it's usually CommuniGate or Zimbra on the servers. For clients, I support Thunderbird, apple's Mail.app, kontact, Eudora, and the included clients on iOS and Android and even Blackberry. all of them work perfectly together when using standard protocols.
There are a couple of big bosses that insist on using Outlook, even though they can't say a single reason to prefer it, it's usually just "i'm too old to learn something new". One of them creates by himself easily more trouble than the three companies where i'm involved in support. What seems to be helping a little is that we created an isolation server running Fetchmail to keep a copy of all his mail and accessed exclusively from his one Outlook machine. all his other devices (two iPhones, an iPad, one Blackberry and a MacBook) work without a hitch directly on the CommuniGate server.
that started reasonable enough, citing real issues that make it the only option to use Windows, Word and Excel. That much, I concede, it's not worth it to fight.
But I draw the line, and Exchange and Outlook are way past it. No way I would support either on my networks. Simply put, these are the real implementations of the first Halloween document. in other words, it's baitware that works "nicely enough", and with several well-researched features to make them attractive, but as soon as you want anything non-microsoft in your setup, they create all kinds of obstacles and hoops you have to jump. It's not that other systems don't "work nicely with all the above" it's that these specific programs were designed from the start to create those problems.
I agree that MS isn't the 'evil' it once was, but in the email space, it hasn't changed a bit. And it's up to us not to tolerate it.
Cairo is almost dead on the equator.
huh?
https://www.google.com/search?...
30.0500 N, 31.2333 E
Cairo, Coordinates
Where I live we prefer our buildings not to fall down every couple of years. Granted, there are few ones more than 30 stories high, but those that are there have survived several sizable quakes.
note, these aren't brick and stone; reinforced concrete is all the rage... and not too good for wifi, even at 2.5Ghz That's why I make sure my wireless phone is 900Mhz and not 2.4Ghz
not only older houses, but also every solid house on places where the earth keeps moving.
So root FS on ext3/4 and mount your large data volumes elsewhere as XFS. Job done?
yes
Your happy with XFS because your machine has never lost power or crashed. If either of those things happened with the older versions of XFS it was nearly a 100% guarantee you would lose data. Now i'm told its more reliable.
It _is_ quite reliable, even on the face of hardware failure.
Several years ago, I hit the 8TB limit of ext3 and had to migrate to a bigger filesystem. ext4 wasn't ready back then (and still today it's not easy to use on big volumes). Already had bad experiences with reiserfs (which was standard on SuSE), and the "you'll lose data"warnings on XFS docs made me nervous. It was obviously designed to work on very high-end hardware, which I couldn't afford.
so, I did extensive torture testing. hundreds of pull-the-plug situations, on the host, storage box and SAN switch, with tens of processes writing thousands of files on million-files directories. it was a bloodbath.
when the dust settled, ext3 was the best by far, managing to never lose more than 10 small files in the worst case, over 70% of the cases recovered cleanly. XFS was slightly worse, never more than 16 lost files and roughly 50% clean recoveries. ReiserFS was really bad, always losing more than 50-70 files and sometimes killing the volume. JFS didn't lose the volume, but lost files count never went below 130, sometimes several hundred.
needless to say, i switched to XFS, and haven't lost a single byte yet. and yes, there has been a few hardware failures that triggered scary rebuilding tasks, but completed cleanly.
So, what are all you hipsters buying these days as you claim Dell is passe?
Supermicro
You mean that if I learn QT, my skills can build a simple NAS doing something incredible like SparkleShare/GIT, and a mobile interface for my cheap Nokia?
yes
Electromagnetism and weak nuclear force have a solid unification theory and supporting experiments since the 70's (and a few nobel prizes as back as '79 at least). Higgs boson is involved in electroweak symmetry breaking, and possibly unification of electroweak with the strong force.
Positrons are naturally equivalent to electrons that are moving backward in time, and vice-versa.
yeah, they're funny in that. but it's more complete to say that there are particles exactly like electrons but with negative rest mass that can only move backwards in time. they can't stop and turn into 'normal' electrons. and that it's usually easier to think of them as positive electrons with normal positive rest mass and move forwards in time. the non-convertibility is important, or else it would seem that normal matter can take a sharp turn an go backwards in time.
But having neutrinos that move faster than light doesn't mean you can take anything else along with it to make that thing move backward in time.
right. but the parent post said
if you can do FTL particles, then you can send information back in time.
and it _is_ easy to take information along with it to make it move backward in time.
s/neutrons/neutrinos/gi
first, you're mixing cluster file systems (like GFS, OCFS, CXFS) and distributed file systems (Lustre, GlusteFS, Ceph). second, without backup hardware, you don't have backup; you'll lose data. at least, use a second offline or near-line array to copy to. third: "snapshots are effective backups". wrong fourth: "none of the mentioned solutions have support for (infiniband)". wrong
You're missing the goal: we need strong AI so that all web documents can be sentient. That way, they'll do a conscious effort to be usable on any kind of browser. See? it's not because AI is cool, it's our only hope!
Even on scientific notation, a googolplex is quite hard to write, I don't think the auction forms have space for a hundred zeros. 10^10^100 isn't scientific notation, you know.
So I still use rsync, I just run it twice. I'm mounting nfs over GigE so this is not so awful.
If you're using rsync over NFS, you're doing it wrong!
The neural net was then built by people playing the game and providing 'better questions' for when the AI got the answer wrong.
nitpicking: it's not a neural net, it's a decision tree.
This is so wrong on so many levels....