No, it just saddens me - I wonder how much better they could have done without it.
Many scientific discoveries have been made in the search to understand more about God's creation; without the belief that God created a wonderful and interesting universe for us to explore, they might not have bothered.
Supporters of ID, no. As for rational thought, not incapable, but by definition they think irrationally more often than is good.
I disagree that holding a religious belief precludes rational thought. In the absence of scientific proof to the contrary, I don't see the belief that God exists (but currently chooses not to reveal Himself in a scientifically observable way) to be irrational at all - certainly no more irrational than the belief that, in the absence of scientific proof to the contrary, there is no God.
Because you're wasting your life, and you're not seeing the glory of the universe that's out there. And you're doing it for such a stupid reason. When you're walking down the street and see someone banging their head against a building, you want to stop them.
Interesting that you should use that word.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." - Psalm 19:1 (NIV)
The universe reflects the glory of the Creator; I find it curious that you would expect religious people not to see it.
"religion is dumb because this religious person said this dumb thing" is fallacious
I'm glad you agree. Many people don't.
but better than "my religion is better than yours" with no reason at all.
How about, mine's better than yours because mine is based on the writings of dozens of people who communicated directly with God and wrote exactly what He wanted them to, thousands of years ago. What the Bible says about the sinful nature of mankind is consistent with observation; the Bible's guidelines for how to live your life promote good health and the improvement of society. Not to mention the promise of eternal life in the presence of the Creator, offered as a free gift. And getting direction from God when I'm not sure what to do is always helpful too, although I don't ask for it as often as I should and sometimes fail to pay attention when I'm given answers (hey, nobody's perfect).
It means that the person in question intentionally limits the scope of the methods he uses to evaluate ideas in order to preserve the ideas that he would probably otherwise discard for lack of evidence (since in science, one does not hold onto hypotheses which make no testable predictions and for which no observable evidence exists).
The problem here is, many people seem to assume that the logical conclusion, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, is that God does not exist. Because of this assumption, most atheists see themselves as having no religious belief, and therefore since anyone you disagree with on a matter of fact (not opinion) must be wrong (since if you were wrong you'd change your belief until you were right again), all religion is therefore wrong.
That was confusingly worded, but I don't think I'm overstating.
Anyway, the thing is, many of us disagree with your basic assumption. If you assume that, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, that there is a God, then obviously anyone who believes otherwise - including atheists - is holding a religious belief, on faith, without proof. That's OK, but it means your unscientific religious belief that there is no God isn't any crazier than my unscientific religious belief that there is.
Ever hear of this guy. He was right. He almost got burned at the stake. There are thousands more like him, a lot of whom did get burned at the stake. For what? Being right.
The persecution of Galileo was a tragedy, and not an isolated one - but the parent poster made it pretty clear he doesn't condone that. "If you want to talk about testable hypotheses, we can do that. You produce evidence contrary to my understanding of the universe, and I'll change my understanding. I'd hope you could do the same thing." Galileo suggested a testable hypothesis; the response was entirely inappropriate.
You think this won't happen again? Think that humanity has "grown up"? What happens when your kids and their irrational beliefs propagate and my kids get derided, supressed, or even killed for simply saying the truth.
You're mistakenly assuming that all religion is necessarily irrational; this is not the case at all. Secondly, you're assuming that your atheistic beliefs constitute "truth"; I must respectfully disagree. Finally, you're apparently assuming I'll raise my kids to encourage derision, suppression and murder; how dare you?
Billions have lived under the boot of religion. Billions are still living under it. You think that's right? I don't. I think that indoctrinating your children, or anyone elses, is morally wrong; and socially dangerous.
Living under the boot of religion? Yeah, that doesn't sound like it would be a good thing, but you don't sound like you have a particularly clear understand of what religion is, and I doubt you know much about mine. If you're interested in learning (which I have to say would genuinely surprise me), I can certainly try to explain it.
By the way, are you suggestion I should teach children that what I believe to be false is actually true? You can't prove atheism to be correct, so why should I believe it? And if I don't believe it, why would I teach it to someone else? That sounds morally wrong and socially dangerous to me.
As a Christian who believes in the Biblical account of Creation, let me say that I admire your reasoning, and I generally agree with you.
#1) The only currently scientifically observed "intelligent design" are the activities of human beings (breeding, genetic engineering),hardly GOD or supernatural beings
Agreed - there doesn't currently seem to be anything scientifically observable that would necessitate the existence of a supernatural Creator - if we observe something we have no natural explanation for, that doesn't prove it occurs due to supernatural forces, only that we haven't discovered the natural explanation yet. However, the absence of proof does not imply the presence of disproof: just because a natural explanation has been found for most observations, doesn't mean there must be a natural explanation for everything we can ever observe. Still, it's stupid to stop looking for natural explanations just because it's possible there might not be one, especially since history has shown that there usually is.
I believe that God currently chooses not to reveal Himself in a scientifically provable way. Obviously this has not always been the case, and the Bible promises that it will not remain the case forever. In the mean time, I can't prove that God exists, and you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Until God chooses to reveal Himself, the question of whether or not God exists remains outside the realm of science for this reason.
#2) When you try to use Intelligent Design as the origin of species you get into a recursive loop. The Intelligent Designer of man is was obviously too complex to occur naturally so he must have been created by an previous Intelligent Designer.... and so on. Like the argument that the world is a flat disc carried on a turtle... what is the turtle carried on? "IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN". Anyway. eventually you need the ORIGINAL-UNPROVEABLE-SUPER-DESIGNER (i.e. God) to explain things away.
The Bible says God has always been, and always will be; this becomes much easier to understand once you can grasp the idea that God exists outside of time, and indeed God created time. We exist on a linear timeline moving in one direction; once a moment has passed, it's behind us. I'm not suggestion that God can turn around and go backwards on that line, rather that God is "above" the line - able to look down and see the whole picture at once, able to cause something to happen tomorrow by setting events in motion years ago without being confined to only moving forward or back. God created not only this planet, this galaxy, and all the other galaxies in the universe... but the universe itself, including the entire concepts of time and space, along with physical properties and rules that operate within the universe (e.g. gravity).
So, where does God come from? Does God have a creator? These questions cannot be answered unless God (or someone else, I suppose) chooses to reveal that information, since by definition we cannot explore or observe anything outside of our universe. Personally I don't see much point in guessing. Either God is the original unprovable super Designer you're looking for, or there are more turtles, but if God is our only connection to the world outside our universe, then I don't think it matters; why get hung up on it?
I believe only in micro-ID (haha - kinda like ID's proposed "micro-evolution) which I currently see being carried out by man right now
I really like the name "micro-ID".:-)
and quite possibly extended to what we'd currently consider "God-Like" in the future,
I'm curious as to what you have in mind.
but barring further evidend, I will not believe in full-blown ID as the origin of all species (macro-ID with a supernatural being) until someone shows me the bottom of the stack of turtles.
I hope God chooses to reveal Himself to you (in His usual non-scientifically-observable way) soon, but in the mean time, I commend your skepticism and I encourage you to continue seeking answers.
As a believer in ID, I can tell you that the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old is pure bunk. Nowhere in the bible is there ANY evidence to support that idea.
No, the Bible doesn't say "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 4037 B.C. on the 27th of January at 3:00pm GMT." But it does give genealogies, "so-and-so begat so-and-so," which can give you a rough estimate if you add them up. If you believe the Bible to be accurate, then 6000 years is a close enough approximation.
A lot of people scoff at the notion that the earth has only been here for 6,000 years, but that's only impossible if you assume life must have taken millions of years to evolve or that various geological formations took millions of years to form, or that radiometric dating is never wrong. Without those assumptions, there's really no reason why 6,000 years couldn't work.
ID opponents claim ID isn't science, because it's not falsifiable. Well, they're right. You can't test it, you can't reproduce it, you can't observe it, you can't prove it. The problem is, you can't really test "evolution" (by which in this case I mean the theory that all life evolved from more primitive species over several million years) either - you can make observations about our current situation, and use conclusions from those observations to predict the results of future experiments, but you can't say that proves how something happened in the past, just because it could happen that way now.
Re:This doesn't mean they want to "control" Python
on
Guido Goes Google
·
· Score: 1
Perl is flexible enough to allow you to write crappy unmaintainable code if you want to, and sometimes that's OK. Yes, Perl has a lot of operators, and until you learn them, it's confusing, but those little operators are easy to type and can really make things go faster when you're trying to write code; they allow you to be very expressive, and write the way you think instead of constraining you into function calls.
My sig is not an example of what well-written Perl code looks like.
Powerbook customers are more likely to need to run a broad range of software, some of which is REALLY expensive (so upgrading to an Intel version isn't very appealing) and some of which is weird and not well supported (so no Intel port is available). Rosetta emulation is going to suck ass - not only will it be slow, but it won't work at all with a lot of software.
iBook customers are less likely to have a bunch of existing software, and are more likely to just run all the included software, plus anything new they might want to buy. They should have much less trouble with the new architecture.
Once x86 is better supported by applications and drivers, you can expect Apple's pro systems (PowerBook and PowerMac) to eventually make the switch.
If you had something like "I think Juniper Kills Children" then you would be OK, because you are presenting it as an opinion.
"Juniper kills children" can't be an opinion, because it can be objectively proven to be true or false; prepending "I think" doesn't make it an opinion.
"Juniper is bad for children" is an opinion, since "good" and "bad" aren't absolutes. I think cereal commercials on TV are bad for children, but that's just my opinion and the majority of society appears to disagree with me.
As much as I hate Microsoft and Internet Explorer, it sounds to me like their crappy browser is irrelevant here; you should never trust the browser, because anything the browser sends you could actually have come from a malicious user who bypassed the browser entirely in order to send deliberately broken input, and you have to deal with that. Your error messages don't have to be graceful and verbose, but you have to trap errors even if they should never occur.
I also had no idea who Joss Whedon was before I saw Firefly on DVD. I didn't really watch Buffy or Angel until after seeing Firefly, and didn't realize they were made by the same guy. Personally I thought Buffy was absolutely fantastic but Angel wasn't really that great (Angel took itself far too seriously, and I have a hard time taking vampires and demons seriously).
Anyway, yeah, I didn't get into any of this because of Joss - but now that I know who he is, you can bet I'll watch whatever he makes next.
=~ is the associative operator; it binds a regular expression to a variable, to make the regex apply to that variable. If you use a regex without associating it with anything, $_ will be used by default (this is the standard default variable for a lot of things). !~ is also an associative operator, but returns the opposite, e.g. false when a pattern match is true or true when there's no match. Not used very often.
&& and || behave mostly the same way as in C. "and" and "or" are also operators that mean the same thing, but are very low on the order of operations list, so they can be used without parentheses in places where if you used && or || you'd have to put parentheses around something. Perl programmers are lazy, so the fewer characters we have to type, the better.
These are all equivalent; sometimes one makes more sense than the others in any given situation. They're used interchangeably depending on which one seems to be clearer, with a preference toward the versions that don't require curly braces (perl differs from C here).
If someone sells me access to "the Internet" and blocks ports defined in RFCs then it isn't "the Internet" it is something else.
IMHO, it depends on what they're blocking and why. I have no problem with residential ISPs blocking inbound port 139 (Windows networking, which you should never use on the open Internet for security reasons) and outbound port 25 (people should start using 587 to send mail from a client to a server, and reserve 25 for server-to-server delivery). Would be nice to keep inbound 25 open though.
You clearly have never used IE for Mac. The browser renders pages so slowly that it'd take years for a hack to come through.
You've clearly only used it on Mac OS X. They did a terrible job of Carbonizing it; under classic Mac OS it was pretty fast.
Of course, IE for Mac is no more susceptible to spyware than any other Mac browser.
And it's probably inappropriate to hold Microsoft entirely responsible for a poor job of Carbonizing; as I understand it, Apple didn't do a great job of making it easy (which is why AppleWorks 6 took so long for Apple to port).
First you should echo $GREP_OPTS , because at least once i saw a GREP_OPTS=-i or something like that, in a server I didn't administer.
Ooh, didn't know about that.
Interesting how many other comments are based on assumptions about the system that may not be valid, e.g. running xinetd, running xdm, existence of killall, prompt set to use # character for root... I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a system without # for a root prompt, but it's easy enough to change, and systems without the others are pretty common.
Nope, not feigning ignorance, I haven't heard of them either. Now that you say this, I do see the site listed on Slashdot's left sidebar, under "Services", but I had never noticed this before (and take a look at my UID to get an idea how long I've been around). I guess they're a Slashdot sponsor, then?
It's possible I may have seen the name at some point, but not knowing anything about them, it didn't stick. I've never been to their web site, and I don't believe I've ever heard anyone talk about them.
I rather liked the "About a minute" estimate, because every app I'd ever seen that tried to estimate remaining time more accurately than that was always ridiculously inaccurate, with the number of seconds remaining either going up, or going down to fast, or not changing at all for several seconds. I'd rather see a vague estimate than a precise but wrong estimate. Progress bars are good though.
Just speak to the cold caller in a whisper. Continue this way until you think he's turned up the volume on his headset to a rather loud level. Then take your air horn and let'em have it. Ok.. So I'm a little evil.
A little?
This will not accomplish anything, beyond hurting some poor Indian's ear. DirecTV won't even hear about the incident.
Ah, yes, that was it. It looks like they've been bought out by the publishers of a magazine, and you can subscribe to both the magazine and the web site for $99/year. It doesn't look like they're currently offering anything for free.
I thought this was suppose to be a joke until I saw the modding. That's not simplicity, it's just ridiculous. I don't want my UIs to be an exploration, full of hidden rewards. I want the treasure map on every wall, with multiple paths to the clearly marked rewards. I want the app to be clear to understand, without any instruction. Macs have a pretty looking interface, beyond the aesthetics, the interface is way overrated.
I've been a Mac user since System 6, and I love iTunes, but you're right about this - the iTunes UI is not as intuitive as it should be. It's stripped down into somebody's idea of aesthetically pleasing, with various functionality deliberately hidden so as to avoid cluttering the screen. The clearest example of this is the button to change settings for the Visualizer (the screen saver thing that activates when you click the middle button in the bottom right corner). The sensible place for these settings is in Preferences, along with all the other settings. But they wanted a button to put in the top right corner when the Visualizer is active, just to have a button there, so they made it an Options button for the Visualizer. There's a menu option to toggle the Visualizer to full-screen mode (in the Visualizer menu, not in the Options dialog); once you've done so, there's no way to access the Options dialog until you switch the Visualizer back out of full-screen mode (the mode is persistent, so if you hit Escape to exit the Visualizer, then click the Visualizer button, you'll be back in full-screen mode). Once you learn how this all works, you can use it, but that really shouldn't be necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Many scientific discoveries have been made in the search to understand more about God's creation; without the belief that God created a wonderful and interesting universe for us to explore, they might not have bothered.
Supporters of ID, no. As for rational thought, not incapable, but by definition they think irrationally more often than is good.
I disagree that holding a religious belief precludes rational thought. In the absence of scientific proof to the contrary, I don't see the belief that God exists (but currently chooses not to reveal Himself in a scientifically observable way) to be irrational at all - certainly no more irrational than the belief that, in the absence of scientific proof to the contrary, there is no God.
Because you're wasting your life, and you're not seeing the glory of the universe that's out there. And you're doing it for such a stupid reason. When you're walking down the street and see someone banging their head against a building, you want to stop them.
Interesting that you should use that word.
The universe reflects the glory of the Creator; I find it curious that you would expect religious people not to see it.
"religion is dumb because this religious person said this dumb thing" is fallacious
I'm glad you agree. Many people don't.
but better than "my religion is better than yours" with no reason at all.
How about, mine's better than yours because mine is based on the writings of dozens of people who communicated directly with God and wrote exactly what He wanted them to, thousands of years ago. What the Bible says about the sinful nature of mankind is consistent with observation; the Bible's guidelines for how to live your life promote good health and the improvement of society. Not to mention the promise of eternal life in the presence of the Creator, offered as a free gift. And getting direction from God when I'm not sure what to do is always helpful too, although I don't ask for it as often as I should and sometimes fail to pay attention when I'm given answers (hey, nobody's perfect).
It means that the person in question intentionally limits the scope of the methods he uses to evaluate ideas in order to preserve the ideas that he would probably otherwise discard for lack of evidence (since in science, one does not hold onto hypotheses which make no testable predictions and for which no observable evidence exists).
The problem here is, many people seem to assume that the logical conclusion, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, is that God does not exist. Because of this assumption, most atheists see themselves as having no religious belief, and therefore since anyone you disagree with on a matter of fact (not opinion) must be wrong (since if you were wrong you'd change your belief until you were right again), all religion is therefore wrong.
That was confusingly worded, but I don't think I'm overstating.
Anyway, the thing is, many of us disagree with your basic assumption. If you assume that, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, that there is a God, then obviously anyone who believes otherwise - including atheists - is holding a religious belief, on faith, without proof. That's OK, but it means your unscientific religious belief that there is no God isn't any crazier than my unscientific religious belief that there is.
Ever hear of this guy. He was right. He almost got burned at the stake. There are thousands more like him, a lot of whom did get burned at the stake. For what? Being right.
The persecution of Galileo was a tragedy, and not an isolated one - but the parent poster made it pretty clear he doesn't condone that. "If you want to talk about testable hypotheses, we can do that. You produce evidence contrary to my understanding of the universe, and I'll change my understanding. I'd hope you could do the same thing." Galileo suggested a testable hypothesis; the response was entirely inappropriate.
You think this won't happen again? Think that humanity has "grown up"? What happens when your kids and their irrational beliefs propagate and my kids get derided, supressed, or even killed for simply saying the truth.
You're mistakenly assuming that all religion is necessarily irrational; this is not the case at all. Secondly, you're assuming that your atheistic beliefs constitute "truth"; I must respectfully disagree. Finally, you're apparently assuming I'll raise my kids to encourage derision, suppression and murder; how dare you?
Billions have lived under the boot of religion. Billions are still living under it. You think that's right? I don't. I think that indoctrinating your children, or anyone elses, is morally wrong; and socially dangerous.
Living under the boot of religion? Yeah, that doesn't sound like it would be a good thing, but you don't sound like you have a particularly clear understand of what religion is, and I doubt you know much about mine. If you're interested in learning (which I have to say would genuinely surprise me), I can certainly try to explain it.
By the way, are you suggestion I should teach children that what I believe to be false is actually true? You can't prove atheism to be correct, so why should I believe it? And if I don't believe it, why would I teach it to someone else? That sounds morally wrong and socially dangerous to me.
As a Christian who believes in the Biblical account of Creation, let me say that I admire your reasoning, and I generally agree with you.
:-)
#1) The only currently scientifically observed "intelligent design" are the activities of human beings (breeding, genetic engineering),hardly GOD or supernatural beings
Agreed - there doesn't currently seem to be anything scientifically observable that would necessitate the existence of a supernatural Creator - if we observe something we have no natural explanation for, that doesn't prove it occurs due to supernatural forces, only that we haven't discovered the natural explanation yet. However, the absence of proof does not imply the presence of disproof: just because a natural explanation has been found for most observations, doesn't mean there must be a natural explanation for everything we can ever observe. Still, it's stupid to stop looking for natural explanations just because it's possible there might not be one, especially since history has shown that there usually is.
I believe that God currently chooses not to reveal Himself in a scientifically provable way. Obviously this has not always been the case, and the Bible promises that it will not remain the case forever. In the mean time, I can't prove that God exists, and you can't prove that God doesn't exist. Until God chooses to reveal Himself, the question of whether or not God exists remains outside the realm of science for this reason.
#2) When you try to use Intelligent Design as the origin of species you get into a recursive loop. The Intelligent Designer of man is was obviously too complex to occur naturally so he must have been created by an previous Intelligent Designer.... and so on. Like the argument that the world is a flat disc carried on a turtle... what is the turtle carried on? "IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN". Anyway. eventually you need the ORIGINAL-UNPROVEABLE-SUPER-DESIGNER (i.e. God) to explain things away.
The Bible says God has always been, and always will be; this becomes much easier to understand once you can grasp the idea that God exists outside of time, and indeed God created time. We exist on a linear timeline moving in one direction; once a moment has passed, it's behind us. I'm not suggestion that God can turn around and go backwards on that line, rather that God is "above" the line - able to look down and see the whole picture at once, able to cause something to happen tomorrow by setting events in motion years ago without being confined to only moving forward or back. God created not only this planet, this galaxy, and all the other galaxies in the universe... but the universe itself, including the entire concepts of time and space, along with physical properties and rules that operate within the universe (e.g. gravity).
So, where does God come from? Does God have a creator? These questions cannot be answered unless God (or someone else, I suppose) chooses to reveal that information, since by definition we cannot explore or observe anything outside of our universe. Personally I don't see much point in guessing. Either God is the original unprovable super Designer you're looking for, or there are more turtles, but if God is our only connection to the world outside our universe, then I don't think it matters; why get hung up on it?
I believe only in micro-ID (haha - kinda like ID's proposed "micro-evolution) which I currently see being carried out by man right now
I really like the name "micro-ID".
and quite possibly extended to what we'd currently consider "God-Like" in the future,
I'm curious as to what you have in mind.
but barring further evidend, I will not believe in full-blown ID as the origin of all species (macro-ID with a supernatural being) until someone shows me the bottom of the stack of turtles.
I hope God chooses to reveal Himself to you (in His usual non-scientifically-observable way) soon, but in the mean time, I commend your skepticism and I encourage you to continue seeking answers.
As a believer in ID, I can tell you that the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old is pure bunk. Nowhere in the bible is there ANY evidence to support that idea.
No, the Bible doesn't say "God created the Heavens and the Earth in 4037 B.C. on the 27th of January at 3:00pm GMT." But it does give genealogies, "so-and-so begat so-and-so," which can give you a rough estimate if you add them up. If you believe the Bible to be accurate, then 6000 years is a close enough approximation.
A lot of people scoff at the notion that the earth has only been here for 6,000 years, but that's only impossible if you assume life must have taken millions of years to evolve or that various geological formations took millions of years to form, or that radiometric dating is never wrong. Without those assumptions, there's really no reason why 6,000 years couldn't work.
ID opponents claim ID isn't science, because it's not falsifiable. Well, they're right. You can't test it, you can't reproduce it, you can't observe it, you can't prove it. The problem is, you can't really test "evolution" (by which in this case I mean the theory that all life evolved from more primitive species over several million years) either - you can make observations about our current situation, and use conclusions from those observations to predict the results of future experiments, but you can't say that proves how something happened in the past, just because it could happen that way now.
Perl is flexible enough to allow you to write crappy unmaintainable code if you want to, and sometimes that's OK. Yes, Perl has a lot of operators, and until you learn them, it's confusing, but those little operators are easy to type and can really make things go faster when you're trying to write code; they allow you to be very expressive, and write the way you think instead of constraining you into function calls.
My sig is not an example of what well-written Perl code looks like.
Powerbook customers are more likely to need to run a broad range of software, some of which is REALLY expensive (so upgrading to an Intel version isn't very appealing) and some of which is weird and not well supported (so no Intel port is available). Rosetta emulation is going to suck ass - not only will it be slow, but it won't work at all with a lot of software.
iBook customers are less likely to have a bunch of existing software, and are more likely to just run all the included software, plus anything new they might want to buy. They should have much less trouble with the new architecture.
Once x86 is better supported by applications and drivers, you can expect Apple's pro systems (PowerBook and PowerMac) to eventually make the switch.
Speed isn't everything.
If you had something like "I think Juniper Kills Children" then you would be OK, because you are presenting it as an opinion.
"Juniper kills children" can't be an opinion, because it can be objectively proven to be true or false; prepending "I think" doesn't make it an opinion.
"Juniper is bad for children" is an opinion, since "good" and "bad" aren't absolutes. I think cereal commercials on TV are bad for children, but that's just my opinion and the majority of society appears to disagree with me.
As much as I hate Microsoft and Internet Explorer, it sounds to me like their crappy browser is irrelevant here; you should never trust the browser, because anything the browser sends you could actually have come from a malicious user who bypassed the browser entirely in order to send deliberately broken input, and you have to deal with that. Your error messages don't have to be graceful and verbose, but you have to trap errors even if they should never occur.
I also had no idea who Joss Whedon was before I saw Firefly on DVD. I didn't really watch Buffy or Angel until after seeing Firefly, and didn't realize they were made by the same guy. Personally I thought Buffy was absolutely fantastic but Angel wasn't really that great (Angel took itself far too seriously, and I have a hard time taking vampires and demons seriously).
Anyway, yeah, I didn't get into any of this because of Joss - but now that I know who he is, you can bet I'll watch whatever he makes next.
Ah, yep, hash slice - I did forget that one. I don't believe I've ever used it myself. Thanks. :-)
What? Hard to understand? How do you mean? ;-)
Obfuscation by design?
Nonsense - it takes some effort to really obfuscate perl!
Actually, your two main problems with perl are: 1) understanding the difference between sigils, and 2) learning the myriad of operators. For example:
$scalar
@array
%hash
$array[$index]
$hash{$key}
@array[0..$index]
$#array
Type "perldoc perlop" at a command prompt to get a list of operators.
== tests numeric equality, eq tests string
!= tests numeric inequality, ne tests string inequality
So if $a="3" and $b="3.0", $a==$b but $a ne $b.
=~ is the associative operator; it binds a regular expression to a variable, to make the regex apply to that variable. If you use a regex without associating it with anything, $_ will be used by default (this is the standard default variable for a lot of things). !~ is also an associative operator, but returns the opposite, e.g. false when a pattern match is true or true when there's no match. Not used very often.
&& and || behave mostly the same way as in C. "and" and "or" are also operators that mean the same thing, but are very low on the order of operations list, so they can be used without parentheses in places where if you used && or || you'd have to put parentheses around something. Perl programmers are lazy, so the fewer characters we have to type, the better.
These are all equivalent; sometimes one makes more sense than the others in any given situation. They're used interchangeably depending on which one seems to be clearer, with a preference toward the versions that don't require curly braces (perl differs from C here).
if($expr) { dostuff(); }
dostuff() if($expr);
unless(!$expr) { dostuff(); }
dostuff() unless(!$expr);
There you go. Master all of that, and you'll have no trouble with perl.
If someone sells me access to "the Internet" and blocks ports defined in RFCs then it isn't "the Internet" it is something else.
IMHO, it depends on what they're blocking and why. I have no problem with residential ISPs blocking inbound port 139 (Windows networking, which you should never use on the open Internet for security reasons) and outbound port 25 (people should start using 587 to send mail from a client to a server, and reserve 25 for server-to-server delivery). Would be nice to keep inbound 25 open though.
You clearly have never used IE for Mac. The browser renders pages so slowly that it'd take years for a hack to come through.
You've clearly only used it on Mac OS X. They did a terrible job of Carbonizing it; under classic Mac OS it was pretty fast.
Of course, IE for Mac is no more susceptible to spyware than any other Mac browser.
And it's probably inappropriate to hold Microsoft entirely responsible for a poor job of Carbonizing; as I understand it, Apple didn't do a great job of making it easy (which is why AppleWorks 6 took so long for Apple to port).
And also kudos to CmdrTaco for posting this....you submit anything now?
I see that you're new here. Welcome!
First you should echo $GREP_OPTS , because at least once i saw a GREP_OPTS=-i or something like that, in a server I didn't administer.
Ooh, didn't know about that.
Interesting how many other comments are based on assumptions about the system that may not be valid, e.g. running xinetd, running xdm, existence of killall, prompt set to use # character for root... I'm not sure I've ever actually seen a system without # for a root prompt, but it's easy enough to change, and systems without the others are pretty common.
Well, it would, not running xinetd anymore.. :-P
case sensitivity...
Ever here a native of the country or a Latin language (Spanish, Portugese, Italian, etc.) speaker pronounce the name?
Did you mean Español, Português, Italiano, etc.?
This is what UPSes are for...
Nope, not feigning ignorance, I haven't heard of them either. Now that you say this, I do see the site listed on Slashdot's left sidebar, under "Services", but I had never noticed this before (and take a look at my UID to get an idea how long I've been around). I guess they're a Slashdot sponsor, then?
It's possible I may have seen the name at some point, but not knowing anything about them, it didn't stick. I've never been to their web site, and I don't believe I've ever heard anyone talk about them.
I rather liked the "About a minute" estimate, because every app I'd ever seen that tried to estimate remaining time more accurately than that was always ridiculously inaccurate, with the number of seconds remaining either going up, or going down to fast, or not changing at all for several seconds. I'd rather see a vague estimate than a precise but wrong estimate. Progress bars are good though.
Just speak to the cold caller in a whisper. Continue this way until you think he's turned up the volume on his headset to a rather loud level. Then take your air horn and let'em have it. Ok.. So I'm a little evil.
A little?
This will not accomplish anything, beyond hurting some poor Indian's ear. DirecTV won't even hear about the incident.
Ah, yes, that was it. It looks like they've been bought out by the publishers of a magazine, and you can subscribe to both the magazine and the web site for $99/year. It doesn't look like they're currently offering anything for free.
I thought this was suppose to be a joke until I saw the modding. That's not simplicity, it's just ridiculous. I don't want my UIs to be an exploration, full of hidden rewards. I want the treasure map on every wall, with multiple paths to the clearly marked rewards. I want the app to be clear to understand, without any instruction. Macs have a pretty looking interface, beyond the aesthetics, the interface is way overrated.
I've been a Mac user since System 6, and I love iTunes, but you're right about this - the iTunes UI is not as intuitive as it should be. It's stripped down into somebody's idea of aesthetically pleasing, with various functionality deliberately hidden so as to avoid cluttering the screen. The clearest example of this is the button to change settings for the Visualizer (the screen saver thing that activates when you click the middle button in the bottom right corner). The sensible place for these settings is in Preferences, along with all the other settings. But they wanted a button to put in the top right corner when the Visualizer is active, just to have a button there, so they made it an Options button for the Visualizer. There's a menu option to toggle the Visualizer to full-screen mode (in the Visualizer menu, not in the Options dialog); once you've done so, there's no way to access the Options dialog until you switch the Visualizer back out of full-screen mode (the mode is persistent, so if you hit Escape to exit the Visualizer, then click the Visualizer button, you'll be back in full-screen mode). Once you learn how this all works, you can use it, but that really shouldn't be necessary.