I imagine if I were an XML "programmer" as he indicated (whatever that is!), I'd want something that shows XML tag mismatches. GVIM tries, but I suspect emacs would do a better job.
I'll assume you're not being a language zealot, and just misunderstood the parent to be claiming XML as a programming language (as opposed to a data description language). In any case, I recommend the X-Men plugin for Eclipse. It goes a little beyond "trying" and actually does a good job at adding XML-awareness to Eclipse.
I'm not sure how this wasn't modded a troll, much less insightful.
While sometimes criticized for being a "nanny state", Singapore is a republic with a flourishing free-market economy and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. The country has four official languages, including English and Chinese, and has one of the world's most highly educated populaces. Its government is consistently rated by Transparency International as being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)
Yeah, sounds like a real vile, oppressive, wicked place alright.
Really using the idea how it should, not to protect something somebody bought a license for, but just to use it in a way the person agreed on beforehand (you borrow the book for 3 weeks is a pre agreed way).
But aren't they the same thing? There's obviously no physical book that needs to be returned. The library has to pay the publisher for every download. This is simply a mechanism to prevent people from hijacking the digital material and ensure the publisher gets paid in proportion to the content's popularity. It's fair, but it's also protecting something (the digital audio book) somebody (the library) bought a license for.
Just paint a flag on your house. When Congress passes the ban on flag desecration, won't these eminent domain folks find themselves in a pickle when they try to bulldoze your home!
It's like I always say, when live gives you lemons...squirt them in the eyes of your enemy!
Most people in-the-know realize that traditional RC hobby servos are practically useless for serious robotics projects. They're underpowered, inprecise, and unreliable. This is why several companies such as Kondo and Megarobotics (both Japanese IIRC) have designed special digital servos that are more powerful, easier to mount, and double as sensors using networked bus protocols. If you're into robotics, don't waste any more money on obsolete RC servos.
It should be noted that this is a closed, binary, Windows-only dll, which may even damage your $1500 robot. I don't want to sound zealous, but no serious robotist should be using Windows. Wake me when anyone can compile it under Linux.
Use this library at your own risk. There is no guarantee this software would work at all in your system or your robot. Your robot might be damaged....
This is a library for controlling the KHR-1 RCB boards using the serial link from a PC under Windows.
Somehow, I have a feeling that optional variable declaration will be a poor substitute for required variable declaration. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from "optionally" declaring your variables at the top of your code (e.g. myvar=0). What the parent wants is a throwback feature from static languages like C, which most people use Python to avoid. Python also supports the semicolon, so the homesick C programmer can write almost all their Python code on a single line if they wish, but this largely defeats the purpose of using a language as elegant as Python. IMO, we already have too many concesssions to obtuse parent languages already. Let's have Python stand on its own feet, and stop implementing features that have no practical value.
Taking their advice, as a test I tried installing the Gaim autopackage.
FAIL: You don't have enough disk space for in prefix , you need at least bytes/usr/libexec/autopackage/freespace: error while loading shared libraries: libgcc_s.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Your entire argument is based on the opinion that winning over the general public is somehow the "goal" of Linux.
I wonder where the auto-industry would be today if it Ford hadn't won over the general public with a cheap, simple automobile. No, you're right, why should Linux be popular? All that would do is increase hardware support, attract a wealth of new developers and applications, and generally enrich our community. We can't have that.
But choice is EXACTLY what got Linux where it is today.
Which is where exactly? Open source is an amazing thing, but one might wonder what we could achieve if we focussed less on quantity of applications and more on quality.
While I generally agree with your reasoning, I must take issue with your stance on the applicability of the Geneva Convention. Adhering to the convention in the hope that terrorists and insurgents will reciprocate is at best incredibly naive, and at worst, suicidal.
I suppose you're also opposed to cameras that monitor traffic and catch people running red lights?
God damn right I am.
Any particular reason, or do you feel you have a right to endanger my life simply because an officer isn't around to give you a ticket?
So efficiently monitoring public areas with a remote camera is bad, but monitoring public areas by having an officer put themselves in harms way by constantly patrolling dangerous city streets is good?
YES. Officers walking around on foot is how we used to keep our cities safe, and if we did more of that instead of relying on technology to catch people after the fact our cities would be safer. A camera can't do anything but finger the guy who shot you; and don't talk to me about deterrence when an armed officer would be vastly more effective as a deterrent.
This is ridiculous. Yeah, roaming around in pitchfork-totting mobs burning witches at the stake is how we "used to keep our cities safe" too, but things changed nonetheless. Police are an expensive, finite resource. If we can use cameras to make more efficient use of their services, then we should (and we are). Thousands of people, who would have otherwise gotten away with their crimes, are convicted each year based on camera evidence.
But why not, beyond the obvious legal answer? The EM radiation emnating from the wires your email is moving down go through public places; why can't they just set up an antenna and pick them up, and why is this different than a camera?
Well, the legal answer is the only one that matters, but consider this. The wire isn't a public place. This is the same reason why you can drive your private care down a public road and still refuse to have your car searched without a warrant (barring exigent circumstances).
Fortunately enough people do understand that it's still not possible for them to announce that ubiquitous monitoring is now the answer. Instead they have to sneak in cameras for supposedly specific purposes like red lights or gunshots to get the people used to having cameras on them all the time slowly. Unfortunately it's working -- case in point right here.
I guess I just don't share or understand your paranoia. The funny thing is, if cities tripled their police forces and had officers watching your every move, people like you would most likely have less of a problem with that. Of course, no one would ever want to pay for such an increase, but everyone's too scared of the cost-saving alternatives. You know, sometimes, just sometimes, the government is actually trying to do some good.
Okay, what do you call surreptitiously observing peoples activities, then? Video taping an unaware couple making out in a park isn't spying? Yes, it is a public place and therefore I could be being watched at any time. That does not mean it is acceptable to me to actually be watched all the time. If you disagree, then why don't you just stick a transmitter on yourself whenever you leave the house so the government can track you at all times -- but only when you're in public! That makes it okay!
That wasn't even intelligible. Spying involves monitoring someone without their knowledge. These cameras aren't hidden. They'd most likely be mounted in plain view on telephone poles. I suppose you're also opposed to cameras that monitor traffic and catch people running red lights? Banks and other security conscious companies have cameras that are routinely monitoring the public around their premises. If you're truly worried about being discretely spied on by cameras, you're a few decades behind the times.
And what is this system doing for all the time that there aren't any gunshots going off? The "system" may be for detecting gun shots, but it's still a moveable camera and a microphone. So they blanket a few neighborhoods with these -- are the LAPD going to be happy with just passively waiting for the system to identify gunshots, or are they going to want to expand what they can do with their new camera/microphone network? Hint: Only one answer is consistent with the history of law enforcement.
So efficiently monitoring public areas with a remote camera is bad, but monitoring public areas by having an officer put themselves in harms way by constantly patrolling dangerous city streets is good? These areas are public. You have no right to privacy in public places. Is that really such a difficult concept?
In the article, you should postpend every statement on what the system doesn't do with "... yet." Tracking limited amounts of speech, certain "alarm signal" words, wouldn't be a huge addition to the system and with microphones everywhere... think an Echelon or Carnivore for meatspace. But now that I think about it, my emails and phone calls travel on wires over public property, so I guess it's no big deal if the government listens in on that either.
Well, it would be if it weren't for a silly thing called Federal law. Even most states have laws securing the right to privacy over communication lines. As with the mail, there's a reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of where your correspondence actually travels. The government can't just "listen in" unless they have a warrant.
Overall, I suppose I just don't understand your fear of being watched in public. A society that's not allowed to even look at each other in public areas is far more disturbing than any Orwellean nightmare I could envision.
The reason that P2P networks are useful is because the speeds are fast and there is a TON of material out there. I'm sorry but a private network that is invite only just won't cut it.
In general, you're probably right, but there may be cases where such an approach is preferrable. For instance, suppose you're a small company or group of developers who don't want invest in a server or private physical network, yet don't want to post their content for all the world to see on a traditional P2P network. A private P2P network might be a good alternative.
However, to outsiders (RIAA/MPAA) encryption means hiding data that doesn't belong to you. They will counter any argument with that statement.
And they'll be countered with a hearty round of laughter. I wonder what the ACLU would think about this idea to ban all privacy (which is what encryption is) because you *might* be using it to hide illegal activity.
And with a $18600 pricetag, it'll be decades before anyone ever buys one. It's certainly cool, but at that price it'd better be more than a novel display.
While all fuels are inherently dangerous, hydrogen is notably safer in severalways, such as it's tendency to dissipate skywards when leaked and the fact that it's nontoxic.
I don't agree with you, but I'd really love to hear you explain why you believe it's OK to for rape/incest victims to commit murder. If someone breaks my nose, does that mean it's OK for me to murder my 6 year old kid?
That's a completely invalid comparison. Being punched in the nose doesn't lead to 9 months of continuous stress and anguish, climaxed by one of the most painful female experiences, followed by 18 years of sole responsibility for another life. If you're a woman, would you be willing to carry their fetus in your womb? Would you be willing to raise the child yourself once it's born? It's easy to self-righteously declare all murder is wrong, but unless you're willing to consider these other aspects, you have no right to dictate what someone else should do with their body. Personally, I believe abortion should be safe, legal, but rare. However, I will always defend a woman's right choose a course of action that will infinitely effect her life more than it will you or me.
Considering all robots presently utilized in the war are drones operated remotely by military personnel, should that situation arise, the robot would not be the one making the mistake.
And this is understandable, considering current autonomous robots can barely vacuum our rugs, much less decide who should die.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I go to see the Ajax applications. Lo and behold! All of them assume that I use a tiny 8 point font.
In Firefox, increase text size with Ctrl++. Problem solved.
Although I'm not sure what you're complaining about. The apps I visited all had 12pt font.
I imagine if I were an XML "programmer" as he indicated (whatever that is!), I'd want something that shows XML tag mismatches. GVIM tries, but I suspect emacs would do a better job.
I'll assume you're not being a language zealot, and just misunderstood the parent to be claiming XML as a programming language (as opposed to a data description language). In any case, I recommend the X-Men plugin for Eclipse. It goes a little beyond "trying" and actually does a good job at adding XML-awareness to Eclipse.
I'm not sure how this wasn't modded a troll, much less insightful.
While sometimes criticized for being a "nanny state", Singapore is a republic with a flourishing free-market economy and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. The country has four official languages, including English and Chinese, and has one of the world's most highly educated populaces. Its government is consistently rated by Transparency International as being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)
Yeah, sounds like a real vile, oppressive, wicked place alright.
Don't encourage him. It's obvious these DBs were created through intelligent design!
Really using the idea how it should, not to protect something somebody bought a license for, but just to use it in a way the person agreed on beforehand (you borrow the book for 3 weeks is a pre agreed way).
But aren't they the same thing? There's obviously no physical book that needs to be returned. The library has to pay the publisher for every download. This is simply a mechanism to prevent people from hijacking the digital material and ensure the publisher gets paid in proportion to the content's popularity. It's fair, but it's also protecting something (the digital audio book) somebody (the library) bought a license for.
Just paint a flag on your house. When Congress passes the ban on flag desecration, won't these eminent domain folks find themselves in a pickle when they try to bulldoze your home!
It's like I always say, when live gives you lemons...squirt them in the eyes of your enemy!
Get with it. They're aluminum now ;)
Most people in-the-know realize that traditional RC hobby servos are practically useless for serious robotics projects. They're underpowered, inprecise, and unreliable. This is why several companies such as Kondo and Megarobotics (both Japanese IIRC) have designed special digital servos that are more powerful, easier to mount, and double as sensors using networked bus protocols. If you're into robotics, don't waste any more money on obsolete RC servos.
Please don't mod up this well-known fraud. He has no formal education or experience in AI and his "theories" have long been debunked by those that do.
It should be noted that this is a closed, binary, Windows-only dll, which may even damage your $1500 robot. I don't want to sound zealous, but no serious robotist should be using Windows. Wake me when anyone can compile it under Linux.
...
This is a library for controlling the KHR-1 RCB boards using the serial link from a PC under Windows.
Use this library at your own risk. There is no guarantee this software would work at all in your system or your robot. Your robot might be damaged.
Kudos to you. However, I fear you're more the exception than the rule.
Somehow, I have a feeling that optional variable declaration will be a poor substitute for required variable declaration. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from "optionally" declaring your variables at the top of your code (e.g. myvar=0). What the parent wants is a throwback feature from static languages like C, which most people use Python to avoid. Python also supports the semicolon, so the homesick C programmer can write almost all their Python code on a single line if they wish, but this largely defeats the purpose of using a language as elegant as Python. IMO, we already have too many concesssions to obtuse parent languages already. Let's have Python stand on its own feet, and stop implementing features that have no practical value.
Taking their advice, as a test I tried installing the Gaim autopackage.
/usr/libexec/autopackage/freespace: error while loading shared libraries: libgcc_s.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
FAIL: You don't have enough disk space for in prefix , you need at least bytes
Oh well.
Your entire argument is based on the opinion that winning over the general public is somehow the "goal" of Linux.
I wonder where the auto-industry would be today if it Ford hadn't won over the general public with a cheap, simple automobile. No, you're right, why should Linux be popular? All that would do is increase hardware support, attract a wealth of new developers and applications, and generally enrich our community. We can't have that.
But choice is EXACTLY what got Linux where it is today.
Which is where exactly? Open source is an amazing thing, but one might wonder what we could achieve if we focussed less on quantity of applications and more on quality.
Didn't Microsoft already patent something similar?
Microsoft Patents The Human Body As A Network Bus
I hardly think kicking rocket launchers at people will be an effective military strategy.
While I generally agree with your reasoning, I must take issue with your stance on the applicability of the Geneva Convention. Adhering to the convention in the hope that terrorists and insurgents will reciprocate is at best incredibly naive, and at worst, suicidal.
I suppose you're also opposed to cameras that monitor traffic and catch people running red lights?
God damn right I am.
Any particular reason, or do you feel you have a right to endanger my life simply because an officer isn't around to give you a ticket?
So efficiently monitoring public areas with a remote camera is bad, but monitoring public areas by having an officer put themselves in harms way by constantly patrolling dangerous city streets is good? YES. Officers walking around on foot is how we used to keep our cities safe, and if we did more of that instead of relying on technology to catch people after the fact our cities would be safer. A camera can't do anything but finger the guy who shot you; and don't talk to me about deterrence when an armed officer would be vastly more effective as a deterrent.
This is ridiculous. Yeah, roaming around in pitchfork-totting mobs burning witches at the stake is how we "used to keep our cities safe" too, but things changed nonetheless. Police are an expensive, finite resource. If we can use cameras to make more efficient use of their services, then we should (and we are). Thousands of people, who would have otherwise gotten away with their crimes, are convicted each year based on camera evidence.
But why not, beyond the obvious legal answer? The EM radiation emnating from the wires your email is moving down go through public places; why can't they just set up an antenna and pick them up, and why is this different than a camera?
Well, the legal answer is the only one that matters, but consider this. The wire isn't a public place. This is the same reason why you can drive your private care down a public road and still refuse to have your car searched without a warrant (barring exigent circumstances).
Fortunately enough people do understand that it's still not possible for them to announce that ubiquitous monitoring is now the answer. Instead they have to sneak in cameras for supposedly specific purposes like red lights or gunshots to get the people used to having cameras on them all the time slowly. Unfortunately it's working -- case in point right here.
I guess I just don't share or understand your paranoia. The funny thing is, if cities tripled their police forces and had officers watching your every move, people like you would most likely have less of a problem with that. Of course, no one would ever want to pay for such an increase, but everyone's too scared of the cost-saving alternatives. You know, sometimes, just sometimes, the government is actually trying to do some good.
Okay, what do you call surreptitiously observing peoples activities, then? Video taping an unaware couple making out in a park isn't spying? Yes, it is a public place and therefore I could be being watched at any time. That does not mean it is acceptable to me to actually be watched all the time. If you disagree, then why don't you just stick a transmitter on yourself whenever you leave the house so the government can track you at all times -- but only when you're in public! That makes it okay!
That wasn't even intelligible. Spying involves monitoring someone without their knowledge. These cameras aren't hidden. They'd most likely be mounted in plain view on telephone poles. I suppose you're also opposed to cameras that monitor traffic and catch people running red lights? Banks and other security conscious companies have cameras that are routinely monitoring the public around their premises. If you're truly worried about being discretely spied on by cameras, you're a few decades behind the times.
And what is this system doing for all the time that there aren't any gunshots going off? The "system" may be for detecting gun shots, but it's still a moveable camera and a microphone. So they blanket a few neighborhoods with these -- are the LAPD going to be happy with just passively waiting for the system to identify gunshots, or are they going to want to expand what they can do with their new camera/microphone network? Hint: Only one answer is consistent with the history of law enforcement.
So efficiently monitoring public areas with a remote camera is bad, but monitoring public areas by having an officer put themselves in harms way by constantly patrolling dangerous city streets is good? These areas are public. You have no right to privacy in public places. Is that really such a difficult concept?
In the article, you should postpend every statement on what the system doesn't do with "... yet." Tracking limited amounts of speech, certain "alarm signal" words, wouldn't be a huge addition to the system and with microphones everywhere... think an Echelon or Carnivore for meatspace. But now that I think about it, my emails and phone calls travel on wires over public property, so I guess it's no big deal if the government listens in on that either.
Well, it would be if it weren't for a silly thing called Federal law. Even most states have laws securing the right to privacy over communication lines. As with the mail, there's a reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of where your correspondence actually travels. The government can't just "listen in" unless they have a warrant. Overall, I suppose I just don't understand your fear of being watched in public. A society that's not allowed to even look at each other in public areas is far more disturbing than any Orwellean nightmare I could envision.
The reason that P2P networks are useful is because the speeds are fast and there is a TON of material out there. I'm sorry but a private network that is invite only just won't cut it.
In general, you're probably right, but there may be cases where such an approach is preferrable. For instance, suppose you're a small company or group of developers who don't want invest in a server or private physical network, yet don't want to post their content for all the world to see on a traditional P2P network. A private P2P network might be a good alternative.
However, to outsiders (RIAA/MPAA) encryption means hiding data that doesn't belong to you. They will counter any argument with that statement.
And they'll be countered with a hearty round of laughter. I wonder what the ACLU would think about this idea to ban all privacy (which is what encryption is) because you *might* be using it to hide illegal activity.
From Netscape sprang Mozilla. From Mozilla sprang Firefox. Now from Firefox sprange Netscape. The circle of life is complete!
And with a $18600 pricetag, it'll be decades before anyone ever buys one. It's certainly cool, but at that price it'd better be more than a novel display.
While all fuels are inherently dangerous, hydrogen is notably safer in several ways, such as it's tendency to dissipate skywards when leaked and the fact that it's nontoxic.
I don't agree with you, but I'd really love to hear you explain why you believe it's OK to for rape/incest victims to commit murder. If someone breaks my nose, does that mean it's OK for me to murder my 6 year old kid?
That's a completely invalid comparison. Being punched in the nose doesn't lead to 9 months of continuous stress and anguish, climaxed by one of the most painful female experiences, followed by 18 years of sole responsibility for another life. If you're a woman, would you be willing to carry their fetus in your womb? Would you be willing to raise the child yourself once it's born? It's easy to self-righteously declare all murder is wrong, but unless you're willing to consider these other aspects, you have no right to dictate what someone else should do with their body. Personally, I believe abortion should be safe, legal, but rare. However, I will always defend a woman's right choose a course of action that will infinitely effect her life more than it will you or me.
Considering all robots presently utilized in the war are drones operated remotely by military personnel, should that situation arise, the robot would not be the one making the mistake.
And this is understandable, considering current autonomous robots can barely vacuum our rugs, much less decide who should die.