Hit the "Remove Objects" menu item in your IDE. That's how.
That assumes the author of the IDE was thoughful enough to provide that choice. If such a choice isn't there, then what? The beauty of a CLI is that nobody but the user has to anticipate choices.
Really, what's the draw to burning the music back to a disc? The great thing about these players (not that I've got one... I wan't ogg support) is that you can easily swap out a single song or multiple songs.
Who needs to swap out a song if you have room for all the music you need? Swapping is something forced by the tiny memories of typical MP3 players. I have a player that uses full-size CD's and can store 10 hours of music at 128 KBPS. If I had infinite resources I'd have a Nomad or something similar and have every CD I own available. I don't see the point of memory-based players that can only store a dozen songs or so.
Yeah, yeah, you think Peanuts was funnier than Bloom County. No doubt you think Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet were laugh riots too, and think Norman Rockwell was a great artist. I'll take biting sarcasm over stale 1950's nostalgia any day.
I certainly encountered more than my fair share of professors in undergrad and in grad school who had tenure and all kinds of honors, but didn't understand how a real computer works. Case in point: Algorithm analysis. We analyze the performance of algorithms based on a model where every memory access can take the same amount of time
Yes, that's why the traditional algorithm analysis is rapidly being displaced by a new field of CS -- "algorithm engineering". Algorithm engineering aims to understand what makes algorithms faster on real life machines. It is of course far less clean and much more empirical than traditional methods.
Now I'd really like to watch the others that I bought. But the suits say I cannot. Worse, the American suits - I am neither American, nor living in the USA. And yet, I cannot find a downloadable player anywhere that works.
I assume you know about the DeCSS plugin for xine (if not, do some google searching). It's how I watch my DVDs and the ones I rent -- you don't get the special features like trailers, but otherwise it works extremely well. But, its legal status is rather murky, of course.
And how deep is Ruby's Unicode support? If you can please point me to documentation on using Ruby's regexp engine to match Unicode characters, I would appreciate it.
Here you have an issue of implementation, not design, but at present a legitimate issue. Ruby is a product of Japan, and ironically, from the perspective of Westerners, who generally see Unicode as a sort of peace offering to Asians to make up for the dark ages of ASCII, the Japanese hate Unicode and prefer their own multibyte solution. So, the status of Unicode in Ruby is somewhat primitive at present. However, as Ruby was designed with multibyte characters in mind, it should be much easier to improve the Unicode support than in other languages.
That's bunk. There's nothing other than what is "acceptable usage" in a coder's mind that makes something a "normal" or "scripting" language.
Well, in the case of Smalltalk, most implementations I've seen live in their own environments rather than interacting with the native command line. This makes them more or less useless for "scripting" in the normal sense where you call a script from the command line and pipe data into a script and output results on stdout. For example:
neatoScript < data.txt > processedData.txt
Perhaps you don't have to do such tasks in your own work, but that's what scripting languages are used for.
who says Python is an upgrade from Perl? It's all a matter of choice.
Well, even Larry Wall himself admits that Perl 5 is showing its age. Look at the plans for Perl 6. It is looking more and more like Python and Ruby, isn't it?
What's wrong with Smalltalk being "the next level"?
Well, there is a place for scripting languages and "normal" programming languages. Smalltalk competes with Java and C++. It complements scripting languages.
I get the stronger sense that you don't know Ruby -- most Rubyists tend to be ex-Pythoners and not the other way around, but nevermind.
Python gets *none* of its object-orientedness from C++
Python lacks metaclasses, lacks a true unified object hierarchy, and supports multiple inheritance (considered a very bad idea by most experts in OO. Like the "goto" statement, multiple inheritance may seem useful at times but it leads to unmaintainable code). All these are simple repeats of the mistakes of C++.
Python's OO credentials are just as strong as Ruby's. This is especially true for Python 2.2 where you can subclass even primitive types
Yes, Python is improving, but all these improvements (like allowing the subclassing of primitives) only serve to point out flaws in the design (why aren't primitives normal objects in the first place?)
Python gets all of its object-orientness from C++, Ruby gets its from Smalltalk. C++ is generally regarded as a crude (although useful) hack, whereas Smalltalk is the definition of elegance itself. So, if it is cleanliness you want you should move to Ruby. I find it amusing that while the Pythoners mock the Perl-hackers that refuse to upgrade to Python, they themselves refuse to upgrade to the next level .
Hell, what if one of the scientists create a cure for alzheimers from this research and manages to patent it? What will you say then?
I'd say "Congratulations!". You know, cures just don't leap out of a university lab and into the pharmacy. They require millions of dollars of development and testing. While it might be nice if the public sector could be funded to that level, in reality only the money of private investors is enough. And they won't invest unless there is proprietory, patented technology. That's just the way it is. The pharmacy industry gets a bad rep for making lots of money, but really, if they didn't do that, the investors wouldn't be interested and no new drugs could be brought to market.
I've read an e-book or two (I downloaded a couple of volumes from the Gutenburg project to my Palm), but I must say...there is something satisfying about paper. About holding a book in your hands. About owning a book.
So you have a book fetish. Ooookay. Whatever floats your boat. I guess I'm a bit of Neoplatonist in that I see a physical book as only an imperfect vessel for the content. Given a better vessel (and I realize that current e-books aren't better than paper in all respects yet) I won't miss the paper book any more than I do the LP or 8-track.
They're either timeless references such as the Dragon Book, or great fiction such as the works of Asimov and Zelazny.
Well, I'm not sure Asimov and Zelazny are considered great authors outside SF fandom, but I'm fond of them myself. However, I've found that the availability of classic works of fiction by universally-lauded authors like Melville, Hardy, Goethe, etc. in freely available e-book form has caused me to read them on my Handspring even though I probably would have never purchased even a cheap Dover Classic edition of their works.
Re:I hope that sounds better in Japanese
on
WonderSwan Advance
·
· Score: 2
It isn't bashing. Go to Japan some time and see for yourself. Granted, Westerners sound like idiots trying to say even basic Japanese things like "Domo Arigato", but at least they don't wear t-shirts with more or less random collections of Japanese words on them.
What's even more bizzare is that Wizardry:The Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, which more or less invented CRPGs when it was released in 1981 (God, twenty years ago!) for the Apple ][, has been ported to it! (I can't read Japanese, but I followed the Wizardry link)
agree with the gist of your post, and teaching cops conflict resolution might be helpful. The real problem is that protests are viewed as a problem and no one gives a damn about what's being protested.
Protests *are* the problem. Like acts of terrorism (which if you think about it, are really just protests taken to their logical extreme), they do nothing to promote their cause. When I read a report of a terrorist act or a protest my respect for the cause the protesters were supposedly promoting goes down.
Consider the case of globalization -- one one side you have essentially all the economists in the world saying that it will be a wonderful thing, and their arguments are backed up by mathematical models, and the other hand you have protesters who can't seem to even shout a coherent sentence about the evils of corporate imperialism. Perhaps the economists' mathematical models are wrong, but protests are useless for discovering that.
So, let's assume emulating.NET is a worthy goal So why is Microsoft helping Ximian? Is it because they need Ximian's help in making.NET a standard? Microsoft has shown itself quite capable of making unilateral standards that are quite popular all by itself. Is it because Microsoft has suddenly become different than it has been in the past and suddenly wants to play nice? They no longer consider Linux and the GPL as cancers? Or because they want to make Ximian go on a wild goose chase that will in the end prove fruitless? You don't have to even have assume that Microsoft is the Mordor of the computing industry to see that it is not in their best interest to help Ximian in any meaningful way. It is easy to see how distracting Ximian from its work on GNOME *is* in Microsoft's best interest, however.
Well, it is a bit of myth that Buddhism doesn't want to convert followers by force. Look at Sri Lanka -- the whole Tamil conflict is caused by the fact that the Buddhist majority there wants the Hindu Tamils to assimilate or move away.
Similarly, there certainly is conflict in the Open Source community -- different licenses, different desktop environments, etc. can start the same sorts of silly arguments such as the MacOS/Windows debate that happen in the closed source world.
In general, people mean "free content" to include tax-payer supported content. Without taxpayer money the Net itself wouldn't exist. However, tax-payer supported content has the advantage that people don't have to cough up a special fee to use it. This is good, especially in terms of your example of basic education. Probably a significant fraction of the populace wouldn't cough up the dough needed to educate their children, if the fees weren't already paid for by taxes
Okay, I'm dredging up really old memories here, but wasn't that essentially the same critter?
No. The HX-20 was an entirely different design. It had a much smaller screen, built in printer, and had no built-in software except a BASIC interpreter.
Pat yourself on the back, you're in the minority. Most people find the movie confusing on the first viewing.
Are they the same people who don't get 2001, don't understand the ending of AI and need to have Far Side cartoons explained to them?
Not to be snide here, but I don't understand why some otherwise intelligent people can't seem to make logical leaps and fill in the gaps in the case of missing knowledge. Personally, I *enjoy* movies that make me think about how the pieces fit together -- I *don't* want everything explained to me.
The Espon HX-20 came out before the Model 100. Anti-Microsoft conspiracy buffs will note that the built-in software in the Model 100 was written by Bill Gates, so maybe that explains the revisonist history.
Oh yes, and we know what happens after you make such so called uncensored services. State breakdowns that is. You know what happened with the happy USSR? It is now a bunch of poor hungry countries.
Well, the Soviet Union was hardly a weathly nation even at the peak of its power, and one of the reasons for its breakup was the fact that it was essentially a Russian-led empire, a fact which the other nationalities resented. While China does have its ethnic minorities such as Mongolians and Tibetans, it is much more linguistically and culturally unified than the Soviet Union was, making a breakup unlikely.
Shame on you. I think the chinese know what to do with their own country better than you.
If the Chinese actually had any say in what their government does, you'd have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
Hit the "Remove Objects" menu item in your IDE. That's how.
That assumes the author of the IDE was thoughful enough to provide that choice. If such a choice isn't there, then what? The beauty of a CLI is that nobody but the user has to anticipate choices.
So you have a method of representing an alphabetical character in a single bit? ASCII uses a byte per character.
Really, what's the draw to burning the music back to a disc? The great thing about these players (not that I've got one... I wan't ogg support) is that you can easily swap out a single song or multiple songs.
Who needs to swap out a song if you have room for all the music you need? Swapping is something forced by the tiny memories of typical MP3 players. I have a player that uses full-size CD's and can store 10 hours of music at 128 KBPS. If I had infinite resources I'd have a Nomad or something similar and have every CD I own available. I don't see the point of memory-based players that can only store a dozen songs or so.
Yeah, yeah, you think Peanuts was funnier than Bloom County. No doubt you think Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet were laugh riots too, and think Norman Rockwell was a great artist. I'll take biting sarcasm over stale 1950's nostalgia any day.
I certainly encountered more than my fair share of professors in undergrad and in grad school who had tenure and all kinds of honors, but didn't understand how a real computer works. Case in point: Algorithm analysis. We analyze the performance of algorithms based on a model where every memory access can take the same amount of time
Yes, that's why the traditional algorithm analysis is rapidly being displaced by a new field of CS -- "algorithm engineering". Algorithm engineering aims to understand what makes algorithms faster on real life machines. It is of course far less clean and much more empirical than traditional methods.
Now I'd really like to watch the others that I bought. But the suits say I cannot. Worse, the American suits - I am neither American, nor living in the USA. And yet, I cannot find a downloadable player anywhere that works.
I assume you know about the DeCSS plugin for xine (if not, do some google searching). It's how I watch my DVDs and the ones I rent -- you don't get the special features like trailers, but otherwise it works extremely well. But, its legal status is rather murky, of course.
And how deep is Ruby's Unicode support? If you can please point me to documentation on using Ruby's regexp engine to match Unicode characters, I would appreciate it.
Here you have an issue of implementation, not design, but at present a legitimate issue. Ruby is a product of Japan, and ironically, from the perspective of Westerners, who generally see Unicode as a sort of peace offering to Asians to make up for the dark ages of ASCII, the Japanese hate Unicode and prefer their own multibyte solution. So, the status of Unicode in Ruby is somewhat primitive at present. However, as Ruby was designed with multibyte characters in mind, it should be much easier to improve the Unicode support than in other languages.
That's bunk. There's nothing other than what is "acceptable usage" in a coder's mind that makes something a "normal" or "scripting" language.
Well, in the case of Smalltalk, most implementations I've seen live in their own environments rather than interacting with the native command line. This makes them more or less useless for "scripting" in the normal sense where you call a script from the command line and pipe data into a script and output results on stdout. For example:
neatoScript < data.txt > processedData.txt
Perhaps you don't have to do such tasks in your own work, but that's what scripting languages are used for.
who says Python is an upgrade from Perl? It's all a matter of choice.
Well, even Larry Wall himself admits that Perl 5 is showing its age. Look at the plans for Perl 6. It is looking more and more like Python and Ruby, isn't it?
What's wrong with Smalltalk being "the next level"?
Well, there is a place for scripting languages and "normal" programming languages. Smalltalk competes with Java and C++. It complements scripting languages.
I have a strong sense that you don't know Python.
I get the stronger sense that you don't know Ruby -- most Rubyists tend to be ex-Pythoners and not the other way around, but nevermind.
Python gets *none* of its object-orientedness from C++
Python lacks metaclasses, lacks a true unified object hierarchy, and supports multiple inheritance (considered a very bad idea by most experts in OO. Like the "goto" statement, multiple inheritance may seem useful at times but it leads to unmaintainable code). All these are simple repeats of the mistakes of C++.
Python's OO credentials are just as strong as Ruby's. This is especially true for Python 2.2 where you can subclass even primitive types
Yes, Python is improving, but all these improvements (like allowing the subclassing of primitives) only serve to point out flaws in the design (why aren't primitives normal objects in the first place?)
Python gets all of its object-orientness from C++, Ruby gets its from Smalltalk. C++ is generally regarded as a crude (although useful) hack, whereas Smalltalk is the definition of elegance itself. So, if it is cleanliness you want you should move to Ruby. I find it amusing that while the Pythoners mock the Perl-hackers that refuse to upgrade to Python, they themselves refuse to upgrade to the next level .
Hell, what if one of the scientists create a cure for alzheimers from this research and manages to patent it? What will you say then?
I'd say "Congratulations!". You know, cures just don't leap out of a university lab and into the pharmacy. They require millions of dollars of development and testing. While it might be nice if the public sector could be funded to that level, in reality only the money of private investors is enough. And they won't invest unless there is proprietory, patented technology. That's just the way it is. The pharmacy industry gets a bad rep for making lots of money, but really, if they didn't do that, the investors wouldn't be interested and no new drugs could be brought to market.
I've read an e-book or two (I downloaded a couple of volumes from the Gutenburg project to my Palm), but I must say...there is something satisfying about paper. About holding a book in your hands. About owning a book.
So you have a book fetish. Ooookay. Whatever floats your boat. I guess I'm a bit of Neoplatonist in that I see a physical book as only an imperfect vessel for the content. Given a better vessel (and I realize that current e-books aren't better than paper in all respects yet) I won't miss the paper book any more than I do the LP or 8-track.
They're either timeless references such as the Dragon Book, or great fiction such as the works of Asimov and Zelazny.
Well, I'm not sure Asimov and Zelazny are considered great authors outside SF fandom, but I'm fond of them myself. However, I've found that the availability of classic works of fiction by universally-lauded authors like Melville, Hardy, Goethe, etc. in freely available e-book form has caused me to read them on my Handspring even though I probably would have never purchased even a cheap Dover Classic edition of their works.
It isn't bashing. Go to Japan some time and see for yourself. Granted, Westerners sound like idiots trying to say even basic Japanese things like "Domo Arigato", but at least they don't wear t-shirts with more or less random collections of Japanese words on them.
What's even more bizzare is that Wizardry:The Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, which more or less invented CRPGs when it was released in 1981 (God, twenty years ago!) for the Apple ][, has been ported to it! (I can't read Japanese, but I followed the Wizardry link)
agree with the gist of your post, and teaching cops conflict resolution might be helpful. The real problem is that protests are viewed as a problem and no one gives a damn about what's being protested.
Protests *are* the problem. Like acts of terrorism (which if you think about it, are really just protests taken to their logical extreme), they do nothing to promote their cause. When I read a report of a terrorist act or a protest my respect for the cause the protesters were supposedly promoting goes down.
Consider the case of globalization -- one one side you have essentially all the economists in the world saying that it will be a wonderful thing, and their arguments are backed up by mathematical models, and the other hand you have protesters who can't seem to even shout a coherent sentence about the evils of corporate imperialism. Perhaps the economists' mathematical models are wrong, but protests are useless for discovering that.
So, let's assume emulating .NET is a worthy goal So why is Microsoft helping Ximian? Is it because they need Ximian's help in making .NET a standard? Microsoft has shown itself quite capable of making unilateral standards that are quite popular all by itself. Is it because Microsoft has suddenly become different than it has been in the past and suddenly wants to play nice? They no longer consider Linux and the GPL as cancers? Or because they want to make Ximian go on a wild goose chase that will in the end prove fruitless? You don't have to even have assume that Microsoft is the Mordor of the computing industry to see that it is not in their best interest to help Ximian in any meaningful way. It is easy to see how distracting Ximian from its work on GNOME *is* in Microsoft's best interest, however.
Well, it is a bit of myth that Buddhism doesn't want to convert followers by force. Look at Sri Lanka -- the whole Tamil conflict is caused by the fact that the Buddhist majority there wants the Hindu Tamils to assimilate or move away.
Similarly, there certainly is conflict in the Open Source community -- different licenses, different desktop environments, etc. can start the same sorts of silly arguments such as the MacOS/Windows debate that happen in the closed source world.
In general, people mean "free content" to include tax-payer supported content. Without taxpayer money the Net itself wouldn't exist. However, tax-payer supported content has the advantage that people don't have to cough up a special fee to use it. This is good, especially in terms of your example of basic education. Probably a significant fraction of the populace wouldn't cough up the dough needed to educate their children, if the fees weren't already paid for by taxes
Okay, I'm dredging up really old memories here, but wasn't that essentially the same critter?
No. The HX-20 was an entirely different design. It had a much smaller screen, built in printer, and had no built-in software except a BASIC interpreter.
Pat yourself on the back, you're in the minority. Most people find the movie confusing on the first viewing.
Are they the same people who don't get 2001, don't understand the ending of AI and need to have Far Side cartoons explained to them?
Not to be snide here, but I don't understand why some otherwise intelligent people can't seem to make logical leaps and fill in the gaps in the case of missing knowledge. Personally, I *enjoy* movies that make me think about how the pieces fit together -- I *don't* want everything explained to me.
Yeah, MS-Basic was in a lot of early micros, not just Commodore machines. But in general these were ports, not personally written by BillG himself.
The Espon HX-20 came out before the Model 100. Anti-Microsoft conspiracy buffs will note that the built-in software in the Model 100 was written by Bill Gates, so maybe that explains the revisonist history.
Oh yes, and we know what happens after you make such so called uncensored services. State breakdowns that is. You know what happened with the happy USSR? It is now a bunch of poor hungry countries.
Well, the Soviet Union was hardly a weathly nation even at the peak of its power, and one of the reasons for its breakup was the fact that it was essentially a Russian-led empire, a fact which the other nationalities resented. While China does have its ethnic minorities such as Mongolians and Tibetans, it is much more linguistically and culturally unified than the Soviet Union was, making a breakup unlikely.
Shame on you. I think the chinese know what to do with their own country better than you.
If the Chinese actually had any say in what their government does, you'd have a point.