There's essentially no difference between these two situations. Let me annotate your text a bit to point out the similarities:
All curl is doing is writting a stream of bytes to stdout and ffmpeg is reading a stream of bytes from stdin that it then interprets as a video and plays.
And all Powershell is doing is writing a stream of bytes to stdout, and then reading a stream of bytes from stdin that it then interprets as an object and calls methods on.
To be even more specific: In your first set of examples, the dimensions are actually adjectives describing some noun, and adjectives aren't pluralized. (Although I'm sure someone can find a counter-example.) In the second set, the measurements are nouns themselves, so they get the plural treatment.
To anyone who hasn't discovered it yet: you can also middle click (click with your scroll wheel) on links to open them in a new tab without changing any settings. Try it!
Didn't you know that you can get a Dvorak layout on any keyboard? In almost any OS, the keyboard layout is defined in software. Check it out: http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/support.html
You can pick up a split-key or "natural" style keyboard for about $20 if you look hard enough.
I switched to Dvorak about 5 years ago. My wrists and fingers are thanking me for it.
Why not take the touchpad metaphor all the way? Have a separate button for clicking. Your other hand isn't doing anything but holding the device. Have an intuitively placed button for that hand used for clicking. One hand moves the cursor, always in contact with the touchpad, the other clicks. Or if you do want multi-touch with both index fingers and two cursors, provide thumb buttons for clicking. Seems pretty straightforward, and likely a lot less complicated than this fake-finger-shadow business.
According to:help quoteplus, you got the target X clipboards backward:
There are three documented X selections: PRIMARY (which is expected to represent the current visual selection - as in Vim's Visual mode), SECONDARY (which is ill-defined) and CLIPBOARD (which is expected to be used for cut, copy and paste operations).
Of these three, Vim uses PRIMARY when reading and writing the "* register (hence when the X11 selections are available, Vim sets a default value for 'clipboard' of "autoselect"), and CLIPBOARD when reading and writing the "+ register. Vim does not access the SECONDARY selection.
So "* is when you selected something with the mouse. And "+ is when you used a Copy or Cut command.
Because once you learn that:w is write, and:q is quit, it's easier for many people to remember that write and quit is the combination of the two than to remember a separate, unrelated command. Then it becomes a habit.
like placing the cursor inside a string literal and doing vi" to select the inner portion of the string and then c to start changing it without having to re-type the quotes
I always use "+, too. Apparently, "+ and "* are equivalent in Windows. Under X, "* uses the PRIMARY X selection (visually selected stuff), whereas "+ uses the CLIPBOARD selection (used when you do a Cut or Copy from an app's menu).
Of course such approach is not compatible with the GPL philosophy that emphasises the "no string attached" philosophy
Firstly, although not the worst offender in terms of strings, the GPL is hardly "no strings attached." The main point of the GPL is to attach an unbreakable string to the source, so that it can always be reached. For no strings, you want public domain, or at least the MIT license.
Secondly, the GPL is not incompatible with licensing fees. You can charge whatever you like. You have to provide the source, but that doesn't preclude charging licensing fees for the use of the product (a codec, in this case). Especially if you have patents used by the codec, it may not matter that your customers have the source. If they try to produce something similar using your code, they'll probably be infringing on the patents.
But it is operating. The machine is powered on, drawing electricity, some stuff is displayed on the monitor, and if you type, the keys show up.
If I can't operate it
Ah, now we get to rub. If the computer doesn't do something that you think is worthwhile, it's not operating. But if it doesn't do something my parents think is worthwhile, it could still be operating.
The point is that the term "operate" is vague, making your definition too vague to mean anything. Although I guess now we know the definition of operating: Can paving-slab operate it? Only then is it operating.
I'm not confused. I understand your position. I'm just saying that your "simple definition" is not as simple as you think because people have different definitions of what a functional computer is.
Just because your parents have no use for a computer without GUI doesn't mean it's not operating.
Alright then, what if we booted the kernel and then it didn't load anything, not even init. No GNU system needed. Just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it's not operating.
You see, this definition is silly because whether a computer is "operating" is subjective to the user. If I bought a device whose specific purpose was web browsing, I wouldn't consider it to be operating if it didn't have a web browser. I don't think that makes the browser part of the device's operating system, I think it makes your definition of "operating system" incorrect.
This test isn't so simple. Who defines what "operates" means?
To my parents, a computer without a GUI would not be "operating", i.e. functional. So for them, the OS is X/GNU/Linux?
Consider a handheld device made specifically for browsing the web. Well, that's gonna need a browser to be operational. So now the OS is Opera/X/GNU/Linux?
Honestly, the most difficult part of monads is that everyone thinks they're so hard to understand. The stigma that it's some hugely complicated mathematical concept is getting in everyone's way.
Monads in Haskell are basically just wrappers. Here's a straightforward explanation by someone much smarter than me: You could have invented monads
Slashdot Mirror
There's essentially no difference between these two situations. Let me annotate your text a bit to point out the similarities:
All curl is doing is writting a stream of bytes to stdout and ffmpeg is reading a stream of bytes from stdin that it then interprets as a video and plays.
And all Powershell is doing is writing a stream of bytes to stdout, and then reading a stream of bytes from stdin that it then interprets as an object and calls methods on.
To be even more specific: In your first set of examples, the dimensions are actually adjectives describing some noun, and adjectives aren't pluralized. (Although I'm sure someone can find a counter-example.) In the second set, the measurements are nouns themselves, so they get the plural treatment.
AdBlock lets you add your own definitions, too, even using regular expressions if you want.
To anyone who hasn't discovered it yet: you can also middle click (click with your scroll wheel) on links to open them in a new tab without changing any settings. Try it!
ASCII character 42 (decimal) is '*'. ASCII character 0x42 (hex) is 'B'. Sorry, try again.
I wonder why they consider something made of swallow meat to be a non-meat product.
There must be a name for this phenomenon of switching to something new, but unnecessarily simulating the thing you've left behind.
Yes, it's called idiocy.
That's an amusing coincidence; it isn't irony.
Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with aptitude. So much better that apt-get.
Didn't you know that you can get a Dvorak layout on any keyboard? In almost any OS, the keyboard layout is defined in software. Check it out:
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/support.html
You can pick up a split-key or "natural" style keyboard for about $20 if you look hard enough.
I switched to Dvorak about 5 years ago. My wrists and fingers are thanking me for it.
Why not take the touchpad metaphor all the way? Have a separate button for clicking. Your other hand isn't doing anything but holding the device. Have an intuitively placed button for that hand used for clicking. One hand moves the cursor, always in contact with the touchpad, the other clicks. Or if you do want multi-touch with both index fingers and two cursors, provide thumb buttons for clicking. Seems pretty straightforward, and likely a lot less complicated than this fake-finger-shadow business.
Because he loves to do things he hates. Masochism at its finest.
According to :help quoteplus, you got the target X clipboards backward:
So "* is when you selected something with the mouse. And "+ is when you used a Copy or Cut command.
Start regexes with \v and never waste your \'s again.
Ctrl-PgUp and Ctrl-PgDn move between tabs, too.
Because once you learn that :w is write, and :q is quit, it's easier for many people to remember that write and quit is the combination of the two than to remember a separate, unrelated command. Then it becomes a habit.
like placing the cursor inside a string literal and doing vi" to select the inner portion of the string and then c to start changing it without having to re-type the quotes
ci"
I always use "+, too. Apparently, "+ and "* are equivalent in Windows. Under X, "* uses the PRIMARY X selection (visually selected stuff), whereas "+ uses the CLIPBOARD selection (used when you do a Cut or Copy from an app's menu).
Most :set variables have short forms. You can find them by asking for help:
If you like netcat, try out socat . Like netcat on steroids.
Of course such approach is not compatible with the GPL philosophy that emphasises the "no string attached" philosophy
Firstly, although not the worst offender in terms of strings, the GPL is hardly "no strings attached." The main point of the GPL is to attach an unbreakable string to the source, so that it can always be reached. For no strings, you want public domain, or at least the MIT license.
Secondly, the GPL is not incompatible with licensing fees. You can charge whatever you like. You have to provide the source, but that doesn't preclude charging licensing fees for the use of the product (a codec, in this case). Especially if you have patents used by the codec, it may not matter that your customers have the source. If they try to produce something similar using your code, they'll probably be infringing on the patents.
New Pikmin? False.
Not according to Kotaku.
But it is operating. The machine is powered on, drawing electricity, some stuff is displayed on the monitor, and if you type, the keys show up.
If I can't operate it
Ah, now we get to rub. If the computer doesn't do something that you think is worthwhile, it's not operating. But if it doesn't do something my parents think is worthwhile, it could still be operating.
The point is that the term "operate" is vague, making your definition too vague to mean anything. Although I guess now we know the definition of operating: Can paving-slab operate it? Only then is it operating.
I'm not confused. I understand your position. I'm just saying that your "simple definition" is not as simple as you think because people have different definitions of what a functional computer is.
Just because your parents have no use for a computer without GUI doesn't mean it's not operating.
Alright then, what if we booted the kernel and then it didn't load anything, not even init. No GNU system needed. Just because you have no use for it doesn't mean it's not operating.
You see, this definition is silly because whether a computer is "operating" is subjective to the user. If I bought a device whose specific purpose was web browsing, I wouldn't consider it to be operating if it didn't have a web browser. I don't think that makes the browser part of the device's operating system, I think it makes your definition of "operating system" incorrect.
A simple test for you.
This test isn't so simple. Who defines what "operates" means?
To my parents, a computer without a GUI would not be "operating", i.e. functional. So for them, the OS is X/GNU/Linux?
Consider a handheld device made specifically for browsing the web. Well, that's gonna need a browser to be operational. So now the OS is Opera/X/GNU/Linux?
Honestly, the most difficult part of monads is that everyone thinks they're so hard to understand. The stigma that it's some hugely complicated mathematical concept is getting in everyone's way.
Monads in Haskell are basically just wrappers. Here's a straightforward explanation by someone much smarter than me: You could have invented monads