"And God said to Josiah, 'Thou shalt not carry bits of parchment and metal with you for currency, for nay, this angers the Lord, your God. I pass down from on high a new material, named plastic, which you shall bind tiny bits of metal to. And upon these tiny bits of metal, you shall place a magnetic message, conveying the monetary value of the piece of plastic.'
"And as such, Josiah went forth to his children and spread the bounty that God had laid down upon him, but they were able to purchase naught with it, for the computers were down."
I dug up my slides, and beyond the dated tutorials of basic GTK+ work, and some ancient screenshots, it doesn't add much.
They've got a slide with a few buzzwords about why Gnome's so much better than CDE, but I guess all the talk of Gnome/GTK+ versus KDE/QT was done during Q&A
But if memory serves it was basically what everyone's saying; they liked C more than C++, and they didn't want to worry about QT licensing for themselves or anyone else (since saying "it's free to develop for our platform!" is more enticing than "it's almost free; you just have to pay QT royalties")
A couple years ago I went to a presentation from Sun about Gnome, and they went into more details, but my slides are at home. The couple that leap to mind though: there were the licensing questions with QT. There was also the fact that Gnome's C based rather than C++, and the large portion of Sun folk were much more comfortable working w/ C rather than C++.
When I get home, I'll dig up my slides, and if they add anything more to this discussion (since lots more people will probably respond by then, and I'm not sure how indepth they went into this particular topic), I'll append something more.
Yes, but will the doctor play quake on the same system that controls the robot?
Well....
Using something like quake for a user interface to other things isn't an unheard of concept; there's a mod for Doom to use it to manage processes. It's not a completely absurd idea to use something like that to present information in a "more meaningful" way.
"Okay, lemme go grab the quad, and then this tumor over here's going down!"
something else I figure is worth posting in Slaskback. But anyways, holy crap, who else saw the banner ad on slashdot for the opening of unix sys. admin. at Blizzard? I wonder who in their HR department gets a bonus for thinking of posting here, nearly guaranteeing getting the best possible applicant.
As well as hundreds of thousands of the worst possible applicants?
"R0x0r!!! I installed Mandrake on my mom's old Dell! I'm perfect for the job!!!"
Re:Water isn't organic..
on
H2O/IP
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Water isn't organic..
I don't know, some of the stuff I've gotten out of the tap probably contains more organic material than most snack foods.
I agree, but unfortunately, in my case, he was at fault.
He would never try compiling any of his pre-done-up code examples, so they were riddled with syntax errors (which newbie coders don't need to be exposed to, since they were already confused enough)
He'd have an example dealing with a data structure that was a "person" consisting of a first name, last name, and student ID. And then halfway through the code, he'd stop using person.studentid, and instead start using person.salary for no apparent reason.
When someone couldn't quite grasp converting numbers between various bases, instead of trying to explain it, he'd just throw more examples at them & get increasingly aggressive and demeaning when it didn't magically clarify itself for them.
So I'll fully agree, there are plenty of times where people are just nitpicking (like at conferences, when during a presentation, someone will stop the speaker to point out that they have a typo on their slides, and it should've been a period, not a comma at the end of that sentance), and I wish that were the case, but no such luck for me.
That being said, please make sure you have at least some form of a clue before you start teaching others.
Back in high school, I took some CS classes at my local community college to start building up credits to transfer later. There's nothing more disgusting than watching a teacher giving wrong information in a technical class. I'd regularly get into arguments with him in class for up to 10 minutes about how "No, see the little ampersand? You're making a pointer to a POINTER, and reading something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INTO IT!"
Hopefully someone who actually has gotten a degree in CS would do a little better, but after dealing with most of my classmates, I can't say I have too much faith.
Yes, but it is of interest to the owner of the magazine, and since it's privately owned, Mr. Forbes gets to decide what he does with his Capitalist Tool.
Oh man, I didn't need to picture his "Capitalist Tool." Now I'm going to have nightmares for a week.
Well, I would donate my face. But as I resemble a sack of King edward potatoes, I'm pretty sure there would be no takers.
Well hey, look at it this way; if you're really that ugly, maybe the world would be a better place with your face in a jar waiting for someone who needs it. Without a face of your own, you could probably get work in Hollywood since you could save them money on zombie makeup.
Where's some info to show that it's active again? I might like to get involved.
Well first off, the page has finally been updated since I last looked at it (looks like just today actually), but even with that, it's out-of-date & misleading.
There's been a decent amount of activity on the developers' mailing list however, so you should check out the archives/subscribe to that.
It isn't a WYSIWYG editor if it isn't displayed the same way the end user will display it. And so you can't have a WYSIWYG editor for DocBook.
In general, you can never have a WYSIWYG editor for most things on a computer. That doesn't stop people from using the term as long as it's fairly accurate.
If you check out the help for the Mozilla's HTML editor, "Composer is a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor, so you can display how your page will look to the reader as you're creating it."
We all know this is a blatent lie, though, since HTML's actual rendering on my machine will differ from yours, since I might have different fonts, I might have overridden colors, I might refuse to load images, or maybe I just have my web browser window a different size than yours. All those things alter it, so you don't actually know how it will be displayed when the end user sees it. I don't see people scampering to alter the documentation to change it to WYSIWYWYWGBTNWTGI (What You See Is What You Wish You Would Get But There's No Way To Guarantee It).
Even going further out on a limb; depending on how someone's monitor is color calibrated, something may look enough different for it to have an impact on a document's content. What if it's something to be printed? What if their printer isn't color calibrated? What if it feeds paper badly & skews printing?
People need to accept the fact that sometimes a working attempt at a solution to a problem is far better than going "You can't have a WYSIWYG editor for DocBook, so go edit the raw XML instead." Something that intelligently gives access to the DocBOok elements so that someone can do correct layout, but shields them from having to deal with rawl XML is a Good Thing[tm].
One of the great things about XML is that it's human-readable and -writeable. You don't need a WYSYWIG editor, because you can just edit it directly. Once again, we find that open standards are superior to the proprietary alternatives pushed by the likes of Microsoft and Sun.
Except for the fact that it's really convenient to not have to edit the raw XML. Yes I can, but I really don't want to; I'd much rather save myself that agrivation and just write what I'm trying to write.
It's just like a lot of other things that people go "well, you can do it manually, so why do you need a fancy tool?" about. Yes, I can manually patch/build/blahblah my own kernel. Do I want to? No, I want to just have things work. Same story here: do I want to sit here remembering what all the docbook tags are? No. Did I want to learn them in the first place? No. There's a time and a place for good tools to make tedious tasks easier.
Just because I could edit a file and manually set all the colors for all the pixels, doesn't mean there's no need for Photoshop/The Gimp.
I was looking for the same thing not too long ago, and came across Conglomerate, which despite its web page, is no longer dead, and back under development.
I've had a few problems getting it compiled/running well, but from what I've seen, it looks like it's a fairly decent bit of code, so once it gets some polish, it could be pretty handy.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man. Picture the reception the Pope could get if he lined his hat with antennae.
You won't get quality X rated games unless you ask for them!
"And God said to Josiah, 'Thou shalt not carry bits of parchment and metal with you for currency, for nay, this angers the Lord, your God. I pass down from on high a new material, named plastic, which you shall bind tiny bits of metal to. And upon these tiny bits of metal, you shall place a magnetic message, conveying the monetary value of the piece of plastic.'
"And as such, Josiah went forth to his children and spread the bounty that God had laid down upon him, but they were able to purchase naught with it, for the computers were down."
-- Genesis 68:25-28
What, didn't you pay attention in Sunday school?
I dug up my slides, and beyond the dated tutorials of basic GTK+ work, and some ancient screenshots, it doesn't add much.
They've got a slide with a few buzzwords about why Gnome's so much better than CDE, but I guess all the talk of Gnome/GTK+ versus KDE/QT was done during Q&A
But if memory serves it was basically what everyone's saying; they liked C more than C++, and they didn't want to worry about QT licensing for themselves or anyone else (since saying "it's free to develop for our platform!" is more enticing than "it's almost free; you just have to pay QT royalties")
Well, first off there's the entry in their FAQ, titled "Why did Sun choose to support GNOME instead of KDE?", but that's a bit light on details.
A couple years ago I went to a presentation from Sun about Gnome, and they went into more details, but my slides are at home. The couple that leap to mind though: there were the licensing questions with QT. There was also the fact that Gnome's C based rather than C++, and the large portion of Sun folk were much more comfortable working w/ C rather than C++.
When I get home, I'll dig up my slides, and if they add anything more to this discussion (since lots more people will probably respond by then, and I'm not sure how indepth they went into this particular topic), I'll append something more.
Well....
Using something like quake for a user interface to other things isn't an unheard of concept; there's a mod for Doom to use it to manage processes. It's not a completely absurd idea to use something like that to present information in a "more meaningful" way.
"Okay, lemme go grab the quad, and then this tumor over here's going down!"
As much as I love trusting the poster to have not made up a news story...here is the actual press release.
As well as hundreds of thousands of the worst possible applicants?
"R0x0r!!! I installed Mandrake on my mom's old Dell! I'm perfect for the job!!!"
Water isn't organic..
I don't know, some of the stuff I've gotten out of the tap probably contains more organic material than most snack foods.
They should have called this article "Top Ten Shameful Games on Consoles No One Under 20 Has Ever Heard Of".
Hey! I keep my old 2600 & ET cartridge around just so I can scare young children.
"HAHA! You fell into the pit again!"
Trust me, there are people under 20 who've heard of that one...and it haunts their nightmares.
I agree, but unfortunately, in my case, he was at fault.
He would never try compiling any of his pre-done-up code examples, so they were riddled with syntax errors (which newbie coders don't need to be exposed to, since they were already confused enough)
He'd have an example dealing with a data structure that was a "person" consisting of a first name, last name, and student ID. And then halfway through the code, he'd stop using person.studentid, and instead start using person.salary for no apparent reason.
When someone couldn't quite grasp converting numbers between various bases, instead of trying to explain it, he'd just throw more examples at them & get increasingly aggressive and demeaning when it didn't magically clarify itself for them.
So I'll fully agree, there are plenty of times where people are just nitpicking (like at conferences, when during a presentation, someone will stop the speaker to point out that they have a typo on their slides, and it should've been a period, not a comma at the end of that sentance), and I wish that were the case, but no such luck for me.
Well, I recently cleaned up and threw most of my old hardware away, so the earliest I have is the stuff in my old 486.
That being said, please make sure you have at least some form of a clue before you start teaching others.
Back in high school, I took some CS classes at my local community college to start building up credits to transfer later. There's nothing more disgusting than watching a teacher giving wrong information in a technical class. I'd regularly get into arguments with him in class for up to 10 minutes about how "No, see the little ampersand? You're making a pointer to a POINTER, and reading something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INTO IT!"
Hopefully someone who actually has gotten a degree in CS would do a little better, but after dealing with most of my classmates, I can't say I have too much faith.
Oh man, I didn't need to picture his "Capitalist Tool." Now I'm going to have nightmares for a week.
I got ~60% of my team laid off, so those of us who survived the cuts get to make up for the missing headcount.
Two or three AM? What kind of wimpy LAN parties do you have?
The final verse said,
Just for accuracy's sake:
"Except after 'C'"
Well hey, look at it this way; if you're really that ugly, maybe the world would be a better place with your face in a jar waiting for someone who needs it. Without a face of your own, you could probably get work in Hollywood since you could save them money on zombie makeup.
Well first off, the page has finally been updated since I last looked at it (looks like just today actually), but even with that, it's out-of-date & misleading.
There's been a decent amount of activity on the developers' mailing list however, so you should check out the archives/subscribe to that.
In general, you can never have a WYSIWYG editor for most things on a computer. That doesn't stop people from using the term as long as it's fairly accurate.
If you check out the help for the Mozilla's HTML editor, "Composer is a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor, so you can display how your page will look to the reader as you're creating it."
We all know this is a blatent lie, though, since HTML's actual rendering on my machine will differ from yours, since I might have different fonts, I might have overridden colors, I might refuse to load images, or maybe I just have my web browser window a different size than yours. All those things alter it, so you don't actually know how it will be displayed when the end user sees it. I don't see people scampering to alter the documentation to change it to WYSIWYWYWGBTNWTGI (What You See Is What You Wish You Would Get But There's No Way To Guarantee It).
Even going further out on a limb; depending on how someone's monitor is color calibrated, something may look enough different for it to have an impact on a document's content. What if it's something to be printed? What if their printer isn't color calibrated? What if it feeds paper badly & skews printing?
People need to accept the fact that sometimes a working attempt at a solution to a problem is far better than going "You can't have a WYSIWYG editor for DocBook, so go edit the raw XML instead." Something that intelligently gives access to the DocBOok elements so that someone can do correct layout, but shields them from having to deal with rawl XML is a Good Thing[tm].
Except for the fact that it's really convenient to not have to edit the raw XML. Yes I can, but I really don't want to; I'd much rather save myself that agrivation and just write what I'm trying to write.
It's just like a lot of other things that people go "well, you can do it manually, so why do you need a fancy tool?" about. Yes, I can manually patch/build/blahblah my own kernel. Do I want to? No, I want to just have things work. Same story here: do I want to sit here remembering what all the docbook tags are? No. Did I want to learn them in the first place? No. There's a time and a place for good tools to make tedious tasks easier.
Just because I could edit a file and manually set all the colors for all the pixels, doesn't mean there's no need for Photoshop/The Gimp.
I was looking for the same thing not too long ago, and came across Conglomerate, which despite its web page, is no longer dead, and back under development.
I've had a few problems getting it compiled/running well, but from what I've seen, it looks like it's a fairly decent bit of code, so once it gets some polish, it could be pretty handy.
Hmmm.... I bet Bill has his own jet-airplane... So what does that imply about that [b]illionaire?
Wait, if I get an L-shaped block, and rotate it into place at just the right moment............THERE! He's gone into remission!