Not that this invalidates your example, which I do think is sufficient to show the problems with case-insensitivity, however wouldn't it be more prudent as an API writer to keep your tense the same in both functions, which would make them:
- SetSlower - SetLower
Now they're more consistent, and don't conflict in any language (even case-insensitive ones like VB, PHP, etc.).
I think this part of the page clarifies that each price is for a single item (ie. only one ring, not all five):
As part of its annual tradition, PNC Advisors also tabulates the "true cost of Christmas," which is the total cost of all of the items in the famous carol, including all of the repetitions.
So hopefully the jewellers have some room for profit in those numbers!
One of the problems with today's western artistic environment is that artists believe, just like most citizens do, that beauty is a subjective thing. This was NOT so prior to the late 1800's (thank Nietzche for fooling us on that one).
In Shakespeare's day, beauty had a clear and objective definition. For a good read on objective beauty, see Friedrich Schiller's essays on aesthetics.
In Shakespeare's day, they also believed that an artists job was NOT to be "creative". I believe Michelangelo once said that if an artist was being creative, he failed as an artist. The goal of art was not to play God and create things, but to mimic and perfect nature and its laws (physics, order, harmony, etc). We can thank Nietzche again for "correcting" us on that one too.
It is because of this difference in our definitions of art and beauty that we effectively become blind to the real meanings in historical art. We look only to the surface of a painting, to its form, for beauty, and not to its goal and purpose. If everything is subjective, we can all agree to disagree. That's called apathy.
I'd cite many other problems with western education and the dominant political beliefs today that account for our dull artistic output, but that would run a long and risky post!:)
I've only spent about 5 minutes thinking about it, but a slightly less biased (but not neutral) measure would involve counting works translated into multiple languages. The idea being that if a work is worth the effort of importing from another language/culture, then it's more significant than an untranslated work.
I'm afraid that this would yield an equal bias as Murray's method. Translations aren't created based on merit, they are created because they might sell. And to sell to another region (say, North America), you have to have material that somewhat flatters them or interests them. This means that you're only going to get, for example, Arabic writing that supports our views of North American political superiority (economic freedom, economic/political equality, etc.). The problem is, these may not be the predominant beliefs elsewhere, and so the dominant writers over there might not end up being translated in many cases.
I think the only way Murray's going to get a somewhat-fair global perspective in such a study, is to either learn additional languages himself and then perform his study in those regions, or to rely on people who already speak those languages. Of course, neither of these methods are perfect either though...
I'm curious (since their web site doesn't offer much info, and the downloaded src didn't offer much more) as to what the difference is between this and these:
I believe this is one of the ultimate goals of the ReiserFS project, however it doesn't seem like something on their immediate plate. Building such functionality directly into the filesystem (ie. as a plugin) does seem to be the best way, since it means all applications inherit the functionality and also consistency of the new system, and if done right then theoretically it should also be faster too.
What I'd also like to see is an improvement on the search/find/browse/whatever UI methods for finding data in a more faceted model such as the one from the article, or VFS, or the Storage project. One technique I'm particularly fond of is used by a project called FacetMap, an example of which is available at http://facetmap.com/browse.jsp.
What would be nice is a standard SOAP and XML-RPC API for communicating between groupware clients and servers. Sort of like the blogger API for weblogs, only obviously way more sophisticated and secure.
Even if different groupware servers (and perhaps their client counterparts) supported only a basic set of common SOAP/XML-RPC calls, and extended that with custom features, at least *some* level of interoperability could be achieved (in the next decade or so).
Anyone know if an OSX version of 7.x is ever coming? Couldn't find anything on their site about it. Weren't they mad about Safari or something (can't remember who it was, maybe it was them...)?
While this may not be your preferred way of working, I can see how it would hugely help when I have to show someone how something works. I can just hop in, highlight something, maybe make a comment, and be done with it. It isn't going to be the be-all-and-end-all of an editor, but it definitely deserves more than a sentence.
I think there is still a use for application-level variables (like ASP and Cold Fusion have) or the Java "application server" method, not for storing data you care about, but for lowering the overhead of instantiating objects you reuse each page request. For example, a global template object could be kept around between requests, since it's something you'll need again and again. Then again, PHPA and APC Cache, caching compiled, partial, or even complete templates, and other techniques can make the object persistence a negligible performance difference.
I can see where application-level variables -- the only thing I can see missing from qualifying PHP as an "application server" according to the Java folks -- could have a place. It's one solution to a problem. But there's more than one way to solve most problems, and in this case Java's way is definitely not the only good one.
I'd say in most modern distros, Gnome does "just work" for many things. It's the little stuff though that still gives OSX an edge, IMO. I'm no super-user (except when I want to be;)), and like I said it's a matter of personal preference too (or we'd all be happy with WinXP).
You can't justify the thief's actions by comparing them to murderers. They are still a thief, and thievery is a horrible thing. Thievery on a global scale, as we're seeing more and more of these days, does include slave labour practices, and contributing to poverty and unemployment here and abroad (see Sun's latest H1B lawsuit). I'm not specifically accusing Microsoft, but they have been convicted of using illegal business practices. That's not as horrible as torturing animals, but the comparison doesn't justify their actions either.
I'm a software developer, so my machine needs only modest requirements. Mostly a copy of PostgreSQL, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Apache, etc, and a decent text editor (BBEdit or NEdit preferred).
Last summer I left a job where I was working full time on an AMD 1.5GHZ with 512MB RAM and a 7200 IDE drive. It ran Red Hat 7.2 and Gnome 1.4. It was WAY more than sufficient for my needs.
I left and moved my work onto a TiBook 667MHZ with 512MB RAM. Performance difference of the machine? Negligible. Performance difference of myself? Huge.
The truth is I really like both Gnome and OSX, but in terms of the "it just works" factor, OSX has a huge lead on everyone. Apple has the ability to accomplish something rare in human interface design: To be simple enough for the newbies to be comfortable, without compromising the power. No other system does this as well (yet).
My other home system is an AMD 1800+ (1.5GHZ) also with 512MB RAM. There's no real difference in system performance for 90% of what I do. Still, I only use that machine for testing and bug tracking, and spend countless hours perfectly satisfied with my TiBook. It's about personal preference though, in the end.
Sorry in advance for the rant, I'm quite emotionally charged about world issues at the moment (as I'm sure we all are). I don't mean anything in an adversarial context, even if it comes across in that tone anywhere below.:)
Well, far be it from me to argue with Jean Luc Picard!
Seemed like a reference us/.ers could relate to.:)
But what exactly would you have the rest of us do about this?
You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. I have the fortune of getting to work on a cool project that lets me make a difference about something I think is important. While there are issues out there that need addressing, and we do need people to address them, I think that most of society's problems can be solved by a simple change of mindset, from reactive to proactive. This is evident in judicial systems based on punishment as opposed to crime prevention, health care systems based on treatment of symptoms as opposed to improved living, and governments who act out of greed and revenge as opposed to good will.
Now I know I'm an idealist (and knowing is half the battle;)), but picture this (a little off topic, but it gets to the point later on):
Say a man rapes a woman he sees in the street. As a society we choose to lock him up and give her therapy. Then we say "We need to curb the amount of rape going on". The critical step is what we do as a result of that statement. We determine that women shouldn't go out alone at night, they should carry noise alarms, pepper spray, learn self-defense, they shouldn't wear revealing clothing, etc. Otherwise, they're asking for it. Instead, we should be figuring out why the man was in that situation, and what we can do to prevent the next man from being there. Perhaps we should put more emphasis on the topic in schools. Perhaps we need mandatory parenting classes so that we're not "accidentally" raising more potential rapists. Perhaps not. The solution to something like this can't come overnight, but in time and through careful analysis and action. Studying the *history* of the issue is how one finds a place in the pattern where it can be mended.
The key to it is that our society doesn't care to do anything it doesn't have to. We don't solve problems, we treat the effects of them. Meanwhile the problems grow, and then we go "Oh shit" when it's too late to easily solve or prevent. To answer your question "Should we abandon all other endeavors until everything in danger is preserved?", here is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
I think it would do more harm than good if everyone rose to every cause, but not supporting any, not raising our voices when we ought to, that is the greatest tragedy I can think of. That's the tragedy that allows others to die in faraway countries, that allows the homeless to freeze to death in 30-below weather in downtown Winnipeg. Do I expect everyone to drop everything until the world is perfect? No, but I expect everyone to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to equip themselves with the knowledge necessary to make the right decisions and choices as a citizen, a community member, a voter, and an individual. I expect everyone to want to make the world better, and to start doing so by making themselves better, and to lead their communities and families through example.
The people who spend years researching and preserving the thousands of languages under threat of extinction deserve applaud for helping us preserve a part of our history we can learn so much more from than the history books written to increase national pride. Myself, in the Cree preservation project I spoke of, I'm just a lowly software developer. There are many people who have spent many years more than I have or likely will on this issue, and they deserve a standing ovation they've never asked for nor will likely receive for their efforts.
I thought I'd add this link to the discussion. Even if it's not completely accurate, it's a compelling argument for better justification on the part of the US government for their actions.
History, as they say, bears repeating until you learn from it. Ignorance towards its preservation, study, and understanding is one of the greatest problems of our time. History helps people understand what is going on in the world *today* and how that will shape the future.
I'm working on a project right now called the Omushkego Oral History Project for the University of Winnipeg and Canadian Heritage, whose goal is to preserve the Cree language spoken around Northern Manitoba and Ontario. It has opened my eyes to a really large tragedy in North America.
We have a chance to learn about the history of North America from another perspective than the "winners", something you currently don't learn about in high school history class. This is important for Canada as a country because it allows us to understand our history more fully, and to understand how prior actions have resulted in social issues, including racism, that exist today. This helps us improve our decision making process by being more aware of what the results of our decisions might be. It is also necessary to help us solve the problems we have today, which is necessary in order to move forward. History and cultural preservation, or at least documentation and understanding, is a necessary part of this.
In Star Trek Nemesis, Picard stated that to be human was to seek to improve oneself. One of the crucial ways of doing that is by learning about our history. Without that, we're a lost cause.
I agree that culture is both moving and unique, and is not shared just as a society or community, but cultural differences exist between individuals as well. In order to build a more effective culture and sense of morality for yourself, you need more than just your own perspective, or your potential for growth cannot be realized.
Probably because the US is going to war against the wishes of the greater part of the world, including the UN. This war is endorsed by warmongers on both ends. That is not to claim that all Americans, or even a majority of them, are of the same feeling as President Bush, but most of the world sees your country's main representative as a highly suspect individual. That type of representation does your country a great disservice abroad.
Also, btw, what has he done for your country during his presidency? How's the unemployment rate? And you stand behind his words, as if they have honour? You're THAT certain who the bad guys are? You're THAT certain GWB took EVERY possible action to avoid this conflict?
I'm a Canadian, and I can say that I trust Prime Minister Jean Chretien when he declared that this war is not justified. His belief is shared by most of the UN and the world.
I got an advertisement in my mailbox this morning about an anti-war rally coming up here in Winnipeg. You can be sure I'll be there showing my support, my regret, and my hope for the innocents on all sides.
A possible solution to the 12 x.99 ~= $12 argument is for Apple (or whichever online vendor) to offer discounts when buying a whole album's worth of songs (ie. $7.99 or $8.99 for the album, $0.99 for each song individually).
Slashdot Mirror
Animal testing is just plain wrong!
...
..
...
;))
(joking of course, just in case someone doesn't get it and flames me for it
My advice:
Dynamic HTML: The Definitive Reference
Paid for itself twice over the first time I used it -- saved me probably a week's hassle right off the bat (working with text ranges and selections).
Not that this invalidates your example, which I do think is sufficient to show the problems with case-insensitivity, however wouldn't it be more prudent as an API writer to keep your tense the same in both functions, which would make them:
- SetSlower
- SetLower
Now they're more consistent, and don't conflict in any language (even case-insensitive ones like VB, PHP, etc.).
I think this part of the page clarifies that each price is for a single item (ie. only one ring, not all five):
So hopefully the jewellers have some room for profit in those numbers!
Happy holidays!
Lux
One of the problems with today's western artistic environment is that artists believe, just like most citizens do, that beauty is a subjective thing. This was NOT so prior to the late 1800's (thank Nietzche for fooling us on that one).
:)
In Shakespeare's day, beauty had a clear and objective definition. For a good read on objective beauty, see Friedrich Schiller's essays on aesthetics.
In Shakespeare's day, they also believed that an artists job was NOT to be "creative". I believe Michelangelo once said that if an artist was being creative, he failed as an artist. The goal of art was not to play God and create things, but to mimic and perfect nature and its laws (physics, order, harmony, etc). We can thank Nietzche again for "correcting" us on that one too.
It is because of this difference in our definitions of art and beauty that we effectively become blind to the real meanings in historical art. We look only to the surface of a painting, to its form, for beauty, and not to its goal and purpose. If everything is subjective, we can all agree to disagree. That's called apathy.
I'd cite many other problems with western education and the dominant political beliefs today that account for our dull artistic output, but that would run a long and risky post!
I'm afraid that this would yield an equal bias as Murray's method. Translations aren't created based on merit, they are created because they might sell. And to sell to another region (say, North America), you have to have material that somewhat flatters them or interests them. This means that you're only going to get, for example, Arabic writing that supports our views of North American political superiority (economic freedom, economic/political equality, etc.). The problem is, these may not be the predominant beliefs elsewhere, and so the dominant writers over there might not end up being translated in many cases.
I think the only way Murray's going to get a somewhat-fair global perspective in such a study, is to either learn additional languages himself and then perform his study in those regions, or to rely on people who already speak those languages. Of course, neither of these methods are perfect either though...
Ah, sort of like this.
I'm curious (since their web site doesn't offer much info, and the downloaded src didn't offer much more) as to what the difference is between this and these:
PEAR::HTML_Form
PEAR::HTML_QuickForm
On the surface, they seem to solve the exact same problem.
I believe this is one of the ultimate goals of the ReiserFS project, however it doesn't seem like something on their immediate plate. Building such functionality directly into the filesystem (ie. as a plugin) does seem to be the best way, since it means all applications inherit the functionality and also consistency of the new system, and if done right then theoretically it should also be faster too.
What I'd also like to see is an improvement on the search/find/browse/whatever UI methods for finding data in a more faceted model such as the one from the article, or VFS, or the Storage project. One technique I'm particularly fond of is used by a project called FacetMap, an example of which is available at http://facetmap.com/browse.jsp.
The similarity is striking. :^)
Actually, I watched this clip yesterday, coincidentally just after getting home from seeing the Matrix Reloaded -- interesting stuff.
What would be nice is a standard SOAP and XML-RPC API for communicating between groupware clients and servers. Sort of like the blogger API for weblogs, only obviously way more sophisticated and secure.
Even if different groupware servers (and perhaps their client counterparts) supported only a basic set of common SOAP/XML-RPC calls, and extended that with custom features, at least *some* level of interoperability could be achieved (in the next decade or so).
Btw, the new phpGroupWare theme is awesome!
Anyone know if an OSX version of 7.x is ever coming? Couldn't find anything on their site about it. Weren't they mad about Safari or something (can't remember who it was, maybe it was them...)?
The same way Red Hat manages to. :)
No, that would be more like this:
http://www.mathgamehouse.com/istorm/
While this may not be your preferred way of working, I can see how it would hugely help when I have to show someone how something works. I can just hop in, highlight something, maybe make a comment, and be done with it. It isn't going to be the be-all-and-end-all of an editor, but it definitely deserves more than a sentence.
I think there is still a use for application-level variables (like ASP and Cold Fusion have) or the Java "application server" method, not for storing data you care about, but for lowering the overhead of instantiating objects you reuse each page request. For example, a global template object could be kept around between requests, since it's something you'll need again and again. Then again, PHPA and APC Cache, caching compiled, partial, or even complete templates, and other techniques can make the object persistence a negligible performance difference.
I can see where application-level variables -- the only thing I can see missing from qualifying PHP as an "application server" according to the Java folks -- could have a place. It's one solution to a problem. But there's more than one way to solve most problems, and in this case Java's way is definitely not the only good one.
I'd say in most modern distros, Gnome does "just work" for many things. It's the little stuff though that still gives OSX an edge, IMO. I'm no super-user (except when I want to be ;)), and like I said it's a matter of personal preference too (or we'd all be happy with WinXP).
Good points. I agree, it also comes down to what you need to do with it.
You can't justify the thief's actions by comparing them to murderers. They are still a thief, and thievery is a horrible thing. Thievery on a global scale, as we're seeing more and more of these days, does include slave labour practices, and contributing to poverty and unemployment here and abroad (see Sun's latest H1B lawsuit). I'm not specifically accusing Microsoft, but they have been convicted of using illegal business practices. That's not as horrible as torturing animals, but the comparison doesn't justify their actions either.
I do believe the Linux 2.2 kernel is still being maintained, although I'm not sure about 2.0.
I'm a software developer, so my machine needs only modest requirements. Mostly a copy of PostgreSQL, MySQL, PHP, Perl, Apache, etc, and a decent text editor (BBEdit or NEdit preferred).
Last summer I left a job where I was working full time on an AMD 1.5GHZ with 512MB RAM and a 7200 IDE drive. It ran Red Hat 7.2 and Gnome 1.4. It was WAY more than sufficient for my needs.
I left and moved my work onto a TiBook 667MHZ with 512MB RAM. Performance difference of the machine? Negligible. Performance difference of myself? Huge.
The truth is I really like both Gnome and OSX, but in terms of the "it just works" factor, OSX has a huge lead on everyone. Apple has the ability to accomplish something rare in human interface design: To be simple enough for the newbies to be comfortable, without compromising the power. No other system does this as well (yet).
My other home system is an AMD 1800+ (1.5GHZ) also with 512MB RAM. There's no real difference in system performance for 90% of what I do. Still, I only use that machine for testing and bug tracking, and spend countless hours perfectly satisfied with my TiBook. It's about personal preference though, in the end.
Sorry in advance for the rant, I'm quite emotionally charged about world issues at the moment (as I'm sure we all are). I don't mean anything in an adversarial context, even if it comes across in that tone anywhere below. :)
Seemed like a reference us /.ers could relate to. :)
You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. I have the fortune of getting to work on a cool project that lets me make a difference about something I think is important. While there are issues out there that need addressing, and we do need people to address them, I think that most of society's problems can be solved by a simple change of mindset, from reactive to proactive. This is evident in judicial systems based on punishment as opposed to crime prevention, health care systems based on treatment of symptoms as opposed to improved living, and governments who act out of greed and revenge as opposed to good will.
Now I know I'm an idealist (and knowing is half the battle ;)), but picture this (a little off topic, but it gets to the point later on):
Say a man rapes a woman he sees in the street. As a society we choose to lock him up and give her therapy. Then we say "We need to curb the amount of rape going on". The critical step is what we do as a result of that statement. We determine that women shouldn't go out alone at night, they should carry noise alarms, pepper spray, learn self-defense, they shouldn't wear revealing clothing, etc. Otherwise, they're asking for it. Instead, we should be figuring out why the man was in that situation, and what we can do to prevent the next man from being there. Perhaps we should put more emphasis on the topic in schools. Perhaps we need mandatory parenting classes so that we're not "accidentally" raising more potential rapists. Perhaps not. The solution to something like this can't come overnight, but in time and through careful analysis and action. Studying the *history* of the issue is how one finds a place in the pattern where it can be mended.
The key to it is that our society doesn't care to do anything it doesn't have to. We don't solve problems, we treat the effects of them. Meanwhile the problems grow, and then we go "Oh shit" when it's too late to easily solve or prevent. To answer your question "Should we abandon all other endeavors until everything in danger is preserved?", here is a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
I think it would do more harm than good if everyone rose to every cause, but not supporting any, not raising our voices when we ought to, that is the greatest tragedy I can think of. That's the tragedy that allows others to die in faraway countries, that allows the homeless to freeze to death in 30-below weather in downtown Winnipeg. Do I expect everyone to drop everything until the world is perfect? No, but I expect everyone to acknowledge that they have a responsibility to equip themselves with the knowledge necessary to make the right decisions and choices as a citizen, a community member, a voter, and an individual. I expect everyone to want to make the world better, and to start doing so by making themselves better, and to lead their communities and families through example.
The people who spend years researching and preserving the thousands of languages under threat of extinction deserve applaud for helping us preserve a part of our history we can learn so much more from than the history books written to increase national pride. Myself, in the Cree preservation project I spoke of, I'm just a lowly software developer. There are many people who have spent many years more than I have or likely will on this issue, and they deserve a standing ovation they've never asked for nor will likely receive for their efforts.
I thought I'd add this link to the discussion. Even if it's not completely accurate, it's a compelling argument for better justification on the part of the US government for their actions.
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?
History, as they say, bears repeating until you learn from it. Ignorance towards its preservation, study, and understanding is one of the greatest problems of our time. History helps people understand what is going on in the world *today* and how that will shape the future.
I'm working on a project right now called the Omushkego Oral History Project for the University of Winnipeg and Canadian Heritage, whose goal is to preserve the Cree language spoken around Northern Manitoba and Ontario. It has opened my eyes to a really large tragedy in North America.
We have a chance to learn about the history of North America from another perspective than the "winners", something you currently don't learn about in high school history class. This is important for Canada as a country because it allows us to understand our history more fully, and to understand how prior actions have resulted in social issues, including racism, that exist today. This helps us improve our decision making process by being more aware of what the results of our decisions might be. It is also necessary to help us solve the problems we have today, which is necessary in order to move forward. History and cultural preservation, or at least documentation and understanding, is a necessary part of this.
In Star Trek Nemesis, Picard stated that to be human was to seek to improve oneself. One of the crucial ways of doing that is by learning about our history. Without that, we're a lost cause.
I agree that culture is both moving and unique, and is not shared just as a society or community, but cultural differences exist between individuals as well. In order to build a more effective culture and sense of morality for yourself, you need more than just your own perspective, or your potential for growth cannot be realized.
Probably because the US is going to war against the wishes of the greater part of the world, including the UN. This war is endorsed by warmongers on both ends. That is not to claim that all Americans, or even a majority of them, are of the same feeling as President Bush, but most of the world sees your country's main representative as a highly suspect individual. That type of representation does your country a great disservice abroad.
Also, btw, what has he done for your country during his presidency? How's the unemployment rate? And you stand behind his words, as if they have honour? You're THAT certain who the bad guys are? You're THAT certain GWB took EVERY possible action to avoid this conflict?
I'm a Canadian, and I can say that I trust Prime Minister Jean Chretien when he declared that this war is not justified. His belief is shared by most of the UN and the world.
I got an advertisement in my mailbox this morning about an anti-war rally coming up here in Winnipeg. You can be sure I'll be there showing my support, my regret, and my hope for the innocents on all sides.
A possible solution to the 12 x .99 ~= $12 argument is for Apple (or whichever online vendor) to offer discounts when buying a whole album's worth of songs (ie. $7.99 or $8.99 for the album, $0.99 for each song individually).