Like another poster has mentioned, this does indeed sound like an extension of the "location field" as the command line. However, I can imagine some pretty interesting inventions, if you could take the output of one of these commands and, like the typical command line, pipe them into another program or web application. Even better would be web applications that could recognize the piped output for what it was.
The appendices that cap off the book also provide the full tutorial source code, as well as a brief introduction to Ruby, the language that makes all the magic happen. In short, Rails is a brilliant architecture Agile Web Development with Ruby on Rails is a great choice, and will probably be the definitive book on the subject.The tutorial is probably the best I've ever read.
God. That last one sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.
A "beta" book, in PDF form, with typographical and technical errors, will probably be the "definitive book" about a brand-new framework? What a statement...
Don't get me wrong - I haven't had much time to play with Rails, and as a web developer, I probably should, in order to keep my skills fresh. I may even like it. But this fervent, sycophantic praise - spurred on by the blogerati (flamesuit enabled) - seems premature, especially when there are many capable web application frameworks out there. In the future, it might even seem silly. After all, anyone want to admit to owning a copy of Oreilly's book about Slash?
was compiled missing the -use-logic argument. One such example:
I do not happen to use Classic, but I know many that do, and I have enough sense to know that I'm not in a demographic representative of the entire user base. There are plenty of people that do rely on Classic--for them it's crucial. Many of those individuals work in publishing. It is important that Classic work... It's amazing that someone in marketing would be so insensitive to one of the company's core user bases. With that kind of attitude, I would not be surprised if significant portions of the publishing industry say "enough" and just jump platforms moving to Windows.
Hey. GENIUS. The purported purpose of your article is to explain why buying a PowerPC-based Mac now is foolish. But now you're describing why buying an x86 Mac would be foolish. Not to mention the fact that buying a new machine in no way invalidates the ways you used to use the OLD machine. Why do you think publishing houses keep old machines around? Oh, and another thing: his argument for not abandoning Classic is that it'd cost a lot of money for these publishing houses to update their apps. Then he says they'll probably move to Windows out of spite. HEY NUMBNUTS - that costs money too!
While your memory might inform you of the file's location faster, it is completely irrelevant as far as actually retrieving and opening that file is concerned.
Consider this. I go out somewhere. I realize I've left my keys at home. I may remember instantly that the keys are on the dresser, but it's still going to take awhile for me to physically retrieve them.
Files are the same way. I may remember that the particular.html file I need to edit is available at/library/apache2/htdocs/foo/bar/bar2/blah.html but actually navigating to the file is going to take a finite amount of time. Maybe it's less time (opening a terminal window, typing "open/library/apache2/htdocs/foo/bar/bar2/"; maybe it's more (actually double-clicking on windows in the Finder.) But it's going to take some amount of time. Wouldn't it be better to just be able to type a few characters of "blah.html" and have it appear in a list, with its path next to it? I'm willing to bet that, whatever time this takes, it's going to be less than either of the previous methods.
Lots of journalism these days is about the death of something, or something overtaking something else. But in reality I think these methods are more complimentary than anything else. It's like a poster in another thread was saying about spotlight & quicksilver: everyone was worried about spotlight making quicksilver obsolete, but in reality, the two systems compliment each other. Spotlights and old-fashioned, regular folders do the same as well.
Yeah, no kidding. At first I thought the title of the post was "G5 vs. x86" vs "Mac OS X vs. Linux" and I thought..."Damn! It's a flame war comprised of flame wars. It's the flame war to end all flame wars!."
That is, until "XBox 360 vs. PS3 vs. Revolution" tags in...*ducks*
How could $400 next-gen consoles kill of PC gaming, when $300 consoles failed to do so?
I mean, this is coming from a console gamer and a Mac user, so the idea of using a computer for gaming is completely alien to me.;-) but even still, there will always be folks for whom the latest video card is a requirement, who want to play games that really aren't served on the console - like, oh, say...World of Warcraft?
This is a cool idea, because I've often wondered about being able to "talk" to search engines at a slightly higher level than robots.txt allows.
For example, a website we launched a couple months ago is primarily images. We played nice - all of the images have legitimate alt tags, and we tried to let the site degrade properly in older browsers (although you really wouldn't get much, in those instances).
But the biggest problem we had was trying to get the site spidered by Google. It would be, and it would appear in the index, but it would be listed far below sites that linked to it. I don't believe Google likes sites that are primarily images. We populated meta tags with descriptions, but they weren't included; we even tried using hidden text - legitimate, hidden text that would serve as the sites description, but not break the design - but you know how Google feels about those sorts of things. We had to walk a fine line. This'll be nicer.
Heh yeah, no kidding. Otherwise, every patent grab becomes like that stoner character played by Jon Stewart, in Half Baked:
"Sir, prior art already exists on your attempt to patent minigames during load screens."
"Yes, but what about minigames during load screens...ON WEED!"
Why is it that the URL games.slashdot.org can turn even the most seasoned, brilliant Slashdot poster (yeah, I know - there are a few of them, though) into a drooling idiot?
YRO: You know, I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience, I've found the following to be true... Games: J00 sUx0r.
Apple: What Apple is trying to do isn't worry about existing markets, inasmuch as they're trying to create new ones. It's not that they're not interested in a video store, they just want to do one right, when the market can really support it. Games: u r a console lamer.
Hardware: In order to properly evaluate the Intel 80333 technology, we need a sketched comparison of its core engine (a LUT-based byte-wide Galois Field multiplier) with a corresponding XOR accumulator. For our purposes, it suffices to sketch an individual unit on the transistor level, analyze the transistor behavior by cycles, and summarize the resource requirements of each. Games: with xbox 360 m$ is dead lol devlopers r jumping ship ps3 0wns@#
I mean, is it something about the purple chrome? I'm thinking that has to be it. You know, people spend a lot of time lamenting about the state of games journalism, but look around: this is the audience. It makes IGN sound like Gravity's Fucking Rainbow.
While the idea of the semantic web has been legitimately lambasted, I think it's a bit far from DOA. While I agree that it's not exactly practical, I think that if you get enough sites displaying their content in such a manner, you'll eventually reach a point at which others will do the same.
I mean, think about it this way - while laziness or inertia might initially win out, once someone's competitors start to explore the idea of the semantic web, interest will start to be shown in it, especially once it becomes either profitable to do so.
It doesn't matter if it's true, if it's neither relevant or nor politically expedient for him to make the remarks. I'm not sure what it gets the Mozilla project as a whole.
See, this is one of the perils of individual/employee empowerment through blogs: yes, they give you a unique voice (and I do enjoy most blogs at Mozillazine, especially Dave Hyatt's), but, like it or not, there is a point at which what is written in a blog can cross the line, and become detrimental to the company or organization for which the person in question works.
Slashdot Mirror
You have infringed upon my patented idea, sir. I demand remuneration!
Like another poster has mentioned, this does indeed sound like an extension of the "location field" as the command line. However, I can imagine some pretty interesting inventions, if you could take the output of one of these commands and, like the typical command line, pipe them into another program or web application. Even better would be web applications that could recognize the piped output for what it was.
Imagine the following, running as a cronjob:
"del.icio.us --check | gmail me@home.com 'Cool Links'"
Or something like that. I lack imagination - I'm sure others could think of interesting ideas as well.
Heh, one of the exceptions being the site that you're posting on right now?
I imagine an incident with Blackberry and one Paris Hilton earlier this year might be responsible for much of the brand's growth.
Could this review be more fawning, please?
The appendices that cap off the book also provide the full tutorial source code, as well as a brief introduction to Ruby, the language that makes all the magic happen.
In short, Rails is a brilliant architecture
Agile Web Development with Ruby on Rails is a great choice, and will probably be the definitive book on the subject. The tutorial is probably the best I've ever read.
God. That last one sounds like Napoleon Dynamite.
A "beta" book, in PDF form, with typographical and technical errors, will probably be the "definitive book" about a brand-new framework? What a statement...
Don't get me wrong - I haven't had much time to play with Rails, and as a web developer, I probably should, in order to keep my skills fresh. I may even like it. But this fervent, sycophantic praise - spurred on by the blogerati (flamesuit enabled) - seems premature, especially when there are many capable web application frameworks out there. In the future, it might even seem silly. After all, anyone want to admit to owning a copy of Oreilly's book about Slash?
Only on Slashdot would this be an improvement over that feature.
'martian bread and green tomato jam'
But the book isn't named How to Cook For Humans on Mars, it's named How to Cook Humans on Mars!!
As long as the code is open source, I doubt multiplicity will be a problem for Linux.
That's a pretty good to-do list application, but it really shines as a password management tool.
I dunno...I'm renting a house right now. No, I don't own it, but it's pretty damn nice when it's raining outside.
This article doesn't know what it wants to be.
That's about as likely as Apple switching to x86.
Oh wait...
While your memory might inform you of the file's location faster, it is completely irrelevant as far as actually retrieving and opening that file is concerned.
.html file I need to edit is available at /library/apache2/htdocs/foo/bar/bar2/blah.html but actually navigating to the file is going to take a finite amount of time. Maybe it's less time (opening a terminal window, typing "open /library/apache2/htdocs/foo/bar/bar2/"; maybe it's more (actually double-clicking on windows in the Finder.) But it's going to take some amount of time. Wouldn't it be better to just be able to type a few characters of "blah.html" and have it appear in a list, with its path next to it? I'm willing to bet that, whatever time this takes, it's going to be less than either of the previous methods.
Consider this. I go out somewhere. I realize I've left my keys at home. I may remember instantly that the keys are on the dresser, but it's still going to take awhile for me to physically retrieve them.
Files are the same way. I may remember that the particular
Lots of journalism these days is about the death of something, or something overtaking something else. But in reality I think these methods are more complimentary than anything else. It's like a poster in another thread was saying about spotlight & quicksilver: everyone was worried about spotlight making quicksilver obsolete, but in reality, the two systems compliment each other. Spotlights and old-fashioned, regular folders do the same as well.
The boolean query problem is too bad, since Spotlight itself actually supports it, it just isn't in the UI for any Apple programs.
That is impressive, but I imagine that any catch-all email addresses at foo.com or test.com might beat even that.
Who are these people surfing in multiple windows and tabs to trusted, sort-of-trusted, and untrusted sites simultaneously
Perhaps the same people who thought that switching to Firefox would gain them greater security, thereby allowing them to do this?
Whoa!
I've heard of Mac-On-Linux...but Mac-On-iPod?!
Yeah, no kidding. At first I thought the title of the post was "G5 vs. x86" vs "Mac OS X vs. Linux" and I thought..."Damn! It's a flame war comprised of flame wars. It's the flame war to end all flame wars!."
That is, until "XBox 360 vs. PS3 vs. Revolution" tags in...*ducks*
Upward, rather than forward!
And always...twirling, twirling, TWIRLING!
How could $400 next-gen consoles kill of PC gaming, when $300 consoles failed to do so?
;-) but even still, there will always be folks for whom the latest video card is a requirement, who want to play games that really aren't served on the console - like, oh, say...World of Warcraft?
I mean, this is coming from a console gamer and a Mac user, so the idea of using a computer for gaming is completely alien to me.
This is a cool idea, because I've often wondered about being able to "talk" to search engines at a slightly higher level than robots.txt allows.
For example, a website we launched a couple months ago is primarily images. We played nice - all of the images have legitimate alt tags, and we tried to let the site degrade properly in older browsers (although you really wouldn't get much, in those instances).
But the biggest problem we had was trying to get the site spidered by Google. It would be, and it would appear in the index, but it would be listed far below sites that linked to it. I don't believe Google likes sites that are primarily images. We populated meta tags with descriptions, but they weren't included; we even tried using hidden text - legitimate, hidden text that would serve as the sites description, but not break the design - but you know how Google feels about those sorts of things. We had to walk a fine line. This'll be nicer.
Why is it that the URL games.slashdot.org can turn even the most seasoned, brilliant Slashdot poster (yeah, I know - there are a few of them, though) into a drooling idiot?
YRO: You know, I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience, I've found the following to be true...
Games: J00 sUx0r.
Apple: What Apple is trying to do isn't worry about existing markets, inasmuch as they're trying to create new ones. It's not that they're not interested in a video store, they just want to do one right, when the market can really support it.
Games: u r a console lamer.
Hardware: In order to properly evaluate the Intel 80333 technology, we need a sketched comparison of its core engine (a LUT-based byte-wide Galois Field multiplier) with a corresponding XOR accumulator. For our purposes, it suffices to sketch an individual unit on the transistor level, analyze the transistor behavior by cycles, and summarize the resource requirements of each.
Games: with xbox 360 m$ is dead lol devlopers r jumping ship ps3 0wns@#
I mean, is it something about the purple chrome? I'm thinking that has to be it. You know, people spend a lot of time lamenting about the state of games journalism, but look around: this is the audience. It makes IGN sound like Gravity's Fucking Rainbow.
That is all.
While the idea of the semantic web has been legitimately lambasted, I think it's a bit far from DOA. While I agree that it's not exactly practical, I think that if you get enough sites displaying their content in such a manner, you'll eventually reach a point at which others will do the same.
I mean, think about it this way - while laziness or inertia might initially win out, once someone's competitors start to explore the idea of the semantic web, interest will start to be shown in it, especially once it becomes either profitable to do so.
It doesn't matter if it's true, if it's neither relevant or nor politically expedient for him to make the remarks. I'm not sure what it gets the Mozilla project as a whole.
See, this is one of the perils of individual/employee empowerment through blogs: yes, they give you a unique voice (and I do enjoy most blogs at Mozillazine, especially Dave Hyatt's), but, like it or not, there is a point at which what is written in a blog can cross the line, and become detrimental to the company or organization for which the person in question works.