Well, it's not technically spelling, but I know where you're coming from. However, I've decided to give up on this one. "Backup" is a verb. Backup, [one] backups, backupping, backupped, I'm using 'em all! That's my stance, and I've got plenty of real-world examples to backup it!
ksh doesn't have spelling correction. Am I allowed to call that a bug? That's something I benefit from several times a day, whereas bugs like what you mention I rarely encounter (I would instinctively redirect the output to a different directory, I mean to me what he did is just asking for trouble).
tcsh does blow goats in lots of ways: for example, it doesn't have functions - the equivalent is aliases, and you can't do certain things like if/then/else statements in those, AFAICT. That's the one that really hurts sometimes. But as a command shell, if I can't get zsh, I find tcsh pretty nice. Also see what someone else said about how the shell interprets * when there are no matches; I find sh's default behavior for that pretty brain-dead, and have more than once found files named * in a directory as a result of this unexpected behavior.
I agree with another previous poster who said that old csh should be consigned to the trash heap of history, but in light of the wide availability and continued enhancement of tcsh, the "Csh considered harmful" thing really needs to be updated.
Now, a 40 hour work day is a good idea because it allows you time to start your own business and do non traditional work (charity and open source projects).
So, to stick with the car analogies, you expect your car dealer to fix your car if it breaks within guarantee, although you've modified the motor, and exchanged the breaks. All at no cost extra.
No, I don't (and nor do I expect a Linux ISV to support code that I've modified). Please read more carefully.
Who exactly is the group that is going around saying, "Buy brand X car, you can modify it any way you like"? None that I'm aware of. So no one ever has those expectations in the car world. There is no such thing as a car that exists in open-source and commercially-supported versions, though, so the analogy doesn't hold up that well.
[no one] claims that it works like that with FL/OSS
This is true; the problem is that no one claims it doesn't work like that (except MS spokespeople, and, I suppose, the support department of the FLOSS ISVs when they get calls complaining about their custom kernels). You have, basically, one group saying, "you can do this", and another group saying, "you can do that", and neither is saying "you can't do both".[1] So it is left up to the customer, who, as demonstrated by an earlier responder, will always fall neatly into either the "competent" or the "incompetent" category, to put the pieces together on his own.
[1] I don't know, maybe the ISVs do have some clause about it in their service agreements or some such, but you don't see that until you're well into the process, having at least selected Red Hat or whoever as a major contender.
If he's talking about "you make changes and then expect RedHat to immediately support your changes for you without merging it into the distro", however, that's a pretty preposterous thing to expect.
Yes, that's what he's talking about. You have hit the nail correctly about its being preposterous, and that's exactly the point: it ain't gonna happen. People get Open Source marketed at them (by the/. crowd) with promises of being able to modify whatever they need to. Then, when they say, "all right, I'm in", they get ushered over to Red Hat (two words -- even the Slashdot editors spelled it right!) to sign up for support. Surprise, surprise, no one told them to give up their notions of modify-it-yourself that sold them early on. Sure, if you think about it, it's kind of stupid to expect both. But it's not human nature, and not that easy, either, to constantly check new facts against previously received ones, and we're sort of putting out a contradictory message, like the car ads where they'll list the fuel economy and base price of the 4-cylinder model, but the 0-60 time of the 6-cylinder turbocharged model. Not exactly honest.
"Despite [John Paul's affirmation of evolution], 40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000 years."
So there, in all probablility, goes your majority.
"Tiawan can afford the drug. The amount of money in the corruption-fueled grey economy of corrupt officials is more than enough to buy the drugs....It's not about lack of money in Tiawan, but about priorities of spending"
I just wish they would fix those priorities. Someday, I hope to hear the following exchange in a session of parliament in Taiwan:
"All right guys, we've got a serious crisis on our hands; we need to reset our budget priorities. Here's our priority list from last year:
1. Defense. 2. Corruption. 3. Social Security 4. Education
Now, the drug company is asking for a lot of money for this bird flu drug, and the money is going to need to come from somewhere. Personally, I'd like to see us cut back on our current Item Number Two a bit. Who's with me?"
[An awkward silence.]
"Come on guys, I know we all really like buying big houses for our friends and such, but could we maybe just, you know, ease up on it for a year or two? We'll just get this bird flu thing knocked out of the way and we can get back to business before you even notice anything's happened."
A murmur runs through the room. It grows louder. Heads shake, people are seen scribbling things on notepads. Finally, Li Fau-Ching, the oldest, most respected MP, stands up, and says, "I'd like to propose a 30% cut in corruption!" Gasps are heard on the floor. Another MP stands up, and says "I'll second". Another stands, and another. Somewhere, an upbeat pop tune starts playing. The bird flu drug advocate, a dashing young freshman with a doctor girlfriend, smiles. Maybe Taiwan can change, he thinks. Maybe.
The current order (SS1 being retired notwithstanding) of successful manned space access is: Russia, China, Burt Rutan, NASA. Russia is of course the 800-lb gorilla in this equation.
I don't understand this statement at all. Didn't the USA/NASA put a man in space in the early 60's? Wouldn't that put the US ahead of all but Russia? And why isn't NASA the 800-pound gorilla, with Russia the 3-400-pound gorilla?
What is SS1?
Re:nessus is dead, long live gnessus?
on
Nessus Closes Source
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"So, if it does fork and the open source fork gets a lot of development that would mean of two things. Either the developer is understating the community involvement or he wasn't that good at drumming up interest in community involvement."
A developer who wants community involvement really has a lot going against him. There are only a handful of Linuxes, Mozillas, and KDEs, out of the hundreds of thousands of OSS projects out there. Probably only a single-digit percentage of OSS projects get any significant community help. To get in that percentile, you have to have an interesting, high-profile project AND be VERY good at drumming up support.
Properly stated, there's a third possible interpretation of a successful fork: the maintainers were doing a fine and dandy job and no one from the community had an itch to scratch, until the gravy train stopped.
This statement pretty well encapsulates the "it's all good" attitude that seems to prevail in linguistics. It has always mystified me how so many linguists are so vehemently anti-prescriptivist. The field of linguistics is a science, so, yes, putting on the descriptivist hat is the proper approach when writing an academic paper. But that doesn't give them a license to say "thou shalt not set rules or try to put a brake on language change". Standards are good, and better if they're followed.
"How do you think we got from what the language sounded like 500 years ago... to what it sounds like now?"
The tone and context of that question certainly seems to imply that our language is in a much better state than it was 500 years ago. Of course, 500 years ago we didn't have democracy, telephones or karaoke, so we'd be hard put to make do with pure Shakespearean English vocabulary today. A certain amount of language change is utterly necessary and good. But is our communication enhanced now that we prounounce "night" and "knight" the same? Can one objectively say that "nickname" really is better than "ekename"?
Frankly, your examples don't seem to demonstrate much. Is "nickname" a perfectly comprehensible word today? Of course. But at some point -- 500 years ago or whatnot -- there was a transition. Everyone started off saying "ekename", but then a few folks misunderstood. I bet there were a lot of people ticked off at the minority of people who couldn't figure out which was correct. Eventually, the balance shifted in favor of the ignoramuses, and "nickname" became preferred. Did it improve the language? I doubt it. Did it remove us yet another yet step from our ancestral languages and sister languages? Probably.
I'm of the belief that the vast majority of language change is not motivated by a desire to make the language more expressive, clear, or concise. Ignorance, laziness (which provides conciseness, but usually at a cost), and fashion drive an awful lot.
No, you misunderstand. The bunny gets replicated *through* the virus. "Fixing" the bunny is of no use. This is completely asexual bunny reproduction. Merely being in the same room with a message that is infected with the virus puts you at risk for being infected, and for producing cute bunnies from unexpected places (which places we'll not discuss here) as a side effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Spelling matters.
Well, it's not technically spelling, but I know where you're coming from. However, I've decided to give up on this one. "Backup" is a verb. Backup, [one] backups, backupping, backupped, I'm using 'em all! That's my stance, and I've got plenty of real-world examples to backup it!
ksh doesn't have spelling correction. Am I allowed to call that a bug? That's something I benefit from several times a day, whereas bugs like what you mention I rarely encounter (I would instinctively redirect the output to a different directory, I mean to me what he did is just asking for trouble).
tcsh does blow goats in lots of ways: for example, it doesn't have functions - the equivalent is aliases, and you can't do certain things like if/then/else statements in those, AFAICT. That's the one that really hurts sometimes. But as a command shell, if I can't get zsh, I find tcsh pretty nice. Also see what someone else said about how the shell interprets * when there are no matches; I find sh's default behavior for that pretty brain-dead, and have more than once found files named * in a directory as a result of this unexpected behavior.
I agree with another previous poster who said that old csh should be consigned to the trash heap of history, but in light of the wide availability and continued enhancement of tcsh, the "Csh considered harmful" thing really needs to be updated.
Maryland and Virginia cooperating on something! What's that squealing noise going past my 5th-story window?
Now, a 40 hour work day is a good idea because it allows you time to start your own business and do non traditional work (charity and open source projects).
So that's my problem... the 40 hour work day.
The one was found in the vatican, and another was found by a dumpster at a Monestary
Wow. I had no idea the Dumpster® had been around that long.
...but has touched many of us with His Noodly Appendage.
I like the word "simplication". I can't figure out whether that was supreme cleverness or just an amazingly fortuitous typo.
Unless, of course, you're in China.
So, to stick with the car analogies, you expect your car dealer to fix your car if it breaks within guarantee, although you've modified the motor, and exchanged the breaks. All at no cost extra.
No, I don't (and nor do I expect a Linux ISV to support code that I've modified). Please read more carefully.
Who exactly is the group that is going around saying, "Buy brand X car, you can modify it any way you like"? None that I'm aware of. So no one ever has those expectations in the car world. There is no such thing as a car that exists in open-source and commercially-supported versions, though, so the analogy doesn't hold up that well.
[no one] claims that it works like that with FL/OSS
This is true; the problem is that no one claims it doesn't work like that (except MS spokespeople, and, I suppose, the support department of the FLOSS ISVs when they get calls complaining about their custom kernels). You have, basically, one group saying, "you can do this", and another group saying, "you can do that", and neither is saying "you can't do both".[1] So it is left up to the customer, who, as demonstrated by an earlier responder, will always fall neatly into either the "competent" or the "incompetent" category, to put the pieces together on his own.
[1] I don't know, maybe the ISVs do have some clause about it in their service agreements or some such, but you don't see that until you're well into the process, having at least selected Red Hat or whoever as a major contender.
If he's talking about "you make changes and then expect RedHat to immediately support your changes for you without merging it into the distro", however, that's a pretty preposterous thing to expect.
/. crowd) with promises of being able to modify whatever they need to. Then, when they say, "all right, I'm in", they get ushered over to Red Hat (two words -- even the Slashdot editors spelled it right!) to sign up for support. Surprise, surprise, no one told them to give up their notions of modify-it-yourself that sold them early on. Sure, if you think about it, it's kind of stupid to expect both. But it's not human nature, and not that easy, either, to constantly check new facts against previously received ones, and we're sort of putting out a contradictory message, like the car ads where they'll list the fuel economy and base price of the 4-cylinder model, but the 0-60 time of the 6-cylinder turbocharged model. Not exactly honest.
Yes, that's what he's talking about. You have hit the nail correctly about its being preposterous, and that's exactly the point: it ain't gonna happen. People get Open Source marketed at them (by the
You're not gonna believe this, but just because the Catholic Church says it's OK to believe in evolution doesn't mean that all Catholics do. From http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v6i8n.h tm :
"Despite [John Paul's affirmation of evolution], 40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000 years."
So there, in all probablility, goes your majority.
"Tiawan can afford the drug. The amount of money in the corruption-fueled grey economy of corrupt officials is more than enough to buy the drugs....It's not about lack of money in Tiawan, but about priorities of spending"
I just wish they would fix those priorities. Someday, I hope to hear the following exchange in a session of parliament in Taiwan:
"All right guys, we've got a serious crisis on our hands; we need to reset our budget priorities. Here's our priority list from last year:
1. Defense.
2. Corruption.
3. Social Security
4. Education
Now, the drug company is asking for a lot of money for this bird flu drug, and the money is going to need to come from somewhere. Personally, I'd like to see us cut back on our current Item Number Two a bit. Who's with me?"
[An awkward silence.]
"Come on guys, I know we all really like buying big houses for our friends and such, but could we maybe just, you know, ease up on it for a year or two? We'll just get this bird flu thing knocked out of the way and we can get back to business before you even notice anything's happened."
A murmur runs through the room. It grows louder. Heads shake, people are seen scribbling things on notepads. Finally, Li Fau-Ching, the oldest, most respected MP, stands up, and says, "I'd like to propose a 30% cut in corruption!" Gasps are heard on the floor. Another MP stands up, and says "I'll second". Another stands, and another. Somewhere, an upbeat pop tune starts playing. The bird flu drug advocate, a dashing young freshman with a doctor girlfriend, smiles. Maybe Taiwan can change, he thinks. Maybe.
The current order (SS1 being retired notwithstanding) of successful manned space access is: Russia, China, Burt Rutan, NASA. Russia is of course the 800-lb gorilla in this equation.
I don't understand this statement at all. Didn't the USA/NASA put a man in space in the early 60's? Wouldn't that put the US ahead of all but Russia? And why isn't NASA the 800-pound gorilla, with Russia the 3-400-pound gorilla?
What is SS1?
"So, if it does fork and the open source fork gets a lot of development that would mean of two things. Either the developer is understating the community involvement or he wasn't that good at drumming up interest in community involvement."
A developer who wants community involvement really has a lot going against him. There are only a handful of Linuxes, Mozillas, and KDEs, out of the hundreds of thousands of OSS projects out there. Probably only a single-digit percentage of OSS projects get any significant community help. To get in that percentile, you have to have an interesting, high-profile project AND be VERY good at drumming up support.
Properly stated, there's a third possible interpretation of a successful fork: the maintainers were doing a fine and dandy job and no one from the community had an itch to scratch, until the gravy train stopped.
G*d d*mn, that's too funny! Mod this bad boy up!
create a shortcut on bookmarks toolbar an you are never more than a click away from eye-strain relief.
Turn it into a Greasemonkey script an you are never more than zero clicks away from eye-strain relief!
But at least we are certain no cats were killed in the process.
"It's the language users that form a language"
... to what it sounds like now?"
This statement pretty well encapsulates the "it's all good" attitude that seems to prevail in linguistics. It has always mystified me how so many linguists are so vehemently anti-prescriptivist. The field of linguistics is a science, so, yes, putting on the descriptivist hat is the proper approach when writing an academic paper. But that doesn't give them a license to say "thou shalt not set rules or try to put a brake on language change". Standards are good, and better if they're followed.
"How do you think we got from what the language sounded like 500 years ago
The tone and context of that question certainly seems to imply that our language is in a much better state than it was 500 years ago. Of course, 500 years ago we didn't have democracy, telephones or karaoke, so we'd be hard put to make do with pure Shakespearean English vocabulary today. A certain amount of language change is utterly necessary and good. But is our communication enhanced now that we prounounce "night" and "knight" the same? Can one objectively say that "nickname" really is better than "ekename"?
Frankly, your examples don't seem to demonstrate much. Is "nickname" a perfectly comprehensible word today? Of course. But at some point -- 500 years ago or whatnot -- there was a transition. Everyone started off saying "ekename", but then a few folks misunderstood. I bet there were a lot of people ticked off at the minority of people who couldn't figure out which was correct. Eventually, the balance shifted in favor of the ignoramuses, and "nickname" became preferred. Did it improve the language? I doubt it. Did it remove us yet another yet step from our ancestral languages and sister languages? Probably.
I'm of the belief that the vast majority of language change is not motivated by a desire to make the language more expressive, clear, or concise. Ignorance, laziness (which provides conciseness, but usually at a cost), and fashion drive an awful lot.
By the way, I want my job back, please.
Now, how I handle the indent issue (if tabs are involved) is:Then, just M-t every time you want to change the tab spacing, so that it matches the indentation of whoever last edited that section of the file.
I've already stopped using Wikipedia since I found out about Uncyclopedia. I used to think New Mexico was part of the U.S.; I got better.
Sake will help get rid of that comment, and all other comments, when used properly (i.e., in large quantities).
Oh, and it's SAH-*kay* (sort of), not SAH-key. If it were the latter, it'd be spelled "saki".
Not that I think that'll help.
No, you misunderstand. The bunny gets replicated *through* the virus. "Fixing" the bunny is of no use. This is completely asexual bunny reproduction. Merely being in the same room with a message that is infected with the virus puts you at risk for being infected, and for producing cute bunnies from unexpected places (which places we'll not discuss here) as a side effect.
Flash card programs.
Granule, a GTK+-based Flash card program using the Leitner method.
They do, a little further down.