The point is that usually tabs are used to 'group' lines of code or comments together so they can be understood to be a group. That grouping is semantic, about both the code and the comment. And you are right, at the moment the fact that this done with tabs or spaces or anything else is irrelevant, to both the machine and to the human.
However, it is often done in one specific way, which is easy to use. Hijacking that, and making it both easier to use for the human and more meaningful to the editor would provide an opportunity to solve an argument, and at the same time provide a better coding experience. (Done correctly, of course.) If we can do that, then it might well be worthwhile to do so.
The semantic info is currently in the appearance of the code, when viewed with certain fonts in editors with certain settings. Semi-formalizing the meaning could provide a more robust way to maintain that information, and might have other benefits down the line. (Once it becomes accepted, then editors can use it to do more interesting things with it.)
Actually, it is attempts to do that which have created the current confusion. Some were obviously too long, some obviously too short, and the end result is tabs which aren't useful.
I actually like this idea, because it actually you from using this seemingly-simple but in actuality horribly complicated idea that tab = x*space. Instead they have an actually simple idea: Each tab is a seperate column of text. Line up items in the same column with each other. (Of course, how simple this is in practice is yet to be deterimined, but it seems simpler to me.)
This idea is actually about seperateing sementic and content info. Programmers use tabs (those who do) to convey sementic info. If we can make the program understand that, then we can offer more flexiblity to the user on how to present the information.
From senior managers, 'a variety of options are on the table' means 'we don't know yet.'
Everything is still on the table: they haven't actually evaluated the problem yet. They've just gotten a report from one or two engeneers. Once they have a (hopefully good) evaluation, then they can make a decision.
Feudal societies -- of all centuries, they've been quite common in history -- are always an attractive society, for the people in power. No system maintains the powerful quite as well as a feudal society: as you've mentioned, it usually takes a full revolution to overthrow one. I have even seen some socio-historians claim that all societies eventually degenerate into a feudal state.
I'm not sure Open Source will help this, actually. It's a slight mitigating influence on the trend, yes, and is good for other reasons, but I think Open Source could probably be rolled into a feudal society quite easily. (Provided the powerful can control enough of the rest of the resources.)
It's interesting you are actually (consciously or not) quoting Marx. One of his points was that the higher bourgeoisie would accumulate more and more power by pushing the middle classes into the proletariat (and chunks of the US working class are indeed proletarian by definition, having no other asset than their children).
Well, it wasn't conscious, because I couldn't remember exactly who had said it or their exact words, but I knew it wasn't a new idea. I'd gone over this several times in social science and history courses growning up.
One of those teachers gave me a favorite quote on Marx: "The interesting thing about Marx isn't that he got Communism wrong, but that he got Capitolism right." Marx is great reading if you want to see the perils of modern society; just don't rely on him to give workable solutions.
They didn't have term for the middle class then. Check who led that revolt: two preachers and a smith. All highly respected and well-paying occupations at the time. They were the middle class, or what would become one.
The average daily life of the average American hasn't been affected yet.
To get a revolt, you need people free enough to plan one, and who have a specific, tangible, grudge against the current powers that be. The current trend in the USA is to slowly erode the first without affecting the second. As long as the illusion is maintained that the next election could 'fix' things, you can keep this up right until the point at which the populace has no effective freedom, at which point you can do whatever you want.
The next step as freedoms diminish is to start reducing the size of the middle class: those who have money and time for lesuire, but do not have any power in the system. The powerful don't revolt: they run the place, and peasents don't revolt, they are too worried about their next meal. The only ones you have to worry about are those in between. Watch for further economic reforms that favor big business.
It's not that hard, actually. Remember that high-end fonts (which is what I'm assuming we are talking about here) have seperate faces for bold, italic, bold-italic, smallcaps, 'light', 'display', 'caption', and any and all combinations of the above. One font-family can easily include thirty or so fonts, all of which are sold seperately. (Or, of course, you can buy the bundle. But if you don't acutally need the caption-oblique version and a few others it might not be worth the whole bundle.)
So, a couple hundred font-families is several thousand actual fonts. For a publishing house, where you need the right font for every occasion, that's a small collection.
There is a legal system for getting a visa to the USA. (Or to any other country, for that matter.) If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.
There are official border crossings, with visa checks and more, at every border in the world. People are expected to use them. There are reasons for this, besides just xenophobia. Money is one. Legal accountablity is another. So is soverenty, and protection of the legal citizens of the country. (One of the basic purposes of having countries in the first place.)
The USA has a problem on it's border to Mexico, that people are ignoring the legal meathods of crossing. It is in both the USA and Mexico's intrests to solve this problem, in the long run.
Sorry, I normally use a spell-check, but I haven't found one that works in my browser on my office machine. (I know of the Firefox one, but I can't get Firefox to run on that machine, just an old version of Mozilla.)
Bottom right corner of the iTunes interface has a button that opens the 'mini-store'. It does exactly what you describe, except you don't have to send them the playlist: they read it automatically.
Depends on how it's done. Poorly designed security (that gets in your way, and interupts needlessly and annoyingly) gets turned off, or worked around. Turning it off may include installing XP.
Security isn't just 'lock things up by default', it is thinking about what needs to be locked, when it needs to be locked, and how is the best way to unlock it when that is necisary.
It could just as easily be said that you could do that with a bare computer and an assembler. Sure you could, but do you want to? Starting with a basic Linux/BSD distro is easier. This is easier yet.
This is just a specifically-configured FreeBSD-based distrobution. It makes one moderately complicated setup easy enough for a causal computer dabbler. (Not quite a novice, but not an expert either.) It's useful if it can do a good job, because it makes it easier for people to set this up, with less time, effort, and knowledge on their part.
Which means they can focus their time, effort, and knowledge on something else.
Science is about the 'whys', not the 'hows' and the 'whats'. It's about finding the reasons something is the way it is. If you are wondering what to do with something, that's an engeneering problem. (And engeneers predate philosophers or scientists, most likely.)
Given that they orginially were the same thing, it's hard to say. But 'modern' philosphy traces it's roots back to anchient Greece and beyond, whereas 'modern' science started around the time of the Rennisannce...
It's legal for me to record TV shows and watch them when I want. It's not legal for me to sell the recordings. The TV companies are saying this amounts to selling the recordings.
I haven't looked at the technical details. They might be right.
You're right; the terminology there is weak. I mean that it usually can't get the full potential out of the underlying physical network that others can. 'High speed' is relative, of course, to whatever you are comparing it to.
Basically, at a given level of tech, you should be able to build a network that is faster than an ethernet network at that level of tech. But it will be more complicated to set up and maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that usually tabs are used to 'group' lines of code or comments together so they can be understood to be a group. That grouping is semantic, about both the code and the comment. And you are right, at the moment the fact that this done with tabs or spaces or anything else is irrelevant, to both the machine and to the human.
However, it is often done in one specific way, which is easy to use. Hijacking that, and making it both easier to use for the human and more meaningful to the editor would provide an opportunity to solve an argument, and at the same time provide a better coding experience. (Done correctly, of course.) If we can do that, then it might well be worthwhile to do so.
The semantic info is currently in the appearance of the code, when viewed with certain fonts in editors with certain settings. Semi-formalizing the meaning could provide a more robust way to maintain that information, and might have other benefits down the line. (Once it becomes accepted, then editors can use it to do more interesting things with it.)
Actually, it is attempts to do that which have created the current confusion. Some were obviously too long, some obviously too short, and the end result is tabs which aren't useful.
I actually like this idea, because it actually you from using this seemingly-simple but in actuality horribly complicated idea that tab = x*space. Instead they have an actually simple idea: Each tab is a seperate column of text. Line up items in the same column with each other. (Of course, how simple this is in practice is yet to be deterimined, but it seems simpler to me.)
This idea is actually about seperateing sementic and content info. Programmers use tabs (those who do) to convey sementic info. If we can make the program understand that, then we can offer more flexiblity to the user on how to present the information.
From senior managers, 'a variety of options are on the table' means 'we don't know yet.'
Everything is still on the table: they haven't actually evaluated the problem yet. They've just gotten a report from one or two engeneers. Once they have a (hopefully good) evaluation, then they can make a decision.
Until then, they haven't actually said anything.
Feudal societies -- of all centuries, they've been quite common in history -- are always an attractive society, for the people in power. No system maintains the powerful quite as well as a feudal society: as you've mentioned, it usually takes a full revolution to overthrow one. I have even seen some socio-historians claim that all societies eventually degenerate into a feudal state.
I'm not sure Open Source will help this, actually. It's a slight mitigating influence on the trend, yes, and is good for other reasons, but I think Open Source could probably be rolled into a feudal society quite easily. (Provided the powerful can control enough of the rest of the resources.)
Well, it wasn't conscious, because I couldn't remember exactly who had said it or their exact words, but I knew it wasn't a new idea. I'd gone over this several times in social science and history courses growning up.
One of those teachers gave me a favorite quote on Marx: "The interesting thing about Marx isn't that he got Communism wrong, but that he got Capitolism right." Marx is great reading if you want to see the perils of modern society; just don't rely on him to give workable solutions.
They didn't have term for the middle class then. Check who led that revolt: two preachers and a smith. All highly respected and well-paying occupations at the time. They were the middle class, or what would become one.
Yes, it is. Which is part of why I brought it up...
The average daily life of the average American hasn't been affected yet.
To get a revolt, you need people free enough to plan one, and who have a specific, tangible, grudge against the current powers that be. The current trend in the USA is to slowly erode the first without affecting the second. As long as the illusion is maintained that the next election could 'fix' things, you can keep this up right until the point at which the populace has no effective freedom, at which point you can do whatever you want.
The next step as freedoms diminish is to start reducing the size of the middle class: those who have money and time for lesuire, but do not have any power in the system. The powerful don't revolt: they run the place, and peasents don't revolt, they are too worried about their next meal. The only ones you have to worry about are those in between. Watch for further economic reforms that favor big business.
It's not that hard, actually. Remember that high-end fonts (which is what I'm assuming we are talking about here) have seperate faces for bold, italic, bold-italic, smallcaps, 'light', 'display', 'caption', and any and all combinations of the above. One font-family can easily include thirty or so fonts, all of which are sold seperately. (Or, of course, you can buy the bundle. But if you don't acutally need the caption-oblique version and a few others it might not be worth the whole bundle.)
So, a couple hundred font-families is several thousand actual fonts. For a publishing house, where you need the right font for every occasion, that's a small collection.
There is a legal system for getting a visa to the USA. (Or to any other country, for that matter.) If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.
There are official border crossings, with visa checks and more, at every border in the world. People are expected to use them. There are reasons for this, besides just xenophobia. Money is one. Legal accountablity is another. So is soverenty, and protection of the legal citizens of the country. (One of the basic purposes of having countries in the first place.)
The USA has a problem on it's border to Mexico, that people are ignoring the legal meathods of crossing. It is in both the USA and Mexico's intrests to solve this problem, in the long run.
Not that I'll remember that. But thanks.
Sorry, I normally use a spell-check, but I haven't found one that works in my browser on my office machine. (I know of the Firefox one, but I can't get Firefox to run on that machine, just an old version of Mozilla.)
I think it uses the currently selected playlist, but I didn't program it.
Yeah, the iTunes music store...
Bottom right corner of the iTunes interface has a button that opens the 'mini-store'. It does exactly what you describe, except you don't have to send them the playlist: they read it automatically.
Depends on how it's done. Poorly designed security (that gets in your way, and interupts needlessly and annoyingly) gets turned off, or worked around. Turning it off may include installing XP.
Security isn't just 'lock things up by default', it is thinking about what needs to be locked, when it needs to be locked, and how is the best way to unlock it when that is necisary.
Of course. ;)
"No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelegence of the American public." -- P.T. Barnum, allegedly.
Next question: Do we want it to be legal?
It could just as easily be said that you could do that with a bare computer and an assembler. Sure you could, but do you want to? Starting with a basic Linux/BSD distro is easier. This is easier yet.
This is just a specifically-configured FreeBSD-based distrobution. It makes one moderately complicated setup easy enough for a causal computer dabbler. (Not quite a novice, but not an expert either.) It's useful if it can do a good job, because it makes it easier for people to set this up, with less time, effort, and knowledge on their part.
Which means they can focus their time, effort, and knowledge on something else.
That's a philosopher. ;)
Science is about the 'whys', not the 'hows' and the 'whats'. It's about finding the reasons something is the way it is. If you are wondering what to do with something, that's an engeneering problem. (And engeneers predate philosophers or scientists, most likely.)
Given that they orginially were the same thing, it's hard to say. But 'modern' philosphy traces it's roots back to anchient Greece and beyond, whereas 'modern' science started around the time of the Rennisannce...
The competition between the two bills. They knew the other one was on the House floor, and without this bill be passed by default.
Lack of reply is not lack of response. Watch how he votes before deciding how you vote.
'Personal use' vs. 'Commercial use'.
It's legal for me to record TV shows and watch them when I want. It's not legal for me to sell the recordings. The TV companies are saying this amounts to selling the recordings.
I haven't looked at the technical details. They might be right.
You're right; the terminology there is weak. I mean that it usually can't get the full potential out of the underlying physical network that others can. 'High speed' is relative, of course, to whatever you are comparing it to.
Basically, at a given level of tech, you should be able to build a network that is faster than an ethernet network at that level of tech. But it will be more complicated to set up and maintain.