You are correct. Though the description is about 40 lines of text below the switch and it isn't naturally clear that it belongs to something way up at the top of the man page. I stand by my original assertion that man pages are difficult to use. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but perhaps the description of what OPTION means should be somewhat near to it.
That's exactly what makes them less useful for people learning the system, or those who want to learn more depth after they get their feet wet. For example, the ln man page has this:
--backup[=CONTROL]
make a backup of each existing destination file
"CONTROL" is not defined or described. So if I want to use that feature, I have to go elsewhere to learn what it means. It would be much nicer if instead of flag reference (isn't that what -h or --help is for?), the manual actually explained everything.
I remember that Snapple Mint Tea was my favorite drink around the time I graduated college. 1992. So Snapple's been working on it for at least 1.5 decades..... I sure wish I could still get the mint tea. It was great.
For the record, I'm a linux user slightly tainted with a mac laptop. I've been using various distros over the years as desktops and servers. I like linux a lot and I think it is more usable for real work than either windows (ME is my last experience though) or OS X. That said, the summary author (or article author) has a strong point about man pages. They are often very difficult to understand and almost always devoid of examples. The little syntax structure at the top isn't going to help a complete newb and even after 5 or 6 years of linux use, I prefer to find a "howto" than read a man page any day. Anyway, the man page criticism is quite valid.
Actually, I think you have it somewhat reversed. The right wish contol and contort human behavior to their narrow definitions of morality. They are hip to invasive privacy violating behavior as well as forced disemination of their favored religious principles. The right has no real interest in fiscal responsibility, but is hell bent in distributing tax dollars to their cronies.
The lefties are also hell bent on their own social agenda, and though it has privacy and freedom implications, it is not so invasive as the right's. The lefties are about distributing tax dollars in their own way and definitely have an anti-business bent to them. They suck too.
What this country needs more than anything else, is some red blooded moderation. A party that would let people make their personal life choices, and won't go around trying to distribute as many tax dollars as possible. Rather republican style welfare for the rich, or democratic style welfare for the poor, they'd just back off, let people be, and focus on essential services.
I suppose such parties exist, but in our current system, they aren't viable. Given the choice between a rightist theocracy, and some annoying PC BS, that leaves me voting for the lesser evil, Cthulhu be damned.
Another defense you may have had if you had needed it, was that you were coerced into signing the contract. For example, if someone points a gun at your head and tells you sign over the deed for your house or you'll die, the contract wouldn't be enforced even if you signed it. Your situation could have been coercive enough to make the contract invalid.
The problem with this is that it won't fit in your shirt pocket (it's too big) and it offers a cramped screen/keyboard/slow processor/small hd (it's too small). In trying to be a jack of all trades, it has plainly mastered none.
only an idiot would undergo an invasive surgery to play a videogame
This is/. You have people here who would have the surgery just to control a mouse. Imagine two hand free slideshow viewing -- not just timed, but you select the pictures and still have both hands free. That's gotta play well here. And then there's hands free Tux Racer. That will rock.
Whatever dude. I heard the most charming story the other day about how some elementary school was sued to allow Christian groups to put flyers in kids backpacks. They christians won. Then they got their bibles in a bunch when some Pagans distributed flyers under the same rules.
It comes down to this. Religion is extremely dangerous and the government should keep its paws out of religion lest it gets infected. Religious states turn into police states / oppressive regimes. Best policy is to keep both dangerous systems (politics / religion) segregated by the highest barriers.
There's the flip side too though, of religion perpetuating suffering and the promise of paradise after life causing complacency. Consider these lines by Mississippi John Hurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_John_Hur t):
Farther along we will know all about it
Farther along we will will understand why
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine
We'll understand it, all by and by
If you think about the life he must have had growing up on the oppressed side of a segregated political climate, and how his song promises understanding and comfort after death, you can see how religious belief may have easily contributed to human suffering. Perhaps more sufferng than sadness alleviated by afterlife thoughts (though in my experience, even religious people cry why someone dies -- you would think they would be happy about it instead).
As an athiest, I too don't comprehend how this notion would be offensive. If it turns out that religion is genetically coded, so be it. Athiests by nature are probably a group most accepting of fact. So if it is provably true that religious susceptibility is genetic, then that's simply a fact like any other proven fact, albeit a very interesting one.
What religious people seem to fail to comprehend is that atheism is not a religious belief, it is the lack of religious belief. So there is no reason for an atheist to get all political or freaked out if it turns out that there is a biological basis for religion.
> Now, I'm not a networking expert so I don't know if inculpate and exculpate are commonly used in the field.
They're legal terms, actually. If evidence exculpated someone, it would tend to show that they weren't guilty (or at least less likely to be guilty). Inculpate is its antonym (opposite).
If I had phrased the original as a question, and you answered it this way in a deposition, I would guess you would start to frustrate your attorney. The correct answer to a question such as "Are inculpate and exculpate commonly used terms in networking?" is (presuming they aren't): "no." Period. Shut up and say nothing till asked another question. The most common mistake people make during a deposition is blathering on and on. When you take a discovery dep, if you can get the person to chatter, you increase the liklihood of getting some good dirt because people stop thinking and just talk away.
Being a "legal pro" is not a required part of being an "expert". To be an expert, one must be an expert in a particular field. Sadly, there are some "experts" whose sole job is testifying for money, but this is extremely fertile area for cross examination and those experts are easily painted as whores.
In other words, this discussion is proving my point about how meaningless it is that the doc didn't know a couple words. I'm sure everyone here is plenty smart, but you're all assuming that the meaning of "expert" in this context also requires the person to be a "legal pro" -- it does not. The test of an expert depends on his qualifications in a specialized field of study. A person who has never seen the inside of courtroom can nevertheless be qualified as an expert (note "qualified" here refers to a specific type of questioning during the expert's testimony to show that the person is an expert in a field). An expert who has tons of court experience can be qualified as an expert. Legal experience is not a litmus test for expertise (though evidence of being accepted as an expert in the past often forms one set of questions during the qualification phase of testimony).
One last thing, what you need to remember here is that all you saw is what will likely be the cross examination of the expert's quals. You didn't see what the RIAA will put on in direct when they actually do the quals. All we saw was the negative aspect, and none of the positive aspects of the docs qualifications. In some ways, the defense merely tipped its hand with respect to its approach on cross regarding quals -- that will of course enable the RIAA to better prepare for its initial presentation of qualification testimony.
A lot of what we learn is picked up through our education, a lot is picked up randomly, and many words have different meanings depending on context. There are many thousands of words I don't know, and many uncommon words I do. The same is true for every person. That doesn't make people stupid. It just means people don't know every word in the dictionary. I personally think it is respectable for a person to admit what he/she does not know because that is the first step to higher understanding. It is those who guess and presume because they are afraid of looking stupid that end up with poorer understanding.
Now, I'm not a networking expert so I don't know if inculpate and exculpate are commonly used in the field. I do know that in my field, it seems that the deeper I go and the more I understand, the more I become aware of how much I don't know or understand. Often, it is people with a shallow understanding that tend to be the most certain in their opinions, while those who really know their stuff tend to be more careful or tentative.
Personally, I think the lawyer questioning the doc looked like an ass. Imagine if someone you were tutoring in math, said to you, "I'm not listening to you, you are stupid because you don't know what it means to shlumak the ball while playing Gretfertel -- you're a real retard." Basically, it shows a rather inept thought process on the part of your accuser because the fact that you haven't heard of that sport is not an indicator of whether you understand the math you are teaching. A third party onlooker would likely feel bad for you and probably think the real idiot is the person you are attempting to teach.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. Though the description is about 40 lines of text below the switch and it isn't naturally clear that it belongs to something way up at the top of the man page. I stand by my original assertion that man pages are difficult to use. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but perhaps the description of what OPTION means should be somewhat near to it.
Back in the day, I used win95 at work. Also not as good.
East coast? I went to college in the east -- I've never seen it out west though.
I'd happily mob you up if I hadn't posted ....
I remember that Snapple Mint Tea was my favorite drink around the time I graduated college. 1992. So Snapple's been working on it for at least 1.5 decades. .... I sure wish I could still get the mint tea. It was great.
For the record, I'm a linux user slightly tainted with a mac laptop. I've been using various distros over the years as desktops and servers. I like linux a lot and I think it is more usable for real work than either windows (ME is my last experience though) or OS X. That said, the summary author (or article author) has a strong point about man pages. They are often very difficult to understand and almost always devoid of examples. The little syntax structure at the top isn't going to help a complete newb and even after 5 or 6 years of linux use, I prefer to find a "howto" than read a man page any day. Anyway, the man page criticism is quite valid.
What was that movie about subliminal advertising and the guns that caused people to black out for hours?
You have an excellent farsighted point.
The whole Palestine thing is just latent anti-semitism, something not even the left is immune to.
Actually, I think you have it somewhat reversed. The right wish contol and contort human behavior to their narrow definitions of morality. They are hip to invasive privacy violating behavior as well as forced disemination of their favored religious principles. The right has no real interest in fiscal responsibility, but is hell bent in distributing tax dollars to their cronies.
The lefties are also hell bent on their own social agenda, and though it has privacy and freedom implications, it is not so invasive as the right's. The lefties are about distributing tax dollars in their own way and definitely have an anti-business bent to them. They suck too.
What this country needs more than anything else, is some red blooded moderation. A party that would let people make their personal life choices, and won't go around trying to distribute as many tax dollars as possible. Rather republican style welfare for the rich, or democratic style welfare for the poor, they'd just back off, let people be, and focus on essential services.
I suppose such parties exist, but in our current system, they aren't viable. Given the choice between a rightist theocracy, and some annoying PC BS, that leaves me voting for the lesser evil, Cthulhu be damned.
Jeez -- get some pipes if you wanna play with the yellers. NOTHING TRUMPS BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINED ALL CAPS. Even exclamation points are unnecessary after that.
Another defense you may have had if you had needed it, was that you were coerced into signing the contract. For example, if someone points a gun at your head and tells you sign over the deed for your house or you'll die, the contract wouldn't be enforced even if you signed it. Your situation could have been coercive enough to make the contract invalid.
The problem with this is that it won't fit in your shirt pocket (it's too big) and it offers a cramped screen/keyboard/slow processor/small hd (it's too small). In trying to be a jack of all trades, it has plainly mastered none.
Well, 20 minutes on my old PS2 = 3 days of hand pain. I'm 38. I can't play shooters or fight games anymore.
Where do I sign up??
From the "100 reasons why coffee is better than women": instant coffee.
KID! quit yer whinin!
Hell, I once got detention for not wearing socks (this was back in the days of Miami Vice -- I graduated HS 20 years ago). I'm not even joking.
My advice, just suck it up, get your diploma, then go to college and drink a lot of booze and smoke a lot of pot^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W study hard.
Whatever dude. I heard the most charming story the other day about how some elementary school was sued to allow Christian groups to put flyers in kids backpacks. They christians won. Then they got their bibles in a bunch when some Pagans distributed flyers under the same rules.
It comes down to this. Religion is extremely dangerous and the government should keep its paws out of religion lest it gets infected. Religious states turn into police states / oppressive regimes. Best policy is to keep both dangerous systems (politics / religion) segregated by the highest barriers.
There's the flip side too though, of religion perpetuating suffering and the promise of paradise after life causing complacency. Consider these lines by Mississippi John Hurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_John_Hur t):
Farther along we will know all about it
Farther along we will will understand why
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine
We'll understand it, all by and by
If you think about the life he must have had growing up on the oppressed side of a segregated political climate, and how his song promises understanding and comfort after death, you can see how religious belief may have easily contributed to human suffering. Perhaps more sufferng than sadness alleviated by afterlife thoughts (though in my experience, even religious people cry why someone dies -- you would think they would be happy about it instead).
As an athiest, I too don't comprehend how this notion would be offensive. If it turns out that religion is genetically coded, so be it. Athiests by nature are probably a group most accepting of fact. So if it is provably true that religious susceptibility is genetic, then that's simply a fact like any other proven fact, albeit a very interesting one.
What religious people seem to fail to comprehend is that atheism is not a religious belief, it is the lack of religious belief. So there is no reason for an atheist to get all political or freaked out if it turns out that there is a biological basis for religion.
Being a "legal pro" is not a required part of being an "expert". To be an expert, one must be an expert in a particular field. Sadly, there are some "experts" whose sole job is testifying for money, but this is extremely fertile area for cross examination and those experts are easily painted as whores.
In other words, this discussion is proving my point about how meaningless it is that the doc didn't know a couple words. I'm sure everyone here is plenty smart, but you're all assuming that the meaning of "expert" in this context also requires the person to be a "legal pro" -- it does not. The test of an expert depends on his qualifications in a specialized field of study. A person who has never seen the inside of courtroom can nevertheless be qualified as an expert (note "qualified" here refers to a specific type of questioning during the expert's testimony to show that the person is an expert in a field). An expert who has tons of court experience can be qualified as an expert. Legal experience is not a litmus test for expertise (though evidence of being accepted as an expert in the past often forms one set of questions during the qualification phase of testimony).
One last thing, what you need to remember here is that all you saw is what will likely be the cross examination of the expert's quals. You didn't see what the RIAA will put on in direct when they actually do the quals. All we saw was the negative aspect, and none of the positive aspects of the docs qualifications. In some ways, the defense merely tipped its hand with respect to its approach on cross regarding quals -- that will of course enable the RIAA to better prepare for its initial presentation of qualification testimony.
GP's adds were OK, but the ones you are referring to are hilarious and by a different group.
Linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0
BSD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAJDbV9Vfs
Personal Fav: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8lW8ndh5BU
A lot of what we learn is picked up through our education, a lot is picked up randomly, and many words have different meanings depending on context. There are many thousands of words I don't know, and many uncommon words I do. The same is true for every person. That doesn't make people stupid. It just means people don't know every word in the dictionary. I personally think it is respectable for a person to admit what he/she does not know because that is the first step to higher understanding. It is those who guess and presume because they are afraid of looking stupid that end up with poorer understanding.
Now, I'm not a networking expert so I don't know if inculpate and exculpate are commonly used in the field. I do know that in my field, it seems that the deeper I go and the more I understand, the more I become aware of how much I don't know or understand. Often, it is people with a shallow understanding that tend to be the most certain in their opinions, while those who really know their stuff tend to be more careful or tentative.
Personally, I think the lawyer questioning the doc looked like an ass. Imagine if someone you were tutoring in math, said to you, "I'm not listening to you, you are stupid because you don't know what it means to shlumak the ball while playing Gretfertel -- you're a real retard." Basically, it shows a rather inept thought process on the part of your accuser because the fact that you haven't heard of that sport is not an indicator of whether you understand the math you are teaching. A third party onlooker would likely feel bad for you and probably think the real idiot is the person you are attempting to teach.