I understood the article in the sense opposite of what you are saying. The ordinance will require all the cafe owners to put in the full security demanded by the city. In other words, they're saying it would be illegal not to put up the security even if your cafe was set up in a way/place that you as the owner were happy with less expensive security at your particular site.
Firstly, I don't know AppleScript (although I have been considering buying/reading this book)....
... put together a... AppleScript module that would let developers create AppleScript-recordable applications... easily
What I think I'm hearing is that apart from complaints about syntax and such, the true weakness of AppleScript is that the application writers have to go out of their way to support it, and they don't. After all, how many of their customers are clamoring for this as opposed to fixes of first-order bugs.
Perhaps a better way to improve this situation (as opposed to writing a python tool to pick stuff apart) would be for Apple to work harder on automating this on behalf of the developers using Interface Builder. Including human readable documentation that's part of the actual Applescript implementation of the Application (a la python indeed, but perhaps a little easier to track down parts of which than I think I'm hearing the dictionaries are). Or maybe that's how it already works?
Its important to keep an eye on recent salary figures for any profession, but many/.ers probably have extra interest in programmer salaries Every 6 months or so, I search the internet for tech salary estimates, but have never been overwhelmed by how much [good] data is out there. Some of the surveys ask you to fill out your own data before they send numbers (which is fair enough). Many don't seem to have the numbers broken out into useful categories. A lot of the IT salary information that *is* out there is for web design, sysadmins, project management etc., but still don't focus on actual coding subcategories.
Does anyone out there have URLs of really good tech salary data? That focuses on actual programming? (don't just say "search google...")
I have no idea why it was moderated up - who can say what slashdot people/beings are thinking at any given time. I'm glad they did, though because I didn't know about the hindustan times, and now I do. It looks like an interesting news site. Anyway, from my perspective, what is interesting isn't the comment, but the link.
A resignation letter that says "we have a lot of hard work in front of us"? Perhaps they aren't resigning from their jobs but merely from the board. Perhaps when the reorganization takes place they will return to doing exactly what they were doing before? This article seems to be saying something that you've got to read between the lines.
OK. Point taken. Another point to consider - while a new medium (of the artifact - not of the artistic process) requires new tools, or new use of tools, old media may or may not have new tools applied to them. This point bears on the photography metaphor vs. the vi issue.
The creative process is influenced by the choice of tool whether new or old, and regardless of whether the media is new or old. On the one hand, a 'new tool' may open possibilities, or even be creative simply in the act of its use (a possible example of people who would appreciate this would be the junk-art crowd (for both artefact and process)). On the other hand, an 'old tool', regardless of novelty/modernity has generally been mastered by someone competent and becomes transparent in its use. And this transparency bears strongly on the issue. Despite its hard-to-memorize-initially feature set, and its modal nature, an experienced vi user does not have to think to use it. The text just flows out and automatically follows the mind's eye. To some extent the gui word processors are like this too, as the use of mouse is quite natural to most these days. However, the various "features" criticized throughout this discussion are things that do not become naturalized no matter how acclimated one is to those programs; so this is a real reason that one might not decide to adopt one of these programs into one of one's old tools, whereas one might with vi. Which is probably the real reason some older mouse-driven programs are being touted elsewhere in this discussion as well - for those programs the tools are the mouse and cursor, not a feature set of countless checkboxes and surface options.
In my experience, the tool really affects the creative output in a hard-to-define way. I have even experimented with this (writing music, not text) by writing different sections of the same piece with pencil, with pen, on different computer programs, etc., in order to capitalize on this effect. Actually I quite enjoy the results. And yes, at some point I wrote some music using vi (although it was a special case). I'm not the only one: at least in my circle the topic of "the tool" seems to come up a lot in discussion.
I too am a 'regular' programmer, and have never used this, so take me with a grain of salt...
Suppose we are in a cluttered world. We divide the world in half with a plane (that doesn't intersect us). We draw everything on the other side of the plane correctly (using magic or plain good luck). Then we draw everything on our side correctly (also lucky). Nothing on the other side of the plane can overlap anything on our side, so we know this solution would be right (if only we could guarantee the good luck on each half). But every plane forces us to be entirely on one side or the other, so by applying the decisions recursively, we can guarantee that good luck all the way home from the terminal nodes. Remember that as we travel into an 'other side' node, we have to reexamine our position and will discover that a nominal half of its contents will be in 'our side' of that new criteria.
It is unnecessary however, to subdivide the whole world into single polygons, however, because the polygon-facing principle described in the article gives us a heuristic atom of polygons for which we don't need to split, because inside that group, it is guaranteed that no one of them will ever block any other one.
Anyway, after you reach the deepest node, whose polygons are on the 'other side' of every dividing plane, we draw it, followed by the rest of the world. And so on and so on. The very last thing that we draw is on 'our side' of every single dividing plane.
Note that every polygon gets drawn. This algorithm only gives us an ordering. Also note that since polygons can lie on the dividing plane, we must draw them as well (after the 'other side' and before 'our side'). Another boundary condition is that the possibility exists that the viewpoint will fall onto a dividing plane, in which case, we can draw either side first, followed by the other side, followed by polygons in the plane. Please note that this can be done in any number of dimensions. In fact, for two dimensions use lines instead of planes. As a final note, it appears to me that the art here lies in choosing the dividing planes, and although the article provides a little introductory guidance, one could surely do better, and this appears to be where the real fun lies.
Perhaps not just water, but any kind of ocean or atmosphere that can boil away to provide a nice temperature gradient. There is an interesting article at:
This dynamic earth, USGS
Yes... we know that at the time of early life development on earth the environment was dramatically different in terms of chemical composition, and probably temperature distribution (although water is a terrific temperature buffer). This changed gradually over 2.5 billion years in tandem with evolving life forms. So the rate at which environmental shifts occurred is at least as important as what the shifts actually were. If the change in environment was recent (i.e. "dramatic") that is worse news for existing venusian life than if Venus has been the way it is for a long time (on geologic/evolutionary scales).
I really appreciate the link to the paper. Thanks.
Based on the paper, it looks some important high level things were left out of the press release, which would nonetheless be of value to an interested non-specialist like myself, and doubtless many/.ers, or even newspaper subscribers. What wasn't found is as significant as what was (~85 objects predicted but only 4 (counting the previously known one) were found).
Based on this finding, an outer radius of the Kuiper Belt can be predicted at ~50AU, and there does not appear to be an "outer Kuiper Belt". That's good stuff!
The article didn't say if the orbits are particulary eliptical (I mean eccentric). That would be interesting.
Are these -very faint- planitesimals actually plutinos (in pluto-like resonant orbits with the gas-giants)?
It didn't even say how far out they are. Are they in the range of Quauor, or more likely, Hubble couldn't resolve them if they were even that far out. Are they in the kind of range as pluto?
Does anyone know of a source with further information than the little linked blurb?
Slashdot Mirror
I understood the article in the sense opposite of what you are saying. The ordinance will require all the cafe owners to put in the full security demanded by the city. In other words, they're saying it would be illegal not to put up the security even if your cafe was set up in a way/place that you as the owner were happy with less expensive security at your particular site.
Not to flame, but "Wow!"
What I think I'm hearing is that apart from complaints about syntax and such, the true weakness of AppleScript is that the application writers have to go out of their way to support it, and they don't. After all, how many of their customers are clamoring for this as opposed to fixes of first-order bugs.
Perhaps a better way to improve this situation (as opposed to writing a python tool to pick stuff apart) would be for Apple to work harder on automating this on behalf of the developers using Interface Builder. Including human readable documentation that's part of the actual Applescript implementation of the Application (a la python indeed, but perhaps a little easier to track down parts of which than I think I'm hearing the dictionaries are). Or maybe that's how it already works?
Does anyone out there have URLs of really good tech salary data? That focuses on actual programming? (don't just say "search google ...")
malnulo
FWIW.
A resignation letter that says "we have a lot of hard work in front of us"? Perhaps they aren't resigning from their jobs but merely from the board. Perhaps when the reorganization takes place they will return to doing exactly what they were doing before? This article seems to be saying something that you've got to read between the lines.
The creative process is influenced by the choice of tool whether new or old, and regardless of whether the media is new or old. On the one hand, a 'new tool' may open possibilities, or even be creative simply in the act of its use (a possible example of people who would appreciate this would be the junk-art crowd (for both artefact and process)). On the other hand, an 'old tool', regardless of novelty/modernity has generally been mastered by someone competent and becomes transparent in its use. And this transparency bears strongly on the issue. Despite its hard-to-memorize-initially feature set, and its modal nature, an experienced vi user does not have to think to use it. The text just flows out and automatically follows the mind's eye. To some extent the gui word processors are like this too, as the use of mouse is quite natural to most these days. However, the various "features" criticized throughout this discussion are things that do not become naturalized no matter how acclimated one is to those programs; so this is a real reason that one might not decide to adopt one of these programs into one of one's old tools, whereas one might with vi. Which is probably the real reason some older mouse-driven programs are being touted elsewhere in this discussion as well - for those programs the tools are the mouse and cursor, not a feature set of countless checkboxes and surface options.
In my experience, the tool really affects the creative output in a hard-to-define way. I have even experimented with this (writing music, not text) by writing different sections of the same piece with pencil, with pen, on different computer programs, etc., in order to capitalize on this effect. Actually I quite enjoy the results. And yes, at some point I wrote some music using vi (although it was a special case). I'm not the only one: at least in my circle the topic of "the tool" seems to come up a lot in discussion.
Not only does OSX come with notepad, it comes with vi.
Anyone find what the Safari improvements are yet?
A consonant cluster refers to multiple consecutive consonants in the same syllable.
Finally, a single phoneme notated with multiple letters is called a "digraph", "trigraph", etc.
Suppose we are in a cluttered world. We divide the world in half with a plane (that doesn't intersect us). We draw everything on the other side of the plane correctly (using magic or plain good luck). Then we draw everything on our side correctly (also lucky). Nothing on the other side of the plane can overlap anything on our side, so we know this solution would be right (if only we could guarantee the good luck on each half). But every plane forces us to be entirely on one side or the other, so by applying the decisions recursively, we can guarantee that good luck all the way home from the terminal nodes. Remember that as we travel into an 'other side' node, we have to reexamine our position and will discover that a nominal half of its contents will be in 'our side' of that new criteria.
It is unnecessary however, to subdivide the whole world into single polygons, however, because the polygon-facing principle described in the article gives us a heuristic atom of polygons for which we don't need to split, because inside that group, it is guaranteed that no one of them will ever block any other one.
Anyway, after you reach the deepest node, whose polygons are on the 'other side' of every dividing plane, we draw it, followed by the rest of the world. And so on and so on. The very last thing that we draw is on 'our side' of every single dividing plane.
Note that every polygon gets drawn. This algorithm only gives us an ordering. Also note that since polygons can lie on the dividing plane, we must draw them as well (after the 'other side' and before 'our side'). Another boundary condition is that the possibility exists that the viewpoint will fall onto a dividing plane, in which case, we can draw either side first, followed by the other side, followed by polygons in the plane. Please note that this can be done in any number of dimensions. In fact, for two dimensions use lines instead of planes. As a final note, it appears to me that the art here lies in choosing the dividing planes, and although the article provides a little introductory guidance, one could surely do better, and this appears to be where the real fun lies.
Right ???
Perhaps not just water, but any kind of ocean or atmosphere that can boil away to provide a nice temperature gradient. There is an interesting article at: This dynamic earth, USGS
Yes ... we know that at the time of early life development on earth the environment was dramatically different in terms of chemical composition, and probably temperature distribution (although water is a terrific temperature buffer). This changed gradually over 2.5 billion years in tandem with evolving life forms. So the rate at which environmental shifts occurred is at least as important as what the shifts actually were. If the change in environment was recent (i.e. "dramatic") that is worse news for existing venusian life than if Venus has been the way it is for a long time (on geologic/evolutionary scales).
Based on the paper, it looks some important high level things were left out of the press release, which would nonetheless be of value to an interested non-specialist like myself, and doubtless many /.ers, or even newspaper subscribers. What wasn't found is as significant as what was (~85 objects predicted but only 4 (counting the previously known one) were found).
Based on this finding, an outer radius of the Kuiper Belt can be predicted at ~50AU, and there does not appear to be an "outer Kuiper Belt". That's good stuff!
Are these -very faint- planitesimals actually plutinos (in pluto-like resonant orbits with the gas-giants)?
It didn't even say how far out they are. Are they in the range of Quauor, or more likely, Hubble couldn't resolve them if they were even that far out. Are they in the kind of range as pluto?
Does anyone know of a source with further information than the little linked blurb?
Oscilloscope :)