You're right. "whackjob" has nothing to do with homosexuality. It does have a sexual meaning in additio to that of "crazy person, nut", but masturbation is hardly restricted to homosexuals.
The working directory should be that of the terminal window from which I started OO. The problem you mention arises only if you start OO via the GUI. In that case, the user presumably isn't expecting Unix behavior anyhow.
The programs that work this way are virtually all programs that come from the MS Windows world.
Unix programs don't normally work this way. Emacs doesn't. Vi(m) doesn't. Ed doesn't.
Think of it as if you are cd'ing to a directory when you open a file. In this case, it is working as you ask.
The difference is that OO is forcing me to "cd" using the slow and painful GUI rather than the fast and efficient CLI that I prefer. That isn't doing what I want.
Faster startup is nice, but the improvement that would thrill me more than any of these is the option of having file dialogues default to the current working directory, in other words, correct Unix user interface behavior. It drives me crazy having file dialogues default to the last directory used (on a previous invocation of the program) or my home directory. Sure, I can then navigate to the directory I want, but its extra work, and navigating through a gui is much slower than using the command line. If I go to the trouble of cd-ing into a certain directory, that normally means I want to work on files located there. For me at least the MS Windows approach is very much inferior.
I understand that things work differently on MS Windows and that developers of software like OO want to accommodate people accustomed to MS Windows, but I don't think that this should be at the expense of those of us who are accustomed to and prefer the native user interface. Indeed, some migrants from MS Windows might even like the Unix approach once they learned about it. PLEASE give us the option of using the shell for navigation.
Yes, you can find some bugs. You won't always be able to tell whether they mean anything. If you find corner cases in which things don't work, you won't necessarily know whether those cases can occur with real input. More importantly, if you don't understand the science, you won't detect the bugs that are errors in the correspondence of intention to program. If the program solves the wrong equation or makes assumptions different from those of the model, there's a problem, but pure program analysis won't detect it.
It looks like there's a need for an approach along the lines of RFC 2549, but using chiropteran rather than avian carriers. Assuming that they can be trained, the bandwidth will be higher and the weight and volume to be carried by both cavers and rescuers considerably less.
I generally use bc for straightforward numerical calculations and R for more complicated things. Another nice cli program is frink, which understands and tracks a huge set of units. It's free as in beer but not open source.
Uh, it is quite possible to arrest and convict people for rape, and it is quite possible to detain
illegal immigrants and deport them, possibly after criminal charges and penalties. What fantasy world are you talking about?
If there is a case for some students learning specific MS programs, they can always run them on the student's own MS system or under the hypervisor. For many purposes, such as email and web-surfing, it makes little difference which specific program and OS the students use. Students who learn to use a spreadsheet or a word processor on Ubuntu will learn not only how to use those particular programs but the concepts behind them. Learning to use another program at work won't be that hard if they already know how to use the same kind of program.
The headline and article are grossly misleading. CBS is not opposed to preserving this material. Rather, it is unwilling to assume the legal costs of protecting itself against copyright infringement suits if it distributes the material. While I agree that this is an unfortunate effect of the current copyright regime, it simply is not true that CBS is refusing to preserve these shows. They have not discarded them or destroyed them; they're keeping the originals in their vault.
Actually, I'm a lot more old school than you think, enough that I hardly think that using mailx is a good diagnostic of being a badass. Nor do I think that using the command line really saves power. If you had caught on to that, maybe you would have realized I was joking.
If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots
This is a huge problem. Any country in which people will riot because someone criticizes their religion, political party, or favorite celebrity is a country in which people don't understand the notion of a civil society.
If they aren't claiming the particular method of using context, which as we agree, they can't be, then the claim amounts to the mere idea of using context. The originality and non-obviousness of that is quite dubious. There are plenty of programs that interpret words and phrases based on context, and Chinese character entry systems that make guesses based on context. Using such techniques to expand acronyms does not seem like much of an innovation to me.
A system for determining the meaning of acronyms in context might indeed be sufficiently original and non-obvious to be patentable. However, this patent claims only the idea of doing so, not any particular method. A patent must be sufficiently detailed as to allow one skilled in the art to implement it. Since it does not provide this level of detail, I conclude that the patent is invalid.
I think you misunderstand my suggestion. I'm not suggesting this for the small number of cases where the location of the threatened person is secret. Clearly you don't want to do this if the witness is being kept in a safe house or other secret location. However, most witnesses, even those who are at risk, are not housed in safe houses. It is way too expensive to do this other than for very important witnesses or those who are under a very serious threat. Similarly, women at risk from abusive ex-partners or stalkers mostly live at home, in locations known to the men by whom they are threatened or that can easily enough be determined. The webcam wouldn't disclose anything the potential attacker didn't know.
Using the army might work in times of peace, but at present the army is stretched thin by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt that they have personnel to spare. The Roman troops along Hadrian's Wall mostly stayed in the milecastles and the towers on either side. Intensive patrolling was not their strategy. Hadrian's Wall was only 73.5 miles long. The US border with Mexico is 1,969 miles long. To staff it the way the Romans staffed Hadrian's wall would require approximately 50,000 troops.
I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to provide more effective protection than the police currently provide for witnesses, abused women, and others under threat. All too often even when such people get some protection it takes the form of a patrol car driving by now and then or officers posted outside the front door, often for limited hours and not for very many days. Providing really effective protection takes a lot of manpower that is hard for police to provide. And then there are cases where te police are unsympathetic or consider that there isn't enough hard evidence of a threat. If cameras could be set up to monitor building and in some case apartment entrances and exits and streamed to sites where volunteers would monitor them, that could provide a large increase in the manpower available.
The US border with Mexico is long. Patrolling it effectively would probably take more guards than we want to pay for. Furthermore, in situations like this were most of the time nothing is going on, guards tend to get bored, inattentive, and sleepy, which makes them miss things. Having lots of volunteers allows each one to monitor for a short time while alert and interested.
The Romans did not routinely use intensive foot patrols as you suggest. Their strategy was much like tat of the US, with walls instead of fences and occasional patrols.
Actually, Pike is not dynamically typed. Although it has other features of dynamic languages, it is statically typed, with a twist, namely that it uses tagged unions. That is, a variable may be assigned a union of types.
I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim. I don't think they're claiming that you can't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission. They just don't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission. This is the same as a regular trademark. You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo; you just can't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM.
Out of curiosity, does anybody use Pike, at least outside of Scandinavia and Germany? I've only written toy programs in it, but it seems quite nice and to be pretty efficient. It's C-like, but with many of the nice features of dynamic languages. (Okay, I admit it, what I really like is that it allows binary literals.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. "whackjob" has nothing to do with homosexuality. It does have a sexual meaning in additio to that of "crazy person, nut", but masturbation is hardly restricted to homosexuals.
The working directory should be that of the terminal window from which I started OO. The problem you mention arises only if you start OO via the GUI. In that case, the user presumably isn't expecting Unix behavior anyhow.
The programs that work this way are virtually all programs that come from the MS Windows world. Unix programs don't normally work this way. Emacs doesn't. Vi(m) doesn't. Ed doesn't.
The difference is that OO is forcing me to "cd" using the slow and painful GUI rather than the fast and efficient CLI that I prefer. That isn't doing what I want.
Faster startup is nice, but the improvement that would thrill me more than any of these is the option of having file dialogues default to the current working directory, in other words, correct Unix user interface behavior. It drives me crazy having file dialogues default to the last directory used (on a previous invocation of the program) or my home directory. Sure, I can then navigate to the directory I want, but its extra work, and navigating through a gui is much slower than using the command line. If I go to the trouble of cd-ing into a certain directory, that normally means I want to work on files located there. For me at least the MS Windows approach is very much inferior.
I understand that things work differently on MS Windows and that developers of software like OO want to accommodate people accustomed to MS Windows, but I don't think that this should be at the expense of those of us who are accustomed to and prefer the native user interface. Indeed, some migrants from MS Windows might even like the Unix approach once they learned about it. PLEASE give us the option of using the shell for navigation.
Yes, you can find some bugs. You won't always be able to tell whether they mean anything. If you find corner cases in which things don't work, you won't necessarily know whether those cases can occur with real input. More importantly, if you don't understand the science, you won't detect the bugs that are errors in the correspondence of intention to program. If the program solves the wrong equation or makes assumptions different from those of the model, there's a problem, but pure program analysis won't detect it.
It looks like there's a need for an approach along the lines of RFC 2549, but using chiropteran rather than avian carriers. Assuming that they can be trained, the bandwidth will be higher and the weight and volume to be carried by both cavers and rescuers considerably less.
I generally use bc for straightforward numerical calculations and R for more complicated things. Another nice cli program is frink, which understands and tracks a huge set of units. It's free as in beer but not open source.
Uh, it is quite possible to arrest and convict people for rape, and it is quite possible to detain illegal immigrants and deport them, possibly after criminal charges and penalties. What fantasy world are you talking about?
So, does each of these things want its own IP address? If so, these could accelerate adoption of IPv6.
If there is a case for some students learning specific MS programs, they can always run them on the student's own MS system or under the hypervisor. For many purposes, such as email and web-surfing, it makes little difference which specific program and OS the students use. Students who learn to use a spreadsheet or a word processor on Ubuntu will learn not only how to use those particular programs but the concepts behind them. Learning to use another program at work won't be that hard if they already know how to use the same kind of program.
The headline and article are grossly misleading. CBS is not opposed to preserving this material. Rather, it is unwilling to assume the legal costs of protecting itself against copyright infringement suits if it distributes the material. While I agree that this is an unfortunate effect of the current copyright regime, it simply is not true that CBS is refusing to preserve these shows. They have not discarded them or destroyed them; they're keeping the originals in their vault.
Actually, I'm a lot more old school than you think, enough that I hardly think that using mailx is a good diagnostic of being a badass. Nor do I think that using the command line really saves power. If you had caught on to that, maybe you would have realized I was joking.
I bet it would down on their power usage if, instead of that fancy GUI, they just used mailx from the command line like I do.
This is a huge problem. Any country in which people will riot because someone criticizes their religion, political party, or favorite celebrity is a country in which people don't understand the notion of a civil society.
If they aren't claiming the particular method of using context, which as we agree, they can't be, then the claim amounts to the mere idea of using context. The originality and non-obviousness of that is quite dubious. There are plenty of programs that interpret words and phrases based on context, and Chinese character entry systems that make guesses based on context. Using such techniques to expand acronyms does not seem like much of an innovation to me.
Two control keys? Don't you mean three? Real programmers all redefine the evil Caps Lock as a control key.
A system for determining the meaning of acronyms in context might indeed be sufficiently original and non-obvious to be patentable. However, this patent claims only the idea of doing so, not any particular method. A patent must be sufficiently detailed as to allow one skilled in the art to implement it. Since it does not provide this level of detail, I conclude that the patent is invalid.
I think you misunderstand my suggestion. I'm not suggesting this for the small number of cases where the location of the threatened person is secret. Clearly you don't want to do this if the witness is being kept in a safe house or other secret location. However, most witnesses, even those who are at risk, are not housed in safe houses. It is way too expensive to do this other than for very important witnesses or those who are under a very serious threat. Similarly, women at risk from abusive ex-partners or stalkers mostly live at home, in locations known to the men by whom they are threatened or that can easily enough be determined. The webcam wouldn't disclose anything the potential attacker didn't know.
Using the army might work in times of peace, but at present the army is stretched thin by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt that they have personnel to spare. The Roman troops along Hadrian's Wall mostly stayed in the milecastles and the towers on either side. Intensive patrolling was not their strategy. Hadrian's Wall was only 73.5 miles long. The US border with Mexico is 1,969 miles long. To staff it the way the Romans staffed Hadrian's wall would require approximately 50,000 troops.
I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to provide more effective protection than the police currently provide for witnesses, abused women, and others under threat. All too often even when such people get some protection it takes the form of a patrol car driving by now and then or officers posted outside the front door, often for limited hours and not for very many days. Providing really effective protection takes a lot of manpower that is hard for police to provide. And then there are cases where te police are unsympathetic or consider that there isn't enough hard evidence of a threat. If cameras could be set up to monitor building and in some case apartment entrances and exits and streamed to sites where volunteers would monitor them, that could provide a large increase in the manpower available.
The US border with Mexico is long. Patrolling it effectively would probably take more guards than we want to pay for. Furthermore, in situations like this were most of the time nothing is going on, guards tend to get bored, inattentive, and sleepy, which makes them miss things. Having lots of volunteers allows each one to monitor for a short time while alert and interested.
The Romans did not routinely use intensive foot patrols as you suggest. Their strategy was much like tat of the US, with walls instead of fences and occasional patrols.
They're hidden if they are difficult for people in the area to see. "hidden" is not the same as "secret".
Actually, Pike is not dynamically typed. Although it has other features of dynamic languages, it is statically typed, with a twist, namely that it uses tagged unions. That is, a variable may be assigned a union of types.
Exactly. Current copyright durations are far too long and the extensions clearly do not serve the purpose of encouraging publication.
I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim. I don't think they're claiming that you can't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission. They just don't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission. This is the same as a regular trademark. You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo; you just can't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM.
Out of curiosity, does anybody use Pike, at least outside of Scandinavia and Germany? I've only written toy programs in it, but it seems quite nice and to be pretty efficient. It's C-like, but with many of the nice features of dynamic languages. (Okay, I admit it, what I really like is that it allows binary literals.)