> Ruby thinks it can be used in the same context that everything else uses it in, but semantically it can't be used there. But it will only actually _be_ used if someone _tries_ to use it. Your documentation of your class would make it pretty clear that it probably shouldn't be used that way even if it looked like it _could_ be.
Smalltalk had this same concept, so it's not a new idea...
actually, it's not so much the mousepad that's broken, it's the absolute crap mice that Dell ship, though the mousepad might have highlighted the problem.
The Dell branded mouse I received with my Inspiron 9300 had exactly the same problems, no matter what surface I used it on. I threw it in the bin and used a cheap Microsoft optical mouse instead and haven't had a problem since.
Civlopedia and interface issues are my only problems with it...
I want to be able to go to the city screen from the F1 screen by double clicking a city.
I want to be able to go to the Civlopedia entry for any tech or resource by double clicking or right clicking its name from anywhere (bonus points if its consistent which one will do it - unlike Civ III). And then the civlopedia itself needs to have the historical information right there in front of you, not hidden away on a tab - and more of it. And yes - LINKS!!
I don't really like the quotes for new technologies, and the wonder movies are pretty lame, Civ II had some thought put in to its wonder movies.
I also really miss the palace / throne room. Sure it was pointless, but it's _supposed_ to be there!
No problems with performance here even running at 1920x1200 with the highest settings, but then I'm on a 2.1Ghz Pentium M with 2 Gig of memory and a Gefore 68000.
I think the 3D interface works pretty well, and I really like actually _seeing_ the battles take place.
All in all, I really like it, but I hope they fix a couple of the interface issues - particularly with the Civlopedia - in a future patch.
A couple of things in particular that I like are the fact that The Unitied nations is far more interesting ("Diplomatic Victory" is no longer something I turn off), and the fact that real borders make it easier to co-exist along side other civilisations.
Imagine a programming language with no functions or subroutines (analogous to the missing views), random value casting (silent corruption), no user-creatable types (no integrity constraints), no parentheses (no subqueries), and so on.
> It's opressive and totalitarian, and is a policy better suited for those "towel-head" theocracies that the US and Australian government are -- allegedly -- enemies of.
I'm not aware of any theocracies, "towel-head" or otherwise that Australian and the US are enemies of.
According to the article IBM is the #1 company - but they were looking for individuals.
Personally I'd be suprised it Microsoft made the top 100, they've not been around for as long as the heavyweights, and their field has been fairly limited until recently.
> OK, so what should the back button do for an online spreadsheet or word processor? Take you back to the page you were on before you went to it. Additionally, the browser should remember the state so that when you hit forward again it is exactly as you left it.
> What's a good obvious use for a back button on a patient claim history information lookup app at a doctor's office? Going back to the query page, or whichever part you were in before the part you are in now.
> Ever tried hitting the back button after posting a comment here on Slashdot? Does it do what you'd like it to do? Yes. Because what I would like it to do is behave like a web browser back button, and it does.
If you put something in a web browser window, expect people to expect it to behave like a web page. The only way you're going to be able to control those expectations is by giving them something that is not in a web browser window.
> As for the back button breaking, I think most people expect the back button to be broken. It's pretty broken period. Additionally, it makes little or no sense in the context of a web app - which is where Ajax fits in.
No, absolutely not. There is no valid reason for ever breaking the back button, and it makes plenty of sense in a web application.
There is too little obvious difference for the user between a static web page, a page with a little dynamic content and a "web application" for fundamental concepts like the back button to behave differently.
> Further, who would you compensate for the original knowledge regarding willow bark? No one! that's the whole point. The idea is to make sure that it's very easy for someone to discover that this is widely known traditional knowledge, so that a company can't pass it off as their own invention.
BTW - you picked the willow bark example - what you say about that is true in itself, but it remains to be seen how much relevance it actually has to the matter at hand. It is quite likely that there are plenty of cases where the traditional process for extracting the appropriate chemicals from a plant are near exactly the same as the steps used in commercial production. Obviously they're not necesarily going to include the turning in to a powder and putting in a capsule part, but then that part of the process is almost certain to already be patented anyway, as it is common across a wide range of medicines.
Slashdot is just about the archetypical blog. When the word was coined, Slashdot was right up there as one of the prime examples used to explain what the hell it meant.
>A blog's text is written and controlled by an individual No - some (most?) blogs are written by an individual. There are plenty of blogs that are run by a team.
> Contrast the blog, centered topically on its own maintainer No. A blog is centered on the maintainer or the interests of its maintainer. There are political blogs, technical blogs, blogs about movies, blogs about books, blocks about knitting, blogs about pretty much anything. A blog is not necesarliy a personal diary.
And guess what - slashdot is centred topically on the interests of its maintainers. The topics are not selected by its readers, they are suggested by its readers. The maintainers select suggested stories, or post their own, and often include their own comentary. There have also been plenty of "focused on the maintainer" posts in the past. From Taco's proposal, through to recently, Taco ranting about having is WoW character name banned. There has also been plenty of self-indulgent comentary, just look back for any of John Katz's articles.
I think people confuse online diaries and blogs too much. An online diary is often a type of web log, but it is _not_ the only definition, and never has been.
> You can point till the cows come home. Legally your still wrong. Prove it, with references - and indicate the jurisdiction you're talking about, so that we can all make sure we live somewhere more sane.
Unless you're dealing with a really dodgy car yard, the car is yours as soon as you've got the appropriate paperwork signed and lodged with the government. What happens with the money has very little to do with it.
If you attempt to test for the presence of something, and get a negative result, there are two possible reasons -
1. The thing does not exist. 2. Your test was not sufficient to test for its existence.
I see no reason for a failed test to cause someone to stop believing in the existence of someone. If people did that, science wouldn't exist.
A scientist believes something - then designs a test to prove it. If he proves it, he publishes his results and (hopefully) others are able to verify it. If he fails to prove it, he doesn't automatically give up, he looks at his method, his assumptions, and tries to design a better test. In the process of testing he may eventually (or even immediately) find proof that the thing he believed was not true after all, but simply failing to prove the truth of something does not in itself prove the falsity of it.
> Believing in something that can not be tested for in any way is irrational No it's not, it's faith.
Also, believing that just because you are unable to construct a successful test for something, that it is therefore not testable is pretty much the definition of arrogance.
Disclaimer: I am not a Christian - or a believer in any particular religion or faith. But I'm also not someone who thinks that mankind has discovered everything there is to discover, measured everything there is to measure, and proven everything there is to prove, so I do not begrudge people their beliefs where they do not affect me.
Fair Dealing is _not_ Fair Use. The difference between them is that Fair Dealing sets down specific situations in which you may use copyright material. Fair Use gives you some guidelines, but leaves the decision up to the courts. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but they are certainly not the same thing.
So the original statement still stands. Australia does not have Fair Use. (Nor does pretty much anywhere except the USA for that matter, most other countries also have Fair Dealing laws)
Slashdot Mirror
The post office can fine you?
Actually, at our company we use both at once.
Server side code is written in Java, and the Windows UI code is written in C#.
> Ruby thinks it can be used in the same context that everything else uses it in, but semantically it can't be used there.
But it will only actually _be_ used if someone _tries_ to use it. Your documentation of your class would make it pretty clear that it probably shouldn't be used that way even if it looked like it _could_ be.
Smalltalk had this same concept, so it's not a new idea...
I much prefer to be lorded over by a few editors with well known flaws, than left to the mercy of the anonymous horde.
At least I know what I'm getting with incompetent editors...
actually, it's not so much the mousepad that's broken, it's the absolute crap mice that Dell ship, though the mousepad might have highlighted the problem.
The Dell branded mouse I received with my Inspiron 9300 had exactly the same problems, no matter what surface I used it on.
I threw it in the bin and used a cheap Microsoft optical mouse instead and haven't had a problem since.
yup, Morrowind and Civ(insert latest version here) have both had that effect on me.
I fully expect Oblivion to do the same....
Civlopedia and interface issues are my only problems with it...
I want to be able to go to the city screen from the F1 screen by double clicking a city.
I want to be able to go to the Civlopedia entry for any tech or resource by double clicking or right clicking its name from anywhere (bonus points if its consistent which one will do it - unlike Civ III). And then the civlopedia itself needs to have the historical information right there in front of you, not hidden away on a tab - and more of it.
And yes - LINKS!!
I don't really like the quotes for new technologies, and the wonder movies are pretty lame, Civ II had some thought put in to its wonder movies.
I also really miss the palace / throne room. Sure it was pointless, but it's _supposed_ to be there!
No problems with performance here even running at 1920x1200 with the highest settings, but then I'm on a 2.1Ghz Pentium M with 2 Gig of memory and a Gefore 68000.
I think the 3D interface works pretty well, and I really like actually _seeing_ the battles take place.
All in all, I really like it, but I hope they fix a couple of the interface issues - particularly with the Civlopedia - in a future patch.
A couple of things in particular that I like are the fact that The Unitied nations is far more interesting ("Diplomatic Victory" is no longer something I turn off), and the fact that real borders make it easier to co-exist along side other civilisations.
Actually, I've got no idea where they got 10mph from.
The article states 6km/h
Maybe someone did their km -> miles conversion the wrong way round?
BASIC
> It's opressive and totalitarian, and is a policy better suited for those "towel-head" theocracies that the US and Australian government are -- allegedly -- enemies of.
I'm not aware of any theocracies, "towel-head" or otherwise that Australian and the US are enemies of.
According to the article IBM is the #1 company - but they were looking for individuals.
Personally I'd be suprised it Microsoft made the top 100, they've not been around for as long as the heavyweights, and their field has been fairly limited until recently.
> OK, so what should the back button do for an online spreadsheet or word processor?
Take you back to the page you were on before you went to it. Additionally, the browser should remember the state so that when you hit forward again it is exactly as you left it.
> What's a good obvious use for a back button on a patient claim history information lookup app at a doctor's office?
Going back to the query page, or whichever part you were in before the part you are in now.
> Ever tried hitting the back button after posting a comment here on Slashdot? Does it do what you'd like it to do?
Yes. Because what I would like it to do is behave like a web browser back button, and it does.
If you put something in a web browser window, expect people to expect it to behave like a web page. The only way you're going to be able to control those expectations is by giving them something that is not in a web browser window.
> As for the back button breaking, I think most people expect the back button to be broken. It's pretty broken period. Additionally, it makes little or no sense in the context of a web app - which is where Ajax fits in.
No, absolutely not.
There is no valid reason for ever breaking the back button, and it makes plenty of sense in a web application.
There is too little obvious difference for the user between a static web page, a page with a little dynamic content and a "web application" for fundamental concepts like the back button to behave differently.
I notice you're not willing to put your name to that statement.
> Further, who would you compensate for the original knowledge regarding willow bark?
No one! that's the whole point. The idea is to make sure that it's very easy for someone to discover that this is widely known traditional knowledge, so that a company can't pass it off as their own invention.
BTW - you picked the willow bark example - what you say about that is true in itself, but it remains to be seen how much relevance it actually has to the matter at hand.
It is quite likely that there are plenty of cases where the traditional process for extracting the appropriate chemicals from a plant are near exactly the same as the steps used in commercial production. Obviously they're not necesarily going to include the turning in to a powder and putting in a capsule part, but then that part of the process is almost certain to already be patented anyway, as it is common across a wide range of medicines.
maybe the bio was humour, but absolutely nothing in that article indicated that it was anything but serious.
You sir, are a genious.
I bow to your superiour debating skills.
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to sepnd $300 just to watch a bloody WMV file.
> What I mean is, nothing aside from his own principles stop him from using a Windows PC to watch the video.
And possibly the cost of an Intel based machine, and the Windows licencing costs....but of course, those are irrelevant aren't they?
Laws wont change the need for alertness - it's not like the stores do it intentionally.
Slashdot is just about the archetypical blog. When the word was coined, Slashdot was right up there as one of the prime examples used to explain what the hell it meant.
>A blog's text is written and controlled by an individual
No - some (most?) blogs are written by an individual. There are plenty of blogs that are run by a team.
> Contrast the blog, centered topically on its own maintainer
No. A blog is centered on the maintainer or the interests of its maintainer.
There are political blogs, technical blogs, blogs about movies, blogs about books, blocks about knitting, blogs about pretty much anything. A blog is not necesarliy a personal diary.
And guess what - slashdot is centred topically on the interests of its maintainers.
The topics are not selected by its readers, they are suggested by its readers. The maintainers select suggested stories, or post their own, and often include their own comentary.
There have also been plenty of "focused on the maintainer" posts in the past. From Taco's proposal, through to recently, Taco ranting about having is WoW character name banned.
There has also been plenty of self-indulgent comentary, just look back for any of John Katz's articles.
I think people confuse online diaries and blogs too much. An online diary is often a type of web log, but it is _not_ the only definition, and never has been.
If you're not writing code you're interested in for your job, then you need a better job.
> You can point till the cows come home. Legally your still wrong.
Prove it, with references - and indicate the jurisdiction you're talking about, so that we can all make sure we live somewhere more sane.
Unless you're dealing with a really dodgy car yard, the car is yours as soon as you've got the appropriate paperwork signed and lodged with the government. What happens with the money has very little to do with it.
If you attempt to test for the presence of something, and get a negative result, there are two possible reasons -
1. The thing does not exist.
2. Your test was not sufficient to test for its existence.
I see no reason for a failed test to cause someone to stop believing in the existence of someone. If people did that, science wouldn't exist.
A scientist believes something - then designs a test to prove it.
If he proves it, he publishes his results and (hopefully) others are able to verify it.
If he fails to prove it, he doesn't automatically give up, he looks at his method, his assumptions, and tries to design a better test.
In the process of testing he may eventually (or even immediately) find proof that the thing he believed was not true after all, but simply failing to prove the truth of something does not in itself prove the falsity of it.
> Believing in something that can not be tested for in any way is irrational
No it's not, it's faith.
Also, believing that just because you are unable to construct a successful test for something, that it is therefore not testable is pretty much the definition of arrogance.
Disclaimer: I am not a Christian - or a believer in any particular religion or faith. But I'm also not someone who thinks that mankind has discovered everything there is to discover, measured everything there is to measure, and proven everything there is to prove, so I do not begrudge people their beliefs where they do not affect me.
Fair Dealing is _not_ Fair Use. The difference between them is that Fair Dealing sets down specific situations in which you may use copyright material. Fair Use gives you some guidelines, but leaves the decision up to the courts.
Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but they are certainly not the same thing.
So the original statement still stands. Australia does not have Fair Use. (Nor does pretty much anywhere except the USA for that matter, most other countries also have Fair Dealing laws)