First, let me say that I have used Nedit off and on for several years and that I love its user interface. It would certainly be my first choice for an editor except for the fact that it has never been as stable as emacs (which I've never been able to crash). While the (infrequent) crashes are more of an annoyance than a (serious) problem, my number one criterion for an editor is stability. What has been keeping you from reaching the stability of emacs or vi?
Somebody above wanted the opinion of an aerospace engineer, so I'll contribute mine. The biggest problem with the aerospace industry, after the PHB's, is that it attracts people who are more interested in science fiction than science. Low cost, routine access to space will not come from cutting edge technology because (1) the latest technology is always expensive and prone to failure and (2) the high cost of launch vehicles comes from labor needed to manufacture them and prepare them for launch.
Of all of the private companies that are developing new, low cost launch vehicles, the most likely to succeed IMHO is Beal Aerospace (BYW I neither work for them or have any financial stake in the company).
Thank you for speaking to us. I have two questions:
[1] Back when I was in high school and college, twenty plus years ago, particle physics was the cutting edge, the window on the ultimate nature of matter. But today, the most challenging results seem to be coming from low energy "desktop" experiments (cavity QED, decoherence and entanglement, "quantum teleportation", etc.). Is this a function of reduced funding for large accelerators, or is it another example of serendipity in science?
[2] My old quantum mechanics text (Merzbacher, 2nd edition) makes no reference to either entanglement or decoherence. These ideas seem to be fairly recent, yet there seems to be little criticism of them. Is this because the standard Copenhagen interpretation fails to explain these results (or leads to intractible problems that haven't been solved)?
First, Judge Jackson, in his FoF, did not regard Linux (or the free software community in general) as a competitive threat to Microsoft. His argument is, basically, that there are not enough programmers willing to work "pro bono" to overcome the applications barrier. The one item that he did not mention is that programmers are sometimes forced to create free software by the GPL. In your opinion, is this an oversight on his part or is it possible that he has some doubts about the validity of the GPL?
Second, since the FoF were realeased Microsoft has done nothing but repeat the aurguments that they presented in court even though Judge Jackson clearly rejected them. If they continue to present these same arguments in court, can they be found in contempt of court?
First, the pathetic part. You would think that after all of these years the general public, including the police and school administrators, would have learned the first principle of computer science: "Garbage in, garbage out". Yet the officials quoted in the article seem to think that if it comes out of a computer it is "objective". Of course these are the same people that believe in lie detectors...Which brings me to the absurd part: do these people really think that little Johnny is going to be dumb enough to admit to torturing dogs and cats when filling out a psychiatric evaluation?
Slashdot Mirror
First, let me say that I have used Nedit off and on for several years and that I love its user interface. It would certainly be my first choice for an editor except for the fact that it has never been as stable as emacs (which I've never been able to crash). While the (infrequent) crashes are more of an annoyance than a (serious) problem, my number one criterion for an editor is stability. What has been keeping you from reaching the stability of emacs or vi?
Of all of the private companies that are developing new, low cost launch vehicles, the most likely to succeed IMHO is Beal Aerospace (BYW I neither work for them or have any financial stake in the company).
You said you were looking for a minimalist window manager. I think that blackbox would be ideal for you.
Blackbox home: http://blackbox.alug.org
Thank you for speaking to us. I have two questions:
[1] Back when I was in high school and college, twenty plus years ago, particle physics was the cutting edge, the window on the ultimate nature of matter. But today, the most challenging results seem to be coming from low energy "desktop" experiments (cavity QED, decoherence and entanglement, "quantum teleportation", etc.). Is this a function of reduced funding for large accelerators, or is it another example of serendipity in science?
[2] My old quantum mechanics text (Merzbacher, 2nd edition) makes no reference to either entanglement or decoherence. These ideas seem to be fairly recent, yet there seems to be little criticism of them. Is this because the standard Copenhagen interpretation fails to explain these results (or leads to intractible problems that haven't been solved)?
First, Judge Jackson, in his FoF, did not regard Linux (or the free software community in general) as a competitive threat to Microsoft. His argument is, basically, that there are not enough programmers willing to work "pro bono" to overcome the applications barrier. The one item that he did not mention is that programmers are sometimes forced to create free software by the GPL. In your opinion, is this an oversight on his part or is it possible that he has some doubts about the validity of the GPL?
Second, since the FoF were realeased Microsoft has done nothing but repeat the aurguments that they presented in court even though Judge Jackson clearly rejected them. If they continue to present these same arguments in court, can they be found in contempt of court?
First, the pathetic part. You would think that after all of these years the general public, including the police and school administrators, would have learned the first principle of computer science: "Garbage in, garbage out". Yet the officials quoted in the article seem to think that if it comes out of a computer it is "objective". Of course these are the same people that believe in lie detectors...Which brings me to the absurd part: do these people really think that little Johnny is going to be dumb enough to admit to torturing dogs and cats when filling out a psychiatric evaluation?