What a bad idea. Why insist everybody does that just to satisfy your needs? It's trivial to write a bit of elisp to save their keymap and load your own. Having your configuration on usb or online is even better.
It's not to satisfy *my* needs - geesh - the recommendation is so anyone can drop down and be useful - either with a new configuration or to work with someone else - w/o having to carry around their own key mapping. You don't go around aliasing "grep" to be "awk" or redo the layout of/etc and such things? [ If you do, you'll never be in charge of one of my systems.:-) ]
The standard mappings are pretty well thought out and consistent. Why trouble yourself or others with *your* desire to simply be different? Customization (of anything) should be done for a specific operational purpose, not a whim or because of laziness.
P.S. I don't have bad ideas - at least none that I offer up.
You were modded "Funny" but your post was pretty accurate - though the two modes are Edit and Command. People either don't know or don't remember that "vi" was originally a visual extension of "ex". From Wikipedia:
The original code for vi was written by Bill Joy in 1976, as the visual mode for a line editor called ex that Joy had written with Chuck Haley.
If I remember correctly, Bill Joy basically wrote Vi over a weekend.
I have been on...I think two systems in my life that had emacs, but no vi.
The sysadmins were psychotic assholes.
I don't think I've ever seen a unix, linux or BSD system that didn't have some kind of vi on it. I've seen very many that don't have emacs.
I really don't see why emacs still exists, I can only assume it does something better than vi that I don't know about.
Us psychotic assholes love Emacs, but it didn't make us that way...
I've been using it since the mid 1980s for everything and I haven't killed anyone - yet.
True that most systems come with Vi (or a clone) in the base install - probably because it's small, simple and everyone that knows Emacs also knows Vi. But to your last point, Emacs does just about everything better than Vi (except start time) and probably every other editor on the planet. Sure, it's not super simple to learn and/or master, but the powerful and the standard key-bindings are fairly well though out. Give it some time and you'll be amazed. It can also emulate several other popular editors, which is the basis of this thread.
Maybe if the Ctrl key was back on the left side of the keyboard next to the `A` (as God intended it to be) you wouldn't have that problem.
Ah the old PC vs. Sun keyboard challenge. I still have to deal with both every day.
The other nice thing about leaving the standard Emacs key bindings in place is they are generally the default bindings for the Emacs modes in other applications, like Tcsh, Bash, Ksh, readline(), etc...
You.do know/you can change those 'bindings' to anything you want right?
I've used Emacs since the mid 1980s and I've always discouraged changing the standard key bindings and only encourage people to extend using unbound keys sequences. The reason comes from trying to help a co-worker, a long time ago, who had extensively re-bound the standard keys. I couldn't function within his editing sessions and he couldn't function in any other.
Leaving the standard key bindings in place allows one to be immediately productive anywhere, anytime. Unless you have a good reason, like a physical limitation or keyboard issue, I recommend leaving things standard as much as possible. I carry this philosophy to other areas of sysadmin and life as well. This way others can easily step in when needed - like if I get hit by a bus...
Language and formatting support for just about every programming and text language.
SQL mode - run SQL Plus within Emacs.
A few games.
Okay, the list actually never ends.
Once you're proficient with Emacs, there's no need to know any other editor. I've been using Emacs (or XEmacs) since the mid 1980s for system admin/programming on many types of systems and application programming in many, many languages. If you know Perl and Emacs, you can do almost anything.
My subject says it all. I don't really care about being tracked, I just really don't want to see *any* ads and will actively block obtrusive or irrelevant ads through various browser extensions and Proxomitron.
I seem to remember the impetus for this stupid technology was that a Mozilla researcher was about to make available some technology that either blocked tracking cookies or made them relatively anonymous, but then Google and others stepped in and stopped it, and came up with this easily ignorable solution instead. Has anyone else heard of this or am I making it up?
Interesting, but I am pretty sure DNT was Mozilla's Idea.
I've heard those points you make and believe they're probably correct. The main problem with fructose is that it is *only* metabolized in the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body. Furthermore, fructose is metabolized very much like alcohol, but also raises bad cholesterol and does some other nasty things. The video has a very detailed and informative explanation of how glucose, fructose and alcohol are metabolized. Increased fiber helps mitigate the bad effects.
While it's long and very detailed in places, I can't recommend the video highly enough. Definitely made me (almost) completely eliminate my soda consumption - one a day two years ago, to one every couple of weeks (or fewer) now. I experimented last year and only had about five sodas the entire year.
Because she spent her entire life saying people who accepted help from the government (or anyone) were parasites.
In the end, Ayn Rand because the kind of parasite she spent her life waging jihad against. Yet she never apologized or admitted she was wrong. She simply sponged up those Big Gubment welfare checks.
You'll probably enjoy this 2010 article The Truth About the Tea Party - commonly referred to as "Tea and Crackers" that interviews (mainly) old, white people railing against government hand-outs from their Medicare paid-for electric wheelchairs.
It's over an hour long and he explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Fructose gets metabolized in the liver like alcohol, but with some nasty hormonal and cholesterol-raising side-effects.
Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.
You're welcome. I've heard many opinions over the years. My wife and I were an unusual couple. We met in 1985 when I was 22 and she was 41 (and twice divorced). She never could get pregnant, and certainly not when I met her, and I promised her that I was fine with that. When people asked if we had children, I usually started with a simple "no", but people would then ask "when would we", to which I would reply that we couldn't and that it was okay - really okay - then many, many people would immediately responded that we could adopt - yada, yada, yada - sigh.
My only regret was that we didn't get more time together. Sure 20 years seems like a long time, but not with the right person. The day before Thanksgiving 2005 she was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died seven weeks later in Jan 2006 - just like that, or so it seemed.
My wife and I couldn't and didn't have children, so we were the couple on the right. She died in Jan 2006, after 20.5 years together, so now I'm alone, but I don't regret one second of our life together - just the two of us. We kissed, hugged and said "I love you" every day, held hands wherever we went and did almost everything together. She even died in my arms. I still wear my wedding ring every day.
And atheists are different? Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century. Now it's the expanding vacuum. Those theories don't answer the question of "is there a creator?" any better than a theology.
You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is not "is there a creator?" but, "where does the evidence lead?"
So far, the evidence doesn't lead to a creator (i.e., a god).
A more apt question would be "Does the creation/existence of the Universe and Life require God?"
There is, as yet, no definitive proof either way. Personally, I believe God is *not* required, but others believe something else. Either way, belief doesn't make it true and that's where the arguments usually start.
An actual job may or may not be on the table, but if they can get what they need from you before hiring, then at the very least your bargaining position will have gotten worse. Have you dealt with situations like this in the past?
Yeah, that's not going to happen in the real world, because it would require their pre-interview screening process to be so good as to effectively select, without an interview, the people whom it would be worth their while to get free consulting from under the guise of an interview.
Well... During the interview for my second real job, where one of the interviewers was one of my former college professors, they described an NFS problem they were having and I help them come up with a workable solution, which impressed my professor's boss. The job was with a contractor as a sysadmin for the super-computing network at the NASA Langley Research Center, which included several Convex and Cray systems.
Granted, the job was real and they were hiring, but helping solve a real problem didn't hurt my interview.
I always like to think of it as being more that C leaves ropes, cliffs, pointy objects, and a few angry bears wandering around -- and it's up to the user to to look out for themselves.
If you know how to navigate it, and keep your wits about you, you'll mostly be fine. But if you're running around with your eyes closed or don't have adult supervision, you could really get hurt.
"C" - the Adventure / Zork of programming languages: "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike."
It doesn't actively come after you, but there's no safety nets either.
Slashdot Mirror
What a bad idea. Why insist everybody does that just to satisfy your needs? It's trivial to write a bit of elisp to save their keymap and load your own. Having your configuration on usb or online is even better.
It's not to satisfy *my* needs - geesh - the recommendation is so anyone can drop down and be useful - either with a new configuration or to work with someone else - w/o having to carry around their own key mapping. You don't go around aliasing "grep" to be "awk" or redo the layout of /etc and such things? [ If you do, you'll never be in charge of one of my systems. :-) ]
The standard mappings are pretty well thought out and consistent. Why trouble yourself or others with *your* desire to simply be different? Customization (of anything) should be done for a specific operational purpose, not a whim or because of laziness.
P.S. I don't have bad ideas - at least none that I offer up.
The original code for vi was written by Bill Joy in 1976, as the visual mode for a line editor called ex that Joy had written with Chuck Haley.
If I remember correctly, Bill Joy basically wrote Vi over a weekend.
I have been on ...I think two systems in my life that had emacs, but no vi.
The sysadmins were psychotic assholes.
I don't think I've ever seen a unix, linux or BSD system that didn't have some kind of vi on it. I've seen very many that don't have emacs.
I really don't see why emacs still exists, I can only assume it does something better than vi that I don't know about.
Us psychotic assholes love Emacs, but it didn't make us that way...
I've been using it since the mid 1980s for everything and I haven't killed anyone - yet.
True that most systems come with Vi (or a clone) in the base install - probably because it's small, simple and everyone that knows Emacs also knows Vi. But to your last point, Emacs does just about everything better than Vi (except start time) and probably every other editor on the planet. Sure, it's not super simple to learn and/or master, but the powerful and the standard key-bindings are fairly well though out. Give it some time and you'll be amazed. It can also emulate several other popular editors, which is the basis of this thread.
Maybe if the Ctrl key was back on the left side of the keyboard next to the `A` (as God intended it to be) you wouldn't have that problem.
Ah the old PC vs. Sun keyboard challenge. I still have to deal with both every day.
The other nice thing about leaving the standard Emacs key bindings in place is they are generally the default bindings for the Emacs modes in other applications, like Tcsh, Bash, Ksh, readline(), etc...
You.do know/you can change those 'bindings' to anything you want right?
I've used Emacs since the mid 1980s and I've always discouraged changing the standard key bindings and only encourage people to extend using unbound keys sequences. The reason comes from trying to help a co-worker, a long time ago, who had extensively re-bound the standard keys. I couldn't function within his editing sessions and he couldn't function in any other.
Leaving the standard key bindings in place allows one to be immediately productive anywhere, anytime. Unless you have a good reason, like a physical limitation or keyboard issue, I recommend leaving things standard as much as possible. I carry this philosophy to other areas of sysadmin and life as well. This way others can easily step in when needed - like if I get hit by a bus...
Also Emacs has very good Prolog mode that communicates directly with the Prolog debugger so you can do line by line execution, watch variables, etc.
That's great if you program prolog but I've not used prolog since university. Slime seems to be a lisp thing. I've never used lisp.
What else have you got?
Anything having to do with LISP works pretty well w/Emacs - because the editor is primarily written in LISP.
What else about Emacs or XEmacs? Just about anything you can imagine and/or write.
Once you're proficient with Emacs, there's no need to know any other editor. I've been using Emacs (or XEmacs) since the mid 1980s for system admin/programming on many types of systems and application programming in many, many languages. If you know Perl and Emacs, you can do almost anything.
My subject says it all. I don't really care about being tracked, I just really don't want to see *any* ads and will actively block obtrusive or irrelevant ads through various browser extensions and Proxomitron.
I seem to remember the impetus for this stupid technology was that a Mozilla researcher was about to make available some technology that either blocked tracking cookies or made them relatively anonymous, but then Google and others stepped in and stopped it, and came up with this easily ignorable solution instead. Has anyone else heard of this or am I making it up?
Interesting, but I am pretty sure DNT was Mozilla's Idea.
Hmm... From Mozilla Foundation:
The Mozilla Foundation was founded by the Netscape-affiliated Mozilla Organization, and is funded almost exclusively by Google Inc.
[Insert euphemism for masturbation here]
Well.. TFS did ask for:
...maybe something that actually leads to knowledge, skills, or a measurable output?
This migration I'm doing has sat on 'less than a minute' for over 30 minutes.
Are you or your system in close proximity to a black hole?
... #AmEx or #AmericanExpress and drive the whole thing into a deep recursion.
I tried #blowjobs and nothing happened.
Perhaps there's a problem with the Shipping and Handling - well the Shipping anyway.
I've heard those points you make and believe they're probably correct. The main problem with fructose is that it is *only* metabolized in the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body. Furthermore, fructose is metabolized very much like alcohol, but also raises bad cholesterol and does some other nasty things. The video has a very detailed and informative explanation of how glucose, fructose and alcohol are metabolized. Increased fiber helps mitigate the bad effects.
While it's long and very detailed in places, I can't recommend the video highly enough. Definitely made me (almost) completely eliminate my soda consumption - one a day two years ago, to one every couple of weeks (or fewer) now. I experimented last year and only had about five sodas the entire year.
Because she spent her entire life saying people who accepted help from the government (or anyone) were parasites.
In the end, Ayn Rand because the kind of parasite she spent her life waging jihad against. Yet she never apologized or admitted she was wrong. She simply sponged up those Big Gubment welfare checks.
You'll probably enjoy this 2010 article The Truth About the Tea Party - commonly referred to as "Tea and Crackers" that interviews (mainly) old, white people railing against government hand-outs from their Medicare paid-for electric wheelchairs.
Yep.
Lemme guess, 2nd or 3rd ingredient listed on the label is gonna be HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)??
Ah...nothing like a little boost to the old obesity rate.
Yup. Watch this presentation Sugar: The Bitter Truth (or on the UCSF site http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717) by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology.
It's over an hour long and he explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Fructose gets metabolized in the liver like alcohol, but with some nasty hormonal and cholesterol-raising side-effects.
Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.
You're welcome. I've heard many opinions over the years. My wife and I were an unusual couple. We met in 1985 when I was 22 and she was 41 (and twice divorced). She never could get pregnant, and certainly not when I met her, and I promised her that I was fine with that. When people asked if we had children, I usually started with a simple "no", but people would then ask "when would we", to which I would reply that we couldn't and that it was okay - really okay - then many, many people would immediately responded that we could adopt - yada, yada, yada - sigh.
My only regret was that we didn't get more time together. Sure 20 years seems like a long time, but not with the right person. The day before Thanksgiving 2005 she was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died seven weeks later in Jan 2006 - just like that, or so it seemed.
Remember Sue...
Obligatory: Family Decals
My wife and I couldn't and didn't have children, so we were the couple on the right. She died in Jan 2006, after 20.5 years together, so now I'm alone, but I don't regret one second of our life together - just the two of us. We kissed, hugged and said "I love you" every day, held hands wherever we went and did almost everything together. She even died in my arms. I still wear my wedding ring every day.
And atheists are different? Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century. Now it's the expanding vacuum. Those theories don't answer the question of "is there a creator?" any better than a theology.
You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is not "is there a creator?" but, "where does the evidence lead?"
So far, the evidence doesn't lead to a creator (i.e., a god).
A more apt question would be "Does the creation/existence of the Universe and Life require God?"
There is, as yet, no definitive proof either way. Personally, I believe God is *not* required, but others believe something else. Either way, belief doesn't make it true and that's where the arguments usually start.
...that, contrary to the moon and tides, Bill O'Reilly can actually explain this.
In reality, there will probably be a way to "unlock" a used game, by paying a fee through xBox live or whatever.
Sure - original M$RP.
...Firefox 18.0.3 in 3...2...1... (sigh)
Yeah, that's not going to happen in the real world, because it would require their pre-interview screening process to be so good as to effectively select, without an interview, the people whom it would be worth their while to get free consulting from under the guise of an interview.
Well... During the interview for my second real job, where one of the interviewers was one of my former college professors, they described an NFS problem they were having and I help them come up with a workable solution, which impressed my professor's boss. The job was with a contractor as a sysadmin for the super-computing network at the NASA Langley Research Center, which included several Convex and Cray systems.
Granted, the job was real and they were hiring, but helping solve a real problem didn't hurt my interview.
Caffeine gets cleared from the body at different rates because of genetic variations, gender, and even whether a person is a smoker.
...Isn't that true for most substances?
... but most Linux fanboys like Python (or even Ruby or PHP). Why not these?
Because fanboys eventually grow up to be fanmen and put aside such childish toys. :-)
[ Note: It's a *joke* fanboys. ]
I always like to think of it as being more that C leaves ropes, cliffs, pointy objects, and a few angry bears wandering around -- and it's up to the user to to look out for themselves.
If you know how to navigate it, and keep your wits about you, you'll mostly be fine. But if you're running around with your eyes closed or don't have adult supervision, you could really get hurt.
"C" - the Adventure / Zork of programming languages: "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike."
It doesn't actively come after you, but there's no safety nets either.
Right. That would be Hack :-)