The desktop search program for GNOME (Beagle) is written in Mono. Last I checked it is a memory hog and is kind of unstable (I think I disabled it when it started causing my system to crash) which may or may not have to do with the Mono stuff. I do remember when it started out it was a real pain to install and get running because of all the Mono dependencies and DLL Hell (literally, there are.dll files). Interestingly, the Deskbar applet that you can use to query Beagle (which is a pretty decent UI and works fine) is written in Python, my favorite language. This also makes it brain-dead easy to write new search components.
I actually really like Ubuntu and its artwork, but I've been told by a lot of people that the "human" theme looks like shit. As in, human feces. Now that it's more orange, it might pass for some malnourished diarrhea.
Think about it as a #include directive. For example
Haberman (1998) has proven that x, y, and z. Thus.....
This saves the space that would have been needed for the 10-page long proof that x, y, and z might entail, which is probably outside the scope of the article.
Yes, well, just because you think it should be legal doesn't mean it is. You might be doing something justifiable, and I have no problem with you doing it, but don't think that "fair use" gives you the right to do it. "Fair use" gives you the right to legally use content that you have purchased, but it doesn't override the fact that bypassing DRM is illegal. DMCA is a Very Bad Law BECAUSE it effectively eliminates the concept of Fair Use by making many fair uses illegal. Fair Use is not some kind of inalienable right. It is not as if the constitution says "Congress shall not make any law that prevents consumers from doing what they please with their own music, as long as they don't distribute it."
Of course, if you mean "fair use" in the sense of "this is what I think I should be able to do", then of course it's fair use. But then "fair use" becomes synonymous with "conscience": My conscience allows me to use content that I purchased. Fair use, in the legal sense, does not allow you to do anything forbidden by the DMCA.
One of the big problems in America is that the general public fails to see how bad of a law the DMCA is.
Fair use doesn't mean that you can violate the DMCA in order to copy a file for personal use. Bad analogy: the fact that you own a copy of a CD doesn't make it legal for you to "borrow" someone's CD drive in order to listen to it, even though fair use would allow you to play it on you own computer. Similarly, although fair use allows you to copy an DRM'ed song in order to listen to it, if you can somehow do that legally, it does not give you permission to violate a law in order to do so. Decrypting DRM'ed stuff is illegal, plain and simple. The DMCA is a LAW, same as copyright laws. What you're saying is "what I'm doing is legal, because although I am violating one law, I am not violating another."
On the other hand, if your moral code doesn't coincide with the legal system and you don't have moral qualms breaking the law, be my guest. But don't think that your justifications have any legal meaning. When the DRM Gestapo come to your door to arrest you, you will have nothing to say.
Disclaimer: I watch DVDs on my Linux machine, which is just as illegal:-).
Of course, it's a lot worse than that. The law of conservation of energy basically says: 1.You can NEVER win; you can only break even. In other words, even in a perfect system, there is no way that a reaction going in one direction is going to consume less energy that the reaction going in the other direction. In fact, energy* is a state function; one generally speaks of the energy of water, or the energy of hydrogen and oxygen. Every chemistry student knows that the energy consumed by the reaction is the energy of the products minus the energy of the reactants. IT is fairly obvious, then, that the energy consumed by the reverse reaction is exactly the negative of this. In fact, the energy of elements is generally considered to be zero, and the energy of the substance is _defined_ as the energy consumed making the chemical from its constituents, or _equivalently_ the energy released breaking the substance apart. If these were found experimentally to be different it would cause a veritable revolution in science.
The reason that it's a lot worse is because of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that 2. You can NEVER break even (so you always lose!) The previous paragraph was referring to a perfect system. But there really is no perfect system, and you will NEVER get the same amount of energy out of a reverse reaction as you put in trying to get the reaction to take place. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics, and science as we know it relies on it. Thermodynamics is in fact one of the more successful theories of science, (barring black hole nonsense). So your theoretical 100% efficiency engine CANNOT exist! It is not even theoretically possible. * there are various types of energy involved, but I'm keeping it simple
The One True Editor - VI!!!!!!!! It's the piece of software which I use the most, and nothing else comes close to comparing. The user interaction model is simply wonderful once you get used to it, and it has a certain elegance and minimalism to it. It is impressive that such an old, "obsolete," and "archaic" editor is still used (in upgraded form) by so many people today.
Hurting the eyes is an infinitely practical metric. The parentheses in Scheme make it truly painful to read and write, at least for me. Python is very easy to read and write. I use both Scheme and Python, and while I have never had trouble with Python indentation I always mess up the parentheses in Scheme, and I continually have to start counting to figure out where things begin and end.
If you want a good functional language that's easy on the eyes, use Haskell.
I don't know, maybe the fact that for Perl 6 he released a bunch of Apocalypses. Apparently these are "revelations" and not "the end of the world." I suppose Larry Wall is God. Or His Prophet.
No lambdas, no ternary operator (yes I know, not pythonic), no switch statement (think Ruby, not C++), scoping rules are wrong (for example, list comprehensions leak variables - C++ for loops don't!).
The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Python has an incredible number of infuriating misfeatures for such a useful language.
Python sort of pretends to be a functional language, and you can do a lot of functional-style things in python, but even Perl is much better at doing these things than Python.
My favorite part of Python is the whitespace rule! The way I see it, you're indenting your program anyways, so braces are just redundant. It makes Python code quite beautiful and virtually eliminates unreadable code. In fact, Python is just a wonderful language to write in in general because its design enforces good programming practices and makes it easy to produce incredibly maintainable programs. But sometimes these features (read limitations, and lots of them) are quite frustrating. Yes, Guido, map and filter suck, but only because Python lambdas suck. And nested list comprehensions look awful. And sometimes you really do want a one-liner.
My three favorite languages now are Perl, Python, and Haskell. Perl because it is useful, even though it is a terrible language (Perl 6 is awesome though). Python because it is wonderfully easy to code in. Haskell because it is beautiful and makes my head hurt. Incidentally, Haskell also relies on whitespace, which I guess means that meaningful whitespace is officially a Good Thing, as defined by leading computer scientists.
The interesting thing I think is that Ruby, though much cleaner than Python and much more expressive, is much much harder for me to read. I don't like the mix of pure OO and functional style so much either. It seems like a wonderful language, but once Perl 6 comes out I can't really see it being so relevant.
A (physical) bank could give the users a CD-ROM with the public key on it. This solves the trust problem to the point where you have to trust the people at the bank. If you can't trust the people at the bank then there is no point of worrying about security.
XSLT doesn't really fulfill the same role as CSS, in the sense that it has nothing to do with formatting. So you still need a language to specify how things should look, and thus having an XSLT "stylesheet" doesn't really help you so much, since it is not much easier to do
The formatting language that is usually used with XSL, namely XSL-FO, is more of a PDF replacement - designed for paged output, so that it not extremely useful as HTML replacement, even if anybody could manage to render it.
On the other hand, you can make a table in XSLT and your content will still be separate from your presentation. You can use font tags and b tags and claim that it is good practice. In that sense it is better (read easier and more intuitive) than CSS. But I don't think you can do everything with HTML tags that you can do with CSS. So in that respect you are still stuck with CSS and you might as well use a CSS stylesheet.
Ubuntu phones home to check for updates automatically, to set the time, and do useful things like that. The difference, of course, is that this is open source and you know exactly what is going on and why, or at least you could easily find out if you wanted to.
What?? Very smart people are often very, very, wrong. In fact many smart people are stubborn and inflexible, and believing their reasoning to be always infallible dig themselves into ideological holes. This happens especially in more "fuzzy areas" (read not math, science, tech). Sometimes it helps to have someone around who is less sure of the truth of everything. And people of average intelligence can have a lot of insight into things, such as social situations, that many smart people don't have.
That said, I agree that such a relationship is probably pretty painful.
I don't know, doesn't the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics say that this is fundamentally wrong? In other words, the world is not deterministic, so there could be two equally probably results from the exact same state.
Of course the Bohmian interpretation would allow for this determinism, given the knowledge, but there is still the fundamental limitation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that says that this knowledge is fundamentally impossible for humans to attain.
So you definitely can't obtain this information, and perhaps this information doesn't even exist.
Thanks! I was thinking of "local" more in the sense of "there exists a neighborhood such that", and less in the sense of "there exists a neighborhood such that almost".
That's one of the problems with math, when you get into "almost", "local", and such. For example, I can think of at least at least three definitions of "almost everywhere"; there's something I've seen called "quasi-everywhere" (except on nowhere dense), almost uniform convergence, which is completely different, etc.
That doesn't sound quite right. I think Riemannian space is locally Euclidean in a sort of differential topological sense, in that you can continuously assign coordinates in Euclidean space to points, and changes in coordinates are smooth. However in a geometric sense Riemannian space is not necessarily locally Euclidean, in the sense that this identification with Euclidean space will NOT give you the right distances between points, angles between lines, and so on.
For example, you can continuously and smoothly deform an open (without edges) hemisphere (Riemannian manifold) into Euclidean space. However, this doesn't change the fact that no matter how "local" you get -- no matter how small a patch of the hemisphere you take, the angles in a triangle drawn on this hemisphere will not add up to pi. (I think they will be 3pi/2, but I'm not sure). This is because the concept of angle and distance depend only on the Riemannian metric, and not the merely topological identification with Euclidean space.
Interestingly enough, it is possible that the Universe is "globally Euclidean", in that except for deformations due to gravity the "big picture" is Euclidean.
I don't know enough about GR to say if you can get to "locally Euclidean" in the sense you are referring to somewhere in the universe, but I am pretty sure that there are many places where you can't get to Euclidean no matter how far you zoom in, since I don't think curvature, which is intrinsic and a point property (I think), goes away when you zoom in.
Slashdot Mirror
The desktop search program for GNOME (Beagle) is written in Mono. Last I checked it is a memory hog and is kind of unstable (I think I disabled it when it started causing my system to crash) which may or may not have to do with the Mono stuff. I do remember when it started out it was a real pain to install and get running because of all the Mono dependencies and DLL Hell (literally, there are .dll files). Interestingly, the Deskbar applet that you can use to query Beagle (which is a pretty decent UI and works fine) is written in Python, my favorite language. This also makes it brain-dead easy to write new search components.
What about heads?
I actually really like Ubuntu and its artwork, but I've been told by a lot of people that the "human" theme looks like shit. As in, human feces. Now that it's more orange, it might pass for some malnourished diarrhea.
Of course, Ubuntu does have a history of naked women in its artwork . . .
Think about it as a #include directive. For example
.....
Haberman (1998) has proven that x, y, and z. Thus
This saves the space that would have been needed for the 10-page long proof that x, y, and z might entail, which is probably outside the scope of the article.
Yes, well, just because you think it should be legal doesn't mean it is. You might be doing something justifiable, and I have no problem with you doing it, but don't think that "fair use" gives you the right to do it. "Fair use" gives you the right to legally use content that you have purchased, but it doesn't override the fact that bypassing DRM is illegal. DMCA is a Very Bad Law BECAUSE it effectively eliminates the concept of Fair Use by making many fair uses illegal. Fair Use is not some kind of inalienable right. It is not as if the constitution says "Congress shall not make any law that prevents consumers from doing what they please with their own music, as long as they don't distribute it."
Of course, if you mean "fair use" in the sense of "this is what I think I should be able to do", then of course it's fair use. But then "fair use" becomes synonymous with "conscience": My conscience allows me to use content that I purchased. Fair use, in the legal sense, does not allow you to do anything forbidden by the DMCA.
One of the big problems in America is that the general public fails to see how bad of a law the DMCA is.
Fair use doesn't mean that you can violate the DMCA in order to copy a file for personal use. Bad analogy: the fact that you own a copy of a CD doesn't make it legal for you to "borrow" someone's CD drive in order to listen to it, even though fair use would allow you to play it on you own computer. Similarly, although fair use allows you to copy an DRM'ed song in order to listen to it, if you can somehow do that legally, it does not give you permission to violate a law in order to do so. Decrypting DRM'ed stuff is illegal, plain and simple. The DMCA is a LAW, same as copyright laws. What you're saying is "what I'm doing is legal, because although I am violating one law, I am not violating another."
:-).
On the other hand, if your moral code doesn't coincide with the legal system and you don't have moral qualms breaking the law, be my guest. But don't think that your justifications have any legal meaning. When the DRM Gestapo come to your door to arrest you, you will have nothing to say.
Disclaimer: I watch DVDs on my Linux machine, which is just as illegal
Of course, it's a lot worse than that. The law of conservation of energy basically says:
1.You can NEVER win; you can only break even.
In other words, even in a perfect system, there is no way that a reaction going in one direction is going to consume less energy that the reaction going in the other direction. In fact, energy* is a state function; one generally speaks of the energy of water, or the energy of hydrogen and oxygen. Every chemistry student knows that the energy consumed by the reaction is the energy of the products minus the energy of the reactants. IT is fairly obvious, then, that the energy consumed by the reverse reaction is exactly the negative of this. In fact, the energy of elements is generally considered to be zero, and the energy of the substance is _defined_ as the energy consumed making the chemical from its constituents, or _equivalently_ the energy released breaking the substance apart. If these were found experimentally to be different it would cause a veritable revolution in science.
The reason that it's a lot worse is because of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that
2. You can NEVER break even (so you always lose!)
The previous paragraph was referring to a perfect system. But there really is no perfect system, and you will NEVER get the same amount of energy out of a reverse reaction as you put in trying to get the reaction to take place. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics, and science as we know it relies on it. Thermodynamics is in fact one of the more successful theories of science, (barring black hole nonsense). So your theoretical 100% efficiency engine CANNOT exist! It is not even theoretically possible.
* there are various types of energy involved, but I'm keeping it simple
The One True Editor - VI!!!!!!!! It's the piece of software which I use the most, and nothing else comes close to comparing. The user interaction model is simply wonderful once you get used to it, and it has a certain elegance and minimalism to it. It is impressive that such an old, "obsolete," and "archaic" editor is still used (in upgraded form) by so many people today.
Nope, the number of digits needed to address any significant data contained in pi would be phenomenally large.
Hurting the eyes is an infinitely practical metric. The parentheses in Scheme make it truly painful to read and write, at least for me. Python is very easy to read and write. I use both Scheme and Python, and while I have never had trouble with Python indentation I always mess up the parentheses in Scheme, and I continually have to start counting to figure out where things begin and end. If you want a good functional language that's easy on the eyes, use Haskell.
No, XML is fine. DSSSL is a crime against humanity.
I don't know, maybe the fact that for Perl 6 he released a bunch of Apocalypses. Apparently these are "revelations" and not "the end of the world." I suppose Larry Wall is God. Or His Prophet.
On the other hand, perhaps Larry IS God . . .
No lambdas, no ternary operator (yes I know, not pythonic), no switch statement (think Ruby, not C++), scoping rules are wrong (for example, list comprehensions leak variables - C++ for loops don't!).
Underscores! __init__ __new__ __getattr__ __setattr__ __len__ __getitem__ . . . .
range(1,5) = [1, 2, 3, 4]
The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Python has an incredible number of infuriating misfeatures for such a useful language.
Python sort of pretends to be a functional language, and you can do a lot of functional-style things in python, but even Perl is much better at doing these things than Python.
My favorite part of Python is the whitespace rule! The way I see it, you're indenting your program anyways, so braces are just redundant. It makes Python code quite beautiful and virtually eliminates unreadable code. In fact, Python is just a wonderful language to write in in general because its design enforces good programming practices and makes it easy to produce incredibly maintainable programs. But sometimes these features (read limitations, and lots of them) are quite frustrating. Yes, Guido, map and filter suck, but only because Python lambdas suck. And nested list comprehensions look awful. And sometimes you really do want a one-liner.
My three favorite languages now are Perl, Python, and Haskell. Perl because it is useful, even though it is a terrible language (Perl 6 is awesome though). Python because it is wonderfully easy to code in. Haskell because it is beautiful and makes my head hurt. Incidentally, Haskell also relies on whitespace, which I guess means that meaningful whitespace is officially a Good Thing, as defined by leading computer scientists.
The interesting thing I think is that Ruby, though much cleaner than Python and much more expressive, is much much harder for me to read. I don't like the mix of pure OO and functional style so much either. It seems like a wonderful language, but once Perl 6 comes out I can't really see it being so relevant.
A (physical) bank could give the users a CD-ROM with the public key on it. This solves the trust problem to the point where you have to trust the people at the bank. If you can't trust the people at the bank then there is no point of worrying about security.
XSLT doesn't really fulfill the same role as CSS, in the sense that it has nothing to do with formatting. So you still need a language to specify how things should look, and thus having an XSLT "stylesheet" doesn't really help you so much, since it is not much easier to do
< /span>
<booktitle>The Grapes of Wrath</booktitle>
<xsl:template match="booktitle">
<span style="font-style:italic;"><xsl:apply-templates/>
</xsl:template>
or even
<xsl:template match="booktitle">
<em><xsl:apply-templates/></em>
</xsl:template>
than
<div class="booktitle">The Grapes of Wrath</div>
div.booktitle {
font-style: italic;
}
The formatting language that is usually used with XSL, namely XSL-FO, is more of a PDF replacement - designed for paged output, so that it not extremely useful as HTML replacement, even if anybody could manage to render it.
On the other hand, you can make a table in XSLT and your content will still be separate from your presentation. You can use font tags and b tags and claim that it is good practice. In that sense it is better (read easier and more intuitive) than CSS. But I don't think you can do everything with HTML tags that you can do with CSS. So in that respect you are still stuck with CSS and you might as well use a CSS stylesheet.
Whoosh.
Yes, I realize you claim to have gotten the joke. I just find your response inane.
That's why we need a direct-to-brain interface to overcome the limitations of physical interfaces.
Ubuntu phones home to check for updates automatically, to set the time, and do useful things like that. The difference, of course, is that this is open source and you know exactly what is going on and why, or at least you could easily find out if you wanted to.
Yeah, haven't you read Billy Budd?
What?? Very smart people are often very, very, wrong. In fact many smart people are stubborn and inflexible, and believing their reasoning to be always infallible dig themselves into ideological holes. This happens especially in more "fuzzy areas" (read not math, science, tech). Sometimes it helps to have someone around who is less sure of the truth of everything. And people of average intelligence can have a lot of insight into things, such as social situations, that many smart people don't have.
That said, I agree that such a relationship is probably pretty painful.
I don't know, doesn't the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics say that this is fundamentally wrong? In other words, the world is not deterministic, so there could be two equally probably results from the exact same state. Of course the Bohmian interpretation would allow for this determinism, given the knowledge, but there is still the fundamental limitation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that says that this knowledge is fundamentally impossible for humans to attain. So you definitely can't obtain this information, and perhaps this information doesn't even exist.
Thanks! I was thinking of "local" more in the sense of "there exists a neighborhood such that", and less in the sense of "there exists a neighborhood such that almost". That's one of the problems with math, when you get into "almost", "local", and such. For example, I can think of at least at least three definitions of "almost everywhere"; there's something I've seen called "quasi-everywhere" (except on nowhere dense), almost uniform convergence, which is completely different, etc.
You mean Margaret Sanger
That doesn't sound quite right. I think Riemannian space is locally Euclidean in a sort of differential topological sense, in that you can continuously assign coordinates in Euclidean space to points, and changes in coordinates are smooth. However in a geometric sense Riemannian space is not necessarily locally Euclidean, in the sense that this identification with Euclidean space will NOT give you the right distances between points, angles between lines, and so on.
For example, you can continuously and smoothly deform an open (without edges) hemisphere (Riemannian manifold) into Euclidean space. However, this doesn't change the fact that no matter how "local" you get -- no matter how small a patch of the hemisphere you take, the angles in a triangle drawn on this hemisphere will not add up to pi. (I think they will be 3pi/2, but I'm not sure). This is because the concept of angle and distance depend only on the Riemannian metric, and not the merely topological identification with Euclidean space.
Interestingly enough, it is possible that the Universe is "globally Euclidean", in that except for deformations due to gravity the "big picture" is Euclidean.
I don't know enough about GR to say if you can get to "locally Euclidean" in the sense you are referring to somewhere in the universe, but I am pretty sure that there are many places where you can't get to Euclidean no matter how far you zoom in, since I don't think curvature, which is intrinsic and a point property (I think), goes away when you zoom in.