So I RTFA, and about this so-called 'research' is just one of the devs basically saying "so, we imagined this cool sci-fi technology for our game world and then, you know what? we found out it actually existed! that was cool", before rambling endlessly about how their game really isn't like anything else before it and all that.
Bleh, I actually ate the slashvertisement and got interested in the freaking game, but I'm still expecting the science promised by the summary.
Because it's the only editor thus far whose interface has been designed towards terseness. That everything in Vi can be done only with a few, short commands is not only a lifesaver when you're stuck with a slow-ass terminal, as it was originally designed to be, but also a great productivity boost in everyday usage once you learn to use it.
Emacs gets often compared to it because, although its focus is clearly on power rather than speed, it's still far superior to modern-day editors that aim towards learnability and "user friendliness" at the cost of using up the programmer's time in navigating their cluttered interface over and over again. Sure keyboard shortcuts help, but they're still not even comparable to Emacs let alone Vi and its ilk in either speed or flexibility.
Actually, Komodo Edit was open-sourced a while ago, only the Komodo IDE continues being closed-source (and commercial as well). However, one of the features missing from Edit is debugger integration so it probably won't satisfy the original poster's criteria.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are ways to use ViM as the editing component in VisualStudio as well, but I've never tried them so I don't know how they work.
So many of the Engineers I have known view "seeing both sides of the story" as some kind of weakness or soft-spined compromise. "Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong, I'm Right, and that's all there is to it. Period. Full Stop. Now If You'll Excuse Me, I've got to get back to My Important Thing."
Weird, but my experience is exactly opposite of yours. Most idiots who don't bother doubting their own righteousness and live their life with a permanent Holier Than Thou attitude are those who've never learned logic or science and, as such, lack the rational skills to see their own foolishness.
Artists specially, being submerged in an area so filled with subjectivity that they tend to believe everything, even gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, are an opinion and that 'believing differently' automatically liberates them from their consequences but yet, somehow, their own belief is always the "right" one and anything else is wrong. Don't ask me to explain their thought processes or lack thereof.
1: It looks aged compared to its counterpart from Microsoft
Subjective opinion. Mine is that MS Office looks like an idiot trying to imitate Apple's GUI and failing at it, while OOo actually looks like the kind of software you expect at, y'know, an actual office.
2: Still takes a while to load and looks ugly!
First part true, but so does Office. Second part also subjective, and mine again is that as bad as it looks Office is far worse.
3: It's not as featured as Microsoft Office. Those who profess that the 80%/20% rule is what
matters do not have a clue on how human beings behave.
Prove it. Common sense and actual experience with both products would lead one to believe that both suites have features the other lacks, and so neither can be claimed to be "more featured" as the other without some deep analysis on both the amount of differences and the relative importance of each so I'm leaving it as homework for you.
4: Most educational institutions and workplaces still accept Microsoft Office as the "default"
office suite...even for editing simple documents.
Doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do though. Plus, OpenOffice does quite well exchanging simple documents with MSOffice, better in fact than different versions of MSO between themselves so interoperability shouldn't be any worse regardless.
5: Its development is just too slow! Compare that with Google's Android. If OpenOffice
development was at just half the speed of Android, things would be different.
Or we could compare it to Microsoft Office instead, which makes OpenOffice look like freaking rabbits, pumping out new versions by the dozen.
Pity for Apple that regular non-computer users wanting a nice, easy, clean operating system are *such* a rarity outside the US, given their comparatively abysmal marketshare everywhere else.
Or, y'know, perhaps it *is* the marketing after all.
Yes, there were other mp3 players before the iPod, in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people. Maybe *you* don't have an iPod, but millions of Americans (and other people in the world too by the way, there are other land masses on the planet too y'know) do.
Not really. Chinese-made MP3 players being sold for $30 made it popular for the people, the iPod isn't even a blimp on the metaphorical radar of the world.
Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came along
And still are. The whole moronic "MP3 player as a fashion statement" trend is pretty much relegated to the US, the rest of the world sees them as technological devices and purchases them as such.
So you think we should nose into these peoples' personal lives as part of the evaluation process?
How about there not being an evaluation process in the first place? you bring good points as to why choosing on the GP's criteria isn't a practical idea, but going ahead and giving a prize to somebody for being an asshole, but a rich asshole is just weak.
If you can't give the award to somebody whose quality as a human being is enough to deserve it, then don't give one at all.
There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?
Let me guess, you're not a lawyer, and are either a US citizen or have never tried to enter the country, right? because if any of those were false, you'd know that the "bar" isn't really set "low". Take it from somebody who knows: it's easier to *live* in Canada than it is to *pass through* the United States.
I've often heard that it was easier to enter East Germany during Soviet rule than to get into the US today, dunno what the Soviets did out there but given the inmense amount of paperwork required just to be allowed to sit on your plane as it refuels in an US airport, I'd say they can't have been too bad.
Actually, it's been already proven otherwise. Thing is, we as society deal with individuals themselves rather than large ethnic groups and there are far larger differences between individuals than there is among different ethnicities, so no, racism is still stupid.
It's fairly well known, in fact. It's called "tactile feedback", and it helps tremendously in doing things by muscle memory rather than conscious thought.
If anything, it's the fetish for button-less appliances that's unusual. Perhaps we should send Steve Jobs to a psychologist to investigate it further.
Because judgements about looks are an entirely subjective matter. Personally, I think the white plastic on MacBooks looks cheaper than even most netbooks, and that while the MBPs look nice, Sony's high-end Vaios look far better, though neither hold a candle to a good Thinkpad.
What does that prove, that Sony, Lenovo et al hire more competent designers than Apple? of course not, it merely shows that you and I have different tastes.
It's hard to argue that a specific *brand* of computers and an operating system are naturally related. The problem here isn't Apple bundling a copy of OSX with their computers, the problem here is limiting OSX to owners of Apple computers.
The tying in question isn't forcing the user to buy OSX to use their hardware but, rather, buying their hardware to run OSX.
Besides, Windows includes drivers for far more devices than OEM computers include, and some Linux netbooks don't bundle enough drivers to make use of all the hardware out-of-the-box, so regardless there's enough precedent to throw *that* argument out at least.
It is true Psystar's main problem was modifying OSX to run on their hardware, which constitutes an unauthorized derivative work and as such copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean Apple's practices are in any way legal.
Also, remember that any clause in a license is valid only if it doesn't contradict pre-existing laws. You can't ask for your firstborn in a software license, you can't enslave the user, and you can't have the user agree to his murder for instance. It may not be the case in the US, apparently, but in a country that supports modifications in the name of interoperability as exempt from copyright infringement Psystar could've had a pretty strong case in there, regardless of what Apple's EULA may say. Pity the DMCA's interoperability exception seems to have been merely for DRM and not copyright itself though.
And then I can just buy a Mac, refuse the OSX EULA, request a refund and install Linux on it. Repeat ad infinitum, or at least until Apple goes broke by giving away expensive hardware.
How is creating your own platform anti-competitive?
Because they're tying it to another one of their products which isn't needed to run it.
Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to create a product how they see fit and let the market decide if it's worth purchasing?
Because we have deemed so.
Do you also think all those home computers from the '70ies and '80ies were engaging in anti-competitive behaviour by tying their OS'es to their hardware?
When they tried to stop 'clones' by legal means, as opposed to purely the technical challenge of porting the software, yes. Most of them merely relied on using weird-ass CPU architectures, however, so they were fine.
By the same logic, Germany and Japan still exist today so I guess the US lost in WW2, also. Good thinking!
Where in hell did you get the idea that the US' (or the Allies' for that matter) objective in WW2 was to exterminate Germany and Japan? or are you one of those ignorant idiots who think the objective of *every* war is to annihilate the enemy to the last man, and define 'success' or 'failure' by casualties rather than strategic objectives?
Frankly, the US could probably roll over the Canadian military tomorrow, just as quickly, while suffering not many more casualties. I guess Canada is primitive too, huh?
I highly doubt it. Remember, the last time your countrymen thought likewise your White House ended up in flames.
I know that if Silverlight ever becomes a dominant force in the realm of content delivery, MS will stab me in the back by either deliberately slowing development on the Linux version, or making it incompatible with the latest version that runs on Windows.
In other words, just like Flash. What would we lose, exactly?
We should stick with Flash. It may suck, but at least it isn't controlled by a monopoly OS vendor who lacks any kind of ethics.
No, it's only controlled by a monopolist software vendor who lacks any kind of ethics. Microsoft may be evil, but they've yet to throw a man in prison just for threatening their business scheme.
There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming? Doesn't sound like science to me.
You'd notice, however, there's no debate about planets moving in orbits around the sun, electrons moving about, and evolution happening. The only debate is in the theories explaining the reasons for those phenomena, same as with Global Warming.
Refute the theory all you like (as long as you have rational arguments for it, plz), but when you start doubting the phenomena itself I'm instantly reminded of creationists and their pathetic denial of evolution in the face of hundreds of experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
So I RTFA, and about this so-called 'research' is just one of the devs basically saying "so, we imagined this cool sci-fi technology for our game world and then, you know what? we found out it actually existed! that was cool", before rambling endlessly about how their game really isn't like anything else before it and all that.
Bleh, I actually ate the slashvertisement and got interested in the freaking game, but I'm still expecting the science promised by the summary.
Because it's the only editor thus far whose interface has been designed towards terseness. That everything in Vi can be done only with a few, short commands is not only a lifesaver when you're stuck with a slow-ass terminal, as it was originally designed to be, but also a great productivity boost in everyday usage once you learn to use it.
Emacs gets often compared to it because, although its focus is clearly on power rather than speed, it's still far superior to modern-day editors that aim towards learnability and "user friendliness" at the cost of using up the programmer's time in navigating their cluttered interface over and over again. Sure keyboard shortcuts help, but they're still not even comparable to Emacs let alone Vi and its ilk in either speed or flexibility.
Actually, Komodo Edit was open-sourced a while ago, only the Komodo IDE continues being closed-source (and commercial as well). However, one of the features missing from Edit is debugger integration so it probably won't satisfy the original poster's criteria.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are ways to use ViM as the editing component in VisualStudio as well, but I've never tried them so I don't know how they work.
So many of the Engineers I have known view "seeing both sides of the story" as some kind of weakness or soft-spined compromise. "Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong, I'm Right, and that's all there is to it. Period. Full Stop. Now If You'll Excuse Me, I've got to get back to My Important Thing."
Weird, but my experience is exactly opposite of yours. Most idiots who don't bother doubting their own righteousness and live their life with a permanent Holier Than Thou attitude are those who've never learned logic or science and, as such, lack the rational skills to see their own foolishness.
Artists specially, being submerged in an area so filled with subjectivity that they tend to believe everything, even gravity or the laws of thermodynamics, are an opinion and that 'believing differently' automatically liberates them from their consequences but yet, somehow, their own belief is always the "right" one and anything else is wrong. Don't ask me to explain their thought processes or lack thereof.
1: It looks aged compared to its counterpart from Microsoft
Subjective opinion. Mine is that MS Office looks like an idiot trying to imitate Apple's GUI and failing at it, while OOo actually looks like the kind of software you expect at, y'know, an actual office.
2: Still takes a while to load and looks ugly!
First part true, but so does Office. Second part also subjective, and mine again is that as bad as it looks Office is far worse.
3: It's not as featured as Microsoft Office. Those who profess that the 80%/20% rule is what
matters do not have a clue on how human beings behave.
Prove it. Common sense and actual experience with both products would lead one to believe that both suites have features the other lacks, and so neither can be claimed to be "more featured" as the other without some deep analysis on both the amount of differences and the relative importance of each so I'm leaving it as homework for you.
4: Most educational institutions and workplaces still accept Microsoft Office as the "default"
office suite...even for editing simple documents.
Doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do though. Plus, OpenOffice does quite well exchanging simple documents with MSOffice, better in fact than different versions of MSO between themselves so interoperability shouldn't be any worse regardless.
5: Its development is just too slow! Compare that with Google's Android. If OpenOffice
development was at just half the speed of Android, things would be different.
Or we could compare it to Microsoft Office instead, which makes OpenOffice look like freaking rabbits, pumping out new versions by the dozen.
If that were so, why would they get an Office Suite in the first place instead of staying with Wordpad or even Abiword?
Pity for Apple that regular non-computer users wanting a nice, easy, clean operating system are *such* a rarity outside the US, given their comparatively abysmal marketshare everywhere else.
Or, y'know, perhaps it *is* the marketing after all.
Yes, there were other mp3 players before the iPod, in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people. Maybe *you* don't have an iPod, but millions of Americans (and other people in the world too by the way, there are other land masses on the planet too y'know) do.
Not really. Chinese-made MP3 players being sold for $30 made it popular for the people, the iPod isn't even a blimp on the metaphorical radar of the world.
Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came along
And still are. The whole moronic "MP3 player as a fashion statement" trend is pretty much relegated to the US, the rest of the world sees them as technological devices and purchases them as such.
So you think we should nose into these peoples' personal lives as part of the evaluation process?
How about there not being an evaluation process in the first place? you bring good points as to why choosing on the GP's criteria isn't a practical idea, but going ahead and giving a prize to somebody for being an asshole, but a rich asshole is just weak.
If you can't give the award to somebody whose quality as a human being is enough to deserve it, then don't give one at all.
There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?
Let me guess, you're not a lawyer, and are either a US citizen or have never tried to enter the country, right? because if any of those were false, you'd know that the "bar" isn't really set "low". Take it from somebody who knows: it's easier to *live* in Canada than it is to *pass through* the United States.
I've often heard that it was easier to enter East Germany during Soviet rule than to get into the US today, dunno what the Soviets did out there but given the inmense amount of paperwork required just to be allowed to sit on your plane as it refuels in an US airport, I'd say they can't have been too bad.
Actually, it's been already proven otherwise. Thing is, we as society deal with individuals themselves rather than large ethnic groups and there are far larger differences between individuals than there is among different ethnicities, so no, racism is still stupid.
It's fairly well known, in fact. It's called "tactile feedback", and it helps tremendously in doing things by muscle memory rather than conscious thought.
If anything, it's the fetish for button-less appliances that's unusual. Perhaps we should send Steve Jobs to a psychologist to investigate it further.
Because judgements about looks are an entirely subjective matter. Personally, I think the white plastic on MacBooks looks cheaper than even most netbooks, and that while the MBPs look nice, Sony's high-end Vaios look far better, though neither hold a candle to a good Thinkpad.
What does that prove, that Sony, Lenovo et al hire more competent designers than Apple? of course not, it merely shows that you and I have different tastes.
You can, however, buy a new laptop, demand a refund on Windows and keep the hardware so there's precedent already.
It's hard to argue that a specific *brand* of computers and an operating system are naturally related. The problem here isn't Apple bundling a copy of OSX with their computers, the problem here is limiting OSX to owners of Apple computers.
The tying in question isn't forcing the user to buy OSX to use their hardware but, rather, buying their hardware to run OSX.
Besides, Windows includes drivers for far more devices than OEM computers include, and some Linux netbooks don't bundle enough drivers to make use of all the hardware out-of-the-box, so regardless there's enough precedent to throw *that* argument out at least.
Let's see that clause stand up in a judgement, then we'll talk.
Vertical integration is not illegal
Inform yourself.
It is true Psystar's main problem was modifying OSX to run on their hardware, which constitutes an unauthorized derivative work and as such copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean Apple's practices are in any way legal.
Also, remember that any clause in a license is valid only if it doesn't contradict pre-existing laws. You can't ask for your firstborn in a software license, you can't enslave the user, and you can't have the user agree to his murder for instance. It may not be the case in the US, apparently, but in a country that supports modifications in the name of interoperability as exempt from copyright infringement Psystar could've had a pretty strong case in there, regardless of what Apple's EULA may say. Pity the DMCA's interoperability exception seems to have been merely for DRM and not copyright itself though.
And then I can just buy a Mac, refuse the OSX EULA, request a refund and install Linux on it. Repeat ad infinitum, or at least until Apple goes broke by giving away expensive hardware.
How is creating your own platform anti-competitive?
Because they're tying it to another one of their products which isn't needed to run it.
Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to create a product how they see fit and let the market decide if it's worth purchasing?
Because we have deemed so.
Do you also think all those home computers from the '70ies and '80ies were engaging in anti-competitive behaviour by tying their OS'es to their hardware?
When they tried to stop 'clones' by legal means, as opposed to purely the technical challenge of porting the software, yes. Most of them merely relied on using weird-ass CPU architectures, however, so they were fine.
By the same logic, Germany and Japan still exist today so I guess the US lost in WW2, also. Good thinking!
Where in hell did you get the idea that the US' (or the Allies' for that matter) objective in WW2 was to exterminate Germany and Japan? or are you one of those ignorant idiots who think the objective of *every* war is to annihilate the enemy to the last man, and define 'success' or 'failure' by casualties rather than strategic objectives?
Frankly, the US could probably roll over the Canadian military tomorrow, just as quickly, while suffering not many more casualties. I guess Canada is primitive too, huh?
I highly doubt it. Remember, the last time your countrymen thought likewise your White House ended up in flames.
Attrocities were commited on both sides of World War 2, don't kid yourself just because your countrymen formed part of one of them.
You know the world is a fucked up place when you see Slashdotters asking Microsoft to port their DRM scheme to Linux.
I know that if Silverlight ever becomes a dominant force in the realm of content delivery, MS will stab me in the back by either deliberately slowing development on the Linux version, or making it incompatible with the latest version that runs on Windows.
In other words, just like Flash. What would we lose, exactly?
We should stick with Flash. It may suck, but at least it isn't controlled by a monopoly OS vendor who lacks any kind of ethics.
No, it's only controlled by a monopolist software vendor who lacks any kind of ethics. Microsoft may be evil, but they've yet to throw a man in prison just for threatening their business scheme.
There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming? Doesn't sound like science to me.
You'd notice, however, there's no debate about planets moving in orbits around the sun, electrons moving about, and evolution happening. The only debate is in the theories explaining the reasons for those phenomena, same as with Global Warming.
Refute the theory all you like (as long as you have rational arguments for it, plz), but when you start doubting the phenomena itself I'm instantly reminded of creationists and their pathetic denial of evolution in the face of hundreds of experiments.