But at least they're dipshits who know that wireless [x] is always 3000x better when it can be used as a wired [x] as well (and with a standard USB cable, at that) [take that, Nintendo]. Not enough to make me buy your next console for $827.39, but maybe just enough to make me buy one of the new controllers.
You can be a Futurist. That's the acceptable term. Nobody studies the future. Yet. Maybe some Futurist will predict that someday there will be Futurologists, but so far the future cannot be studied, it can only be reasonably predicted.
Did you stop reading the post after that one note? That was half of the example. Standing by itself it is perfectly acceptable. I was talking about an inconsistency.
If you are/at/ position 5 and insert, it inserts "at" position 5 (that is, before the text '5', which is moved to position 6). Meanwhile, the cursor is moved forward so the next "insert" would occur at position 6. Because when you entered insert mode from position 5 it allowed you to insert characters at position 5, it stands to reason that now that you are inserting characters at position 6 you should stay at position 6 when you re-enter normal mode. Now re-enter normal mode. You find yourself at position 5 again. Wtf?
It can probably be assumed from this (I havent actually read the code) that the so-called "Insert" mode is actually a "move backward one, then Append" mode. I've seen this error excused by "but if we did it that way, the cursor would need to be handled differently at the end of the file than anywhere else, otherwise the cursor would be on some "virtual" non-existent character!" This is a common excuse, and completely false. If you insert a new line and add no characters, moving between insert and normal modes behaves just as it should in any other circumstance- the cursor does not move. There are no characters on the line, so by the logic given in defending the wrong way, the cursor must be on some non-existant "virtual" character. Either way, does a flawed implementation ever excuse a flawed interface? [hint: it's an anagram of "on"]
VIM supports about 6378 options which allow the editor to behave a little less like vi, which is nice, but can be annoying. This is not one of them.
I'm not "misinterpreting" anything. VIM gets it wrong. This is undeniable, despite its being universally denied. All normal mode operations act based on the cursor being where it appears to be, all insert mode operations act based on the cursor being where it appears to be. Entering Normal Mode causes the position on which actions occur to change. Whether or not behind-the-scenes the variable involved doesnt actually change is utterly irrelevent and unrelated.
If you're in an array of text and your cursor is as anArray[57], inserting a character should insert at position 57. Performing an operation on the current position should effect the character at position 57. Appending should effect position 58. The visual cues given by VIM insist that the cursor is at position 57 for inserting text and position 56 for operating on text. You can't defend an obviously incorrect interface with "but in the code it makes perfect sense!"
Move your cursor to the beginning of a line (not file! Line!) and watch it behave differently from all other positions. Suddenly moving backwards isnt such a keen idea? With the current method, going between insert, normal and normal moves the cursor, while going between append and normal does not. While I can think of many reasons why you'd want a seperate "insert" and "append" key (that is: go into insert mode, starting to either the left or the right of the current cursor position), I can still not think of any reason why I'd want to reposition my apparent cursor (regardless of what internal states exist) before entering Normal mode.
Your argument is flawed and doesnt take into account all the facts: Regardless of how you entered Insert mode (using i or a), the Normal Mode cursor always appears to the left of the current position (as if, by your words, one had always entered Insert mode using the Append key). By your own words, it should be obvious the cursor belongs (in that case) To The Right of the inserted text (as text has been inserted To The Left of the cursor)
So the whole of what you have said is irrelevent, inaccurate, bunk. VIM gets it wrong, and due to processing remaps too early, it cannot be fixed in the.vimrc
1) The most frequently used key ("go to normal mode") is the furthest away from the rest of the keyboard. "You can remap it to capslock!" -- does capslock send things to the terminal? Does the ability to pass global all-application-effecting configurations into an unrelated subsystem excuse poor usability decisions? (insert unrelated MDI debate here) 2) The cursor position in normal mode is one-behind the cursor in insert mode, so if you switch between normal and insert mode, you'll wind up moving backwards. (Workaround: use "append", except you're not trying to append to where you werent, you're trying to insert to where you were) 3) Because keys are not translated from their terminal sequences before being remapped, you can't remap the escape key itself (as that makes all keys which produce an "escape" character break)
I use Vi/Vim all day every day, but sometimes it really pisses me off:)
You seem to be agreeing there. People who want Wii sports will want two controllers. People who want one controller will not want Wii sports. (if you claim to be a counterexample, you're a liar)
They include gimicky sports games which nobody would ever want to play except to try out the new controller, but only include one controller so you can't even do that decently. For $250, you get a bill for $60, which you can either use to buy a decent single-player game (meaning the bundled game was an interesting waste of plastic), or buy a second controller.
All that junk mail I recieve, too! Offering me the ability to shop from the comfort of my home, while not letting me do so without using my eyes! Fuck 'em!
I think it defaults to middle-click, which in IE means "scroll to where I move the mouse", which is redundant when it's always faster (and more precise) to click the scrollbar. I've also had an Intuous with that button. Strangely, the side buttons are not completely configurable (in windows), and the secondary one can only be bound to a very limited set of features. I usually bound them to forward/back in web browsers, though.
so, I'm Also left-handed and scrolling with a stylus, just to qualify my original post:)
where can I buy a stylus with a scroll wheel? Meanwhile: Scroll wheels are often slower than just clicking where you want to go. For short documents the time it takes to move to the scroll bar is enough that using the scroll wheel would be faster, but if you're expected to be holding a stylus that generally isnt the case (most people can point to something specific faster using a stylus than a mouse). This guy's problem is that he takes 5d6 holy damage whenever his arms briefly cross.
Am I the only one who wants my dominant, faster, more nimble, hand on the thing with lots of tiny buttons instead of the thing that can be used easily by someone whose arms terminate at club-like stumps?
"Left handed" mouse settings are completely stupid.
DRM is somebody saying "You can have this lawnmower, but only if you always take this ball and chain with it. Just so I'm sure you don't run off with it. So that you can still use it, it also comes with a butler who will unlock it for you. He unlocks it by flipping a switch from "locked" to "unlocked". You may not flip the switch yourself. The butler only works on tuesdays."
You don't use excel for it, and you shouldnt. But if you did, it would be simple, and you'd store the data in rows, not columns. I don't recall if Excel's row maximum was based on a short or an int, not really relevent since it's trivial and common to write something to overflow when importing data. If you have data divided into various discrete units, the tradition is for each unit to be a row. Due to that tradition, Excel was designed for many many units with a handful of parameters for each. If you have over 32,000 parameters for each record, then you might want to put it in sideways.
A certain well known international corporation ran their internal billing reports through some very inappropriate tools. It wasnt ideal, but a year's worth certainly fit into excel, could be averaged, etc. Excel is one of those things that shouldn't be pushed, not that can't.
I've recently found clewn, it's a handy interface between gvim and gdb. I like to set breakpoints visually, step through code right in the code (rather than seeing a peice of the code), and ddd is an ancient turd in terms of UI (as are most unix guis I've seen). Clewn doesnt get in the way, yet gives you just enough integration to make things a bit faster. (I've only tried it on linux, so I dont know how portable it is.. everywhere else it's just vim)
If you want software for project management, I dont have any ideas. mkdir, perhaps?:)
The middle is always encouraged to make wise investments and seize opportunities to do work which, in a capitalist society, is rewarded with money based on the agreement of how much that work is worth. If those investments or work pan out (which is always due to luck), those who were their peers dont feel the fortune is deserved. If the only way for anything to work out for the better is luck (and you're a liar or a moron if you think it's possible otherwise), and luck is not respected, then you've chosen bad strategies to begin with.
Survival in a connected society is about luck. That's got nothing to do with hard work, or the "evilness" or "uselessness" of "rich" "people". The law of Big Numbers beat out any other laws long ago.
So your claim that the average person cannot possibly become rich is utterly irrelevent.
So you can work hard for the sake of itself and don't boo-hoo because mister luckypants has luckier pants than you ("He got more! And he worked just as hard or less! No fair! Take his away!"), or you can keep whining and watch nothing change.
Hard work is rewarded. Rewards also come randomly. The random rewards are less likely, but more lucrative. This is a consequence of there being more than two people in the room. If you dont want this to ever happen, remove: The Internet, Telephones, Radios, Computation, Cars, Busses, Trains, Planes, Modern Boats, Smart People and Lazy People (to avoid these things being reborn), TitleCase, and quotation marks.)
Would it actually hurt to do this? That is, go RPG style and say arbitrarily "you cannot level up twice from a single encounter"? It would probably balance things more, but I've always hated arbitrary things like that, as it's just a pointless patch that doesnt fix the underlying issue (XP being granted for things which XP technically shouldnt be granted for, in an ideal system)
Who does it really hurt to allow a handful of worthless dweebs contribute nothing _and_ still get to put the ocassional stupidly small sum into the flow? Is that worse than them simply contributing nothing as the part-time salad bowl they'd be sans-money?
Most importantly: society has changed enough that the whole of the system should be revisited, rather than trying to put a "you can't level up twice" patch on it. Nothing wrong with people being rich, even super-rich. It's how they get there that's the problem. Fight the sickness, not the symptom, or you're no better than those who try to outlaw P2P applications because of what they can be used for.
(my income last year was ~$10,000, and I don't care how much Bill Gates is worth)
What turd floated his way to the top of the moron pool long enough to mod this insightful? Funny, Overrated, or Off-topic only, please. I was really hoping that "the obviousness of sarcasm by the sheer stupidity of any other possible interpretation" would shine through.
You place the butter in the middle of the potato. Lots of butter on that one spot, but wouldnt you prefer to spread butter all over? Try it, and find that one spot now has a lot less butter than it used to. Everyone knows butter doesnt just spontaneously appear, if you want to spread something to another area, you need to reduce it in some other area!
Something seems flawed about a view of economics in which the "rich" are automatically bad and do not deserve money, while the "middle" are expected to do nothing but aquire enough money to become rich.
Slashdot Mirror
But at least they're dipshits who know that wireless [x] is always 3000x better when it can be used as a wired [x] as well (and with a standard USB cable, at that) [take that, Nintendo]. Not enough to make me buy your next console for $827.39, but maybe just enough to make me buy one of the new controllers.
Their power was expected to last 90 days, it's lasted over three years. /other/ parts that keep going bad.
It's the
More power might be able to mean more spare parts, though..
You can be a Futurist. That's the acceptable term. Nobody studies the future. Yet. Maybe some Futurist will predict that someday there will be Futurologists, but so far the future cannot be studied, it can only be reasonably predicted.
Did you stop reading the post after that one note? That was half of the example. Standing by itself it is perfectly acceptable.
/at/ position 5 and insert, it inserts "at" position 5 (that is, before the text '5', which is moved to position 6). Meanwhile, the cursor is moved forward so the next "insert" would occur at position 6. Because when you entered insert mode from position 5 it allowed you to insert characters at position 5, it stands to reason that now that you are inserting characters at position 6 you should stay at position 6 when you re-enter normal mode.
I was talking about an inconsistency.
If you are
Now re-enter normal mode. You find yourself at position 5 again. Wtf?
It can probably be assumed from this (I havent actually read the code) that the so-called "Insert" mode is actually a "move backward one, then Append" mode.
I've seen this error excused by "but if we did it that way, the cursor would need to be handled differently at the end of the file than anywhere else, otherwise the cursor would be on some "virtual" non-existent character!"
This is a common excuse, and completely false. If you insert a new line and add no characters, moving between insert and normal modes behaves just as it should in any other circumstance- the cursor does not move. There are no characters on the line, so by the logic given in defending the wrong way, the cursor must be on some non-existant "virtual" character. Either way, does a flawed implementation ever excuse a flawed interface? [hint: it's an anagram of "on"]
VIM supports about 6378 options which allow the editor to behave a little less like vi, which is nice, but can be annoying. This is not one of them.
I'm not "misinterpreting" anything. VIM gets it wrong. This is undeniable, despite its being universally denied. All normal mode operations act based on the cursor being where it appears to be, all insert mode operations act based on the cursor being where it appears to be. Entering Normal Mode causes the position on which actions occur to change. Whether or not behind-the-scenes the variable involved doesnt actually change is utterly irrelevent and unrelated.
.vimrc
If you're in an array of text and your cursor is as anArray[57], inserting a character should insert at position 57. Performing an operation on the current position should effect the character at position 57. Appending should effect position 58. The visual cues given by VIM insist that the cursor is at position 57 for inserting text and position 56 for operating on text. You can't defend an obviously incorrect interface with "but in the code it makes perfect sense!"
Move your cursor to the beginning of a line (not file! Line!) and watch it behave differently from all other positions. Suddenly moving backwards isnt such a keen idea?
With the current method, going between insert, normal and normal moves the cursor, while going between append and normal does not. While I can think of many reasons why you'd want a seperate "insert" and "append" key (that is: go into insert mode, starting to either the left or the right of the current cursor position), I can still not think of any reason why I'd want to reposition my apparent cursor (regardless of what internal states exist) before entering Normal mode.
Your argument is flawed and doesnt take into account all the facts: Regardless of how you entered Insert mode (using i or a), the Normal Mode cursor always appears to the left of the current position (as if, by your words, one had always entered Insert mode using the Append key). By your own words, it should be obvious the cursor belongs (in that case) To The Right of the inserted text (as text has been inserted To The Left of the cursor)
So the whole of what you have said is irrelevent, inaccurate, bunk. VIM gets it wrong, and due to processing remaps too early, it cannot be fixed in the
1) The most frequently used key ("go to normal mode") is the furthest away from the rest of the keyboard. "You can remap it to capslock!" -- does capslock send things to the terminal? Does the ability to pass global all-application-effecting configurations into an unrelated subsystem excuse poor usability decisions? (insert unrelated MDI debate here)
:)
2) The cursor position in normal mode is one-behind the cursor in insert mode, so if you switch between normal and insert mode, you'll wind up moving backwards. (Workaround: use "append", except you're not trying to append to where you werent, you're trying to insert to where you were)
3) Because keys are not translated from their terminal sequences before being remapped, you can't remap the escape key itself (as that makes all keys which produce an "escape" character break)
I use Vi/Vim all day every day, but sometimes it really pisses me off
2 spaces isnt enough to be worth it- just hit spacebar twice, damnit.
People who set their ts to 8 scare me.
You seem to be agreeing there.
People who want Wii sports will want two controllers.
People who want one controller will not want Wii sports. (if you claim to be a counterexample, you're a liar)
They include gimicky sports games which nobody would ever want to play except to try out the new controller, but only include one controller so you can't even do that decently. For $250, you get a bill for $60, which you can either use to buy a decent single-player game (meaning the bundled game was an interesting waste of plastic), or buy a second controller.
But don't forget: write them /backwards/. Nobody will ever guess!
All that junk mail I recieve, too! Offering me the ability to shop from the comfort of my home, while not letting me do so without using my eyes! Fuck 'em!
I think it defaults to middle-click, which in IE means "scroll to where I move the mouse", which is redundant when it's always faster (and more precise) to click the scrollbar. I've also had an Intuous with that button. Strangely, the side buttons are not completely configurable (in windows), and the secondary one can only be bound to a very limited set of features. I usually bound them to forward/back in web browsers, though.
:)
so, I'm Also left-handed and scrolling with a stylus, just to qualify my original post
Well yes, by the logic of my post they're stupid because they make sense for right-handers, not left-handers.
where can I buy a stylus with a scroll wheel?
Meanwhile: Scroll wheels are often slower than just clicking where you want to go. For short documents the time it takes to move to the scroll bar is enough that using the scroll wheel would be faster, but if you're expected to be holding a stylus that generally isnt the case (most people can point to something specific faster using a stylus than a mouse). This guy's problem is that he takes 5d6 holy damage whenever his arms briefly cross.
Am I the only one who wants my dominant, faster, more nimble, hand on the thing with lots of tiny buttons instead of the thing that can be used easily by someone whose arms terminate at club-like stumps?
"Left handed" mouse settings are completely stupid.
DRM is somebody saying "You can have this lawnmower, but only if you always take this ball and chain with it. Just so I'm sure you don't run off with it. So that you can still use it, it also comes with a butler who will unlock it for you. He unlocks it by flipping a switch from "locked" to "unlocked". You may not flip the switch yourself. The butler only works on tuesdays."
You don't use excel for it, and you shouldnt.
But if you did, it would be simple, and you'd store the data in rows, not columns.
I don't recall if Excel's row maximum was based on a short or an int, not really relevent since it's trivial and common to write something to overflow when importing data.
If you have data divided into various discrete units, the tradition is for each unit to be a row. Due to that tradition, Excel was designed for many many units with a handful of parameters for each. If you have over 32,000 parameters for each record, then you might want to put it in sideways.
A certain well known international corporation ran their internal billing reports through some very inappropriate tools. It wasnt ideal, but a year's worth certainly fit into excel, could be averaged, etc. Excel is one of those things that shouldn't be pushed, not that can't.
Whether it can or not, I don't know.
Whether anyone should be trying: hell no.
Your spreadsheet layout is utterly flawed, but using various excel features can be reorganized into something a lot more sane.
What are you doing where 366 columns (no more! no less!) seems like a good idea?
I really am interested.
vim7 is close to emacs in terms of bloated slow ass (though it still hasnt asked me what newsgroups I'd like to subscribe to on startup)
I've recently found clewn, it's a handy interface between gvim and gdb. I like to set breakpoints visually, step through code right in the code (rather than seeing a peice of the code), and ddd is an ancient turd in terms of UI (as are most unix guis I've seen). Clewn doesnt get in the way, yet gives you just enough integration to make things a bit faster. (I've only tried it on linux, so I dont know how portable it is.. everywhere else it's just vim)
:)
If you want software for project management, I dont have any ideas. mkdir, perhaps?
The middle is always encouraged to make wise investments and seize opportunities to do work which, in a capitalist society, is rewarded with money based on the agreement of how much that work is worth. If those investments or work pan out (which is always due to luck), those who were their peers dont feel the fortune is deserved. If the only way for anything to work out for the better is luck (and you're a liar or a moron if you think it's possible otherwise), and luck is not respected, then you've chosen bad strategies to begin with.
Survival in a connected society is about luck. That's got nothing to do with hard work, or the "evilness" or "uselessness" of "rich" "people". The law of Big Numbers beat out any other laws long ago.
So your claim that the average person cannot possibly become rich is utterly irrelevent.
So you can work hard for the sake of itself and don't boo-hoo because mister luckypants has luckier pants than you ("He got more! And he worked just as hard or less! No fair! Take his away!"), or you can keep whining and watch nothing change.
Hard work is rewarded. Rewards also come randomly. The random rewards are less likely, but more lucrative. This is a consequence of there being more than two people in the room. If you dont want this to ever happen, remove:
The Internet, Telephones, Radios, Computation, Cars, Busses, Trains, Planes, Modern Boats, Smart People and Lazy People (to avoid these things being reborn), TitleCase, and quotation marks.)
Would it actually hurt to do this? That is, go RPG style and say arbitrarily "you cannot level up twice from a single encounter"? It would probably balance things more, but I've always hated arbitrary things like that, as it's just a pointless patch that doesnt fix the underlying issue (XP being granted for things which XP technically shouldnt be granted for, in an ideal system)
Who does it really hurt to allow a handful of worthless dweebs contribute nothing _and_ still get to put the ocassional stupidly small sum into the flow? Is that worse than them simply contributing nothing as the part-time salad bowl they'd be sans-money?
Most importantly: society has changed enough that the whole of the system should be revisited, rather than trying to put a "you can't level up twice" patch on it. Nothing wrong with people being rich, even super-rich. It's how they get there that's the problem. Fight the sickness, not the symptom, or you're no better than those who try to outlaw P2P applications because of what they can be used for.
(my income last year was ~$10,000, and I don't care how much Bill Gates is worth)
What turd floated his way to the top of the moron pool long enough to mod this insightful?
Funny, Overrated, or Off-topic only, please.
I was really hoping that "the obviousness of sarcasm by the sheer stupidity of any other possible interpretation" would shine through.
"that's not an option" is a perfectly acceptable option :)
Wow.. those good old days when we used to complain about invasive searches that actually needed a court order..
Ingredients: 1 Potato, 1 Pat of butter.
You place the butter in the middle of the potato. Lots of butter on that one spot, but wouldnt you prefer to spread butter all over? Try it, and find that one spot now has a lot less butter than it used to.
Everyone knows butter doesnt just spontaneously appear, if you want to spread something to another area, you need to reduce it in some other area!
Something seems flawed about a view of economics in which the "rich" are automatically bad and do not deserve money, while the "middle" are expected to do nothing but aquire enough money to become rich.