I too agree with the Claws Mail recommendation. I think the HTML plugin is OK; note that there are two HTML plugins: One called "Fancy HTML Viewer" based on WebKit and another called "gtkhtml" (I think) that no longer seems to be maintained. The "fancy" one is pretty good; the old gtkhtml one was indeed hokey.
Another plugin that's quite nice is the vCalendar plugin; it handles Outlook invitations and the like quite nicely.
POSIX shell scripting is all fine and dandy until you deal with filenames with spaces in them, at which point it's nothing but tears. Shell script variable substitution is a real pain to get working in all situations.
I develop and maintain a product with a medium-sized code base in Perl 5. We have pretty thorough style and coding guidelines and the Perl is quite readable and maintainable. One of the nicest things about Perl that hardly anyone mentions is POD --- the abiility to put documentation right in the.pm files. This makes it much easier to keep the docs and the code in sync.
But yeah, Perl 6 is a disaster and some of its ideas have started to infect Perl 5 modules with ridiculously baroque and over-engineered code (I'm talking about you, Moose.)
Anyway, even the Perl 6 people admit that Perl 6 is not an upgrade to Perl 5, but a different language. So I'll ignore it and continue reasonably happily on Perl 5.
This. Transactional DDL has saved our skins many times. We've had the *ahem* occasional buggy upgrade and knowing that we always have a valid schema is priceless. We either have the old schema or the new one, never some half-assed in-between version that requires a ton of manual fixups.
This was actually my first Slashdot TV video. And it'll be my last. The interviewer's an absolute idiot. Kept asking the same question over and over again.
Thanks for four minutes of my life I'll never get back. And no, I had to stop at the four-minute mark.
No, it's not. The cinema is saying: "We don't run political or religious ads." That's discriminating on content, not on who the advertiser is.
A caterer who refuses to cater Catholic weddings is discriminating on the basis of religion. Whether or not the caterer works at a Protestant, Catholic or atheist wedding, she'd still presumably do much the same thing, so there's no difference in the product or the content, only in who she's doing it for.
This thing is so ridiculous. Any advertiser can accept or reject ads based on any criteria they choose, as long as the criteria are based on the content of the ads and not on who's paying for the ads.
Well, no. The government can force businesses not to discriminate against customers in certain protected cases (age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.)
But they cannot force a business to provide a platform for someone's point of view. That's very different.
I watched the ad, and just like the Anglican Church itself, it's pretty wishy-washy and ineffective. I expect audiences are more likely to hoot with derision than get offended.
If the cinemas really had a policy not to allow religious or political advertising in place before they were asked to run the ads, and if they've applied that policy consistently, then I don't think they should run the ads.
I wouldn't particularly be bothered by such an ad even though I'm a Dawkins-esque strong atheist. But if you're going to have a policy it has to be applied uniformly.
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
You fail to understand Islam. Islam by its nature rejects modernity and embraces the idea that it's followers should act as Mohammed did, back in the 7th century. I'm not a fan of any religion, but Christianity has, for the most part, reformed the worst barbarisms out of itself. Islam is regressing and becoming more and more barbaric.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal
B.S. Islam initially spread by killing anyone who didn't convert. That tends to be a pretty persuasive argument.
Islam was never, ever in any sense "liberal". Even in the so-called golden age of Islam when Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was still pretty barbaric. Just not quite as barbaric as Christianity at the time.
Very much. I've had professional dealings with Statistics Canada in the past and their computer security is very, very impressive. I would say the census data is amongst the best-protected data in Canada, if not North America.
Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female?
Trudeau wanted a cabinet that reflected Canadian society. Whether or not you think that's a good thing can be argued, I suppose, but it's not unreasonable to try to make your government representative of the wider society.
Slashdot Mirror
I too agree with the Claws Mail recommendation. I think the HTML plugin is OK; note that there are two HTML plugins: One called "Fancy HTML Viewer" based on WebKit and another called "gtkhtml" (I think) that no longer seems to be maintained. The "fancy" one is pretty good; the old gtkhtml one was indeed hokey.
Another plugin that's quite nice is the vCalendar plugin; it handles Outlook invitations and the like quite nicely.
... an easy-to-hide dead-man's switch for someone doing something nefarious.
POSIX shell scripting is all fine and dandy until you deal with filenames with spaces in them, at which point it's nothing but tears. Shell script variable substitution is a real pain to get working in all situations.
I develop and maintain a product with a medium-sized code base in Perl 5. We have pretty thorough style and coding guidelines and the Perl is quite readable and maintainable. One of the nicest things about Perl that hardly anyone mentions is POD --- the abiility to put documentation right in the .pm files. This makes it much easier to keep the docs and the code in sync.
But yeah, Perl 6 is a disaster and some of its ideas have started to infect Perl 5 modules with ridiculously baroque and over-engineered code (I'm talking about you, Moose.)
Anyway, even the Perl 6 people admit that Perl 6 is not an upgrade to Perl 5, but a different language. So I'll ignore it and continue reasonably happily on Perl 5.
Pg ancient (like version 6 or so) was pretty nasty; a VACUUM more or less locked up the system. But that hasn't been true for ages now.
This. Transactional DDL has saved our skins many times. We've had the *ahem* occasional buggy upgrade and knowing that we always have a valid schema is priceless. We either have the old schema or the new one, never some half-assed in-between version that requires a ton of manual fixups.
This was actually my first Slashdot TV video. And it'll be my last. The interviewer's an absolute idiot. Kept asking the same question over and over again.
Thanks for four minutes of my life I'll never get back. And no, I had to stop at the four-minute mark.
I wasn't aware of that particular cake case. I think the verdict was wrong and in this case, the baker's freedom of expression was violated.
A confectioner is well within his rights to refuse to convey a homosexual message (whatever TF that is) on his cake.
But he's not free to refuse to bake a normal cake, the same as he'd bake for everyone else, just because the customer happens to be gay.
I know you see the difference and are simply trolling at this point.
No, it's not. The cinema is saying: "We don't run political or religious ads." That's discriminating on content, not on who the advertiser is.
A caterer who refuses to cater Catholic weddings is discriminating on the basis of religion. Whether or not the caterer works at a Protestant, Catholic or atheist wedding, she'd still presumably do much the same thing, so there's no difference in the product or the content, only in who she's doing it for.
This thing is so ridiculous. Any advertiser can accept or reject ads based on any criteria they choose, as long as the criteria are based on the content of the ads and not on who's paying for the ads.
I don't think Star Wars ads promote prayer or the Jedi religion, though.
But even though as I said I'm a hard-core atheist, I'd pray all day if I thought it would stop George Lucas from ever making another fucking movie.
The theatre chain is not objecting to who is trying to run ads. They're objecting to the content of the ads.
I'm sure if the Church of England paid for an ad about, oh, I dunno, cars or running shoes, the theatre chain would be happy to run it.
Well, no. The government can force businesses not to discriminate against customers in certain protected cases (age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.)
But they cannot force a business to provide a platform for someone's point of view. That's very different.
I watched the ad, and just like the Anglican Church itself, it's pretty wishy-washy and ineffective. I expect audiences are more likely to hoot with derision than get offended.
If the cinemas really had a policy not to allow religious or political advertising in place before they were asked to run the ads, and if they've applied that policy consistently, then I don't think they should run the ads.
I wouldn't particularly be bothered by such an ad even though I'm a Dawkins-esque strong atheist. But if you're going to have a policy it has to be applied uniformly.
Islam has prevented democracies from happening.
Aha, it's finally clear. It wasn't a bomb plot at all. It was just a cynical extortion scam.
Mostly I use xterm, but if I want one with decent UTF-8 / Unicode support, I fire up xfce4-terminal (part of the XFCE desktop environment.)
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
You fail to understand Islam. Islam by its nature rejects modernity and embraces the idea that it's followers should act as Mohammed did, back in the 7th century. I'm not a fan of any religion, but Christianity has, for the most part, reformed the worst barbarisms out of itself. Islam is regressing and becoming more and more barbaric.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal
B.S. Islam initially spread by killing anyone who didn't convert. That tends to be a pretty persuasive argument.
Islam was never, ever in any sense "liberal". Even in the so-called golden age of Islam when Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was still pretty barbaric. Just not quite as barbaric as Christianity at the time.
You're doing something wrong, then. Streaming replication works fine for us on a fairly similarly-sized setup.
You can have both! We should all change our computer languages to use this: >
how much do you trust their information security?
Very much. I've had professional dealings with Statistics Canada in the past and their computer security is very, very impressive. I would say the census data is amongst the best-protected data in Canada, if not North America.
I don't know about how Canada's left works[...]
And yet you proceed to give your uninformed opinion anyway.
Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female?
Trudeau wanted a cabinet that reflected Canadian society. Whether or not you think that's a good thing can be argued, I suppose, but it's not unreasonable to try to make your government representative of the wider society.