dbbo

I just check the stats on DistroWatch: http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity

It's based on pageviews as I recall, but that's a decent metric for getting a feel for a distro's "buzz". The data suggest that Mint started to surpass Ubuntu nearly 6 months ago-- not 2 like this article's author implied.

I tried some astronomical symbols, like ♃, but they don't seem to be supported yet.

The phone number is unlisted, but the point is that it was supposed to be sent over HTTPS and it wasn't.

So what kind of extreme knowledge/magic did Jobs have?

I also disagree with that law because there is always a handful of people capable of explaining an advanced technology, but no one can explain magic. For example, Siri might seem magical to end-users with no technical background but it is definitely not magical to the engineers and programmers who made it.

"So was Mr. Jobs smart? Not conventionally. Instead, he was a genius."

To me, this is just an abusive twisting of the word "genius". I know it has different meanings to different people, but I think being smart, or having some kind of intellectual capacity, is probably the best common ground between definitions.

It seems like Isaacson thinks being a genius just means being really good at something. Dan Marino and JFK are geniuses based on their prowess in their respective fields.

I didn't really learn anything about list-versus-scalar context from this article, but I did however learn that merlyn had been convicted of a felony.

My first thought was of the prologue level of Modern Warfare 1.

I thought those "notes" were really poorly transcribed. Did the author really not have time to turn them into sentences?

"Personally like to thank you for saving me winter algebra last year through Khan Academy investment."

"Africa, 800m today will be bigger than China or India, 20M in 2040. In terms of stability, education."

"Politics and role of web?"

"Student question on negative impact of technology."

I understand that he was just trying to get the gist across, but this is a news article. I would have rather read a more readable article an hour later.

I think the `string' quoting format in the ld output is breaking their "syntax" highlighting.

Unless I missed something, I don't think being easy for novices to use was one of Larry's design goals for Perl. Nevertheless, I found Perl pretty easy to learn, and it's the only language I ever "stuck with" long enough to build complicated programs.

This link is also on http://git-scm.com/documentation

I understand the gearhead mentality (I was raised by one), and I actually enjoyed reading about the music equipment. I just didn't expect it because when I hear "Zed Shaw" I think "programmer", not "musician", even though I realize that few people, even programmers, are one-dimensional. I guess it's just one of my many mental biases. Thanks for putting my question to rest.

I thought it was a bit odd that he wrote 7 paragraphs about music equipment and software, but didn't mention which GNU/Linux distribution(s) he uses on his "junky" laptops.

I'm not sure I understand this story. Is it basically "check out the design of this website" or am I missing something? I thought, and the site confirms it, that Nethack has been around for quite awhile, so that's certainly not news. Roughly half the comments so far are about how good/bad the game was, and the other half are about this website, so I'm not sure what is supposed to be piquing my intellectual curiosity. I also don't mean to put down the site or the game. I'm just not sure what I'm looking for here.

Personally, I dislike websites that try to grab my keys. I use pentadactyl/vrome, so if the website just lists everything I need to do there as a normal hyperlink, I need only hit f+number and I'm good to go. That isn't to say that it isn't innovative or cool. It's just not up my alley. I like to let local applications manage the keyboard.

OCZ's stock went up over 20% on Thursday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OCZ&t=5d&l=off&z...

I actually wanted to know what he was really doing, since the article just says he wanted to talk to Cook about the next product. Had I known a simple question was grounds for reproof here I wouldn't have asked.

How was he "working" for the company after he had resigned?

I found some of Khan's orgo videos helpful review material. In fact, the doctorate-level professor I had didn't do a much better job (if at all better) of explaining the material the first time around.

I understand that they are different. I wanted to know why one is worse for child development.

How is looking at an image of live human beings "worse" than looking at live human beings (which is ultimately an image too)? If the child is given a remote control, does that count as interactivity since he can choose what to look at while exploring causality?

By the way, I'm not arguing that TV is good for kids. I'm just trying to analyze the argument in favor of preventing infants from watching passive screen media.

I find it somewhat strange that video games are OK (it's on a screen but interactive) and I guess live theater is OK (it's passive but not on a screen), but the combination of passively watching something on a screen is not OK.

So if I rewrite an existing program from scratch and it takes 10x longer than just using the existing one, but one person uses the program, it's still worth the time?

I think that one person could have found the information from an existing source, such as _:help text-objects_. That isn't to say that the article is useless; it's just redundant.

You're right. I mistook vimtutor for the first chapter of a Vim book I have, although I did make a point to indicate that I wasn't 100% sure in the OP.

Putting the article's content aside, how many "beginner's guides" to Vim do we really need? It seems like every other week I find a new author writing about basic vim commands. Now, considering the article's content-- I'm not sure it contained anything that couldn't be learned from `vimtutor`, but it's been quite a while since I've run it.

As a linguistics student, I have a good deal of sympathy for people using a secondary language-- but I don't think this author even proofread his post before submitting it.

Maybe I'm just biased because of my curriculum, but I didn't find this article informative at all. I actually found it overly dumbed-down. Perhaps it was meant for people with zero biology/chemistry knowledge.

It's also full of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. I had to reread every other sentence to get the gist of it. If the content was gold I could probably overlook that, but it's not. It's basically a carelessly scrawled rant.

What was the "design" then? A sketch of a really thin tablet PC? That doesn't seem so creative or innovative to me. I think more credit is due to the engineers who brought it to life. Moreover, I haven't actually seen any sketches done by Jobs. I'm not saying they don't exist; I just haven't seen any.

The _only_ reason I have stuck with Firefox so long is that Vimperator and later Pentadactyl blow all Chromium vim-like addons out of the water. I have finally got so sick of paging issues and unresponsive scripts in Firefox (sometimes to the extent that even the Magic SysRq key could save me) that lately I've been using Chromium + vrome exclusively.