122 karma · joined January 24, 2014
Barnes and Noble. Their Nook isn't as good, but it's an alternative. I also will buy books [1] direct from publishers, and there are still more narrowly focused sites like History Book Club and Christian Book Distributers.
[1] I dislike using qualifiers (physical books, postal mail) which turn centuries-old words into phrases. If I mean e, I say/write e, otherwise I mean what the words always meant.
I can see the benefit for speed, the same way I would use a calculator to multiply 6 4 digit numbers, but not because it's "obscure."
If the command is "obscure" one probably doesn't need it often (e.g. me with any dd command) in which case asking in English might cause unforeseen problems.
Could you explain this to someone who doesn't program and knows nothing about how os internals?
My naive question is wouldn't the OS/DE/WM still take care of the above for an application?
[1] Practicing incorrectly can lead to bad muscle memory that can hinder performance. E.g. learning to touch type after years of 4 finger hunting and pecking v learning how to touch type the first time you start using a keyboard.
[2] Sitting in a waiting room years ago I read an article in a science digest of some sort extolling how physicists explained why the air smells differently after rain. They used time-laspe photography, zoom, and optical spectography (???) Or something to capture spores being released into the air. I was baffled. Once you know of the actual existence of molecules, spores, and the like why would you need to prove to your eyes what your nose already tells you. If you think it's a bad example I am not knowledgeable enough to say you're wrong, but I do belive humans in general have a disposition to more readily accept evidence received by the eye than we are any other sense except touch.
Humans, not capable of true originality, are either innovative or derivative. For all the talk of these tech billionaires as geniuses I only see derivatives with tons of money behind it.
They lack both a healthy, wise, and deep-rooted frame-of-reference and the ability to imaginatively innovate within it.
Let me restate what I clearly and obviously wrote: The history professor has no moral obligation to give his book away digitally.
The person I replied to stated unequivocally that people deserve free stuff if it cost nothing. I refuted both that argument and the argument that anything is distributed, let alone produced, without cost.
Is that clear enough or do you want to build another strawman?
What if it cost $.05 to copy? Why is moral and just (related but not equivalent) bound to cost?
As to a real example: a professor of medieval history has incurred the cost of his education, including reading handwriting in a foreign language, the cost of time, effort, travel and more in researching and writing and has now typed up a book on his computer and it is "free"[1] to distribute so it's morally just to give a copy to all who want it?
You pretty much cloaked your greed in a word salad of meaningless moralizing with a jargon dressing and no real context.
[1] Even digital requires the cost of equipment, electricity, and access, so if you bind morally just to free it doesn't exist.
I am forever thinking of drawings I would do to enhance (for myself) some idea or note I'm developing but I can't draw, but I would never ask someone who could to do it for me as a favor.
I had a once-in-a-lifetime dog who died, and I have an idea for a triptych of 3 scenes on him I am saving up to pay someone to paint. I would never, ever say I just need an artist.
Ideas are easy. Craft is demanding. Mastery is damn hard.
No. But it reads like I was. Apologies.
It's easy to see that driving on the LEFT side of the road is a fit as a general mode of transportation. Adoption by millions is a testament to that.
Both statements are true. The author didn't say only C++ is fit. Nor did he say a program written in BOTH C++ AND python (i.e. a system of driving on both left and right sides of the road) is fit.
The counter-argument (C++ is NOT fit as a general purpose programming language) is invalidated by millions of programmers who use it as such in the same way that thumbs are not fit for grasping is invalidated by, well, grasping with your hands.
It doesn't mean pliers are not fit for grasping just because thumbs are fit for grasping.
You're conflating types of evidence and types of arguments.
Assuming I remember correctly.
The only clue I see is in the polite objection the author quotes who writes "I agree it's safer..."
But I don't understand safer in what way or why 1 person gets to decide safer=better=forced.
1) Notes looks a lot like Standard Notes. If you built Notes using copy-left, OSS it's hard to complain unless you pay "royalties" to all the programmers whose work was incorporated into yours.
2) I am probably atypical. I have used Linux for over 20 years, but I can't write so much as a Bash script or a Perl one-liner. Yet I have spent a whole lot more money on software than I would have (or most individuals do) on other platforms. Because I can't code and appreciate the work of others and the freedom it gives me I support the following (not exclusive):
* Kaisen (my distro) and Debian (the distro Kaisen is built on) both
* tFSF for both core utilities and Emacs
* My DE (KDE), and even if I prefer the UI of other applications I mostly try to use those provided by KDE,tFSF, Debian, or Kaisen (e.g Akregator over RSSGuard) unless I donate, like:
* Mozilla (for Firefox), but
* Betterbird for my email client
* Syncthing
* LaGrange (gopher/gemini)
* Joplin
* ClipTo
* and more, including services (e.g. SoulSeek, envs.net)
Some annually, some monthly, some one-time.
In fact, when Standard Notes first came out I paid for a seven year subscription, and then ended up using it for about 2 months before becoming dissatisfied. There are some, like Alacritty, that I use extensively but which I have found no way to donate to, but I try to keep it to a minimum.
If I subscribe to a daily newspaper, you can steal it off my driveway in which case you steal from me and not the publisher because I never owned the content. If you sell my newspaper then you've stolen from the publisher even though I paid the publisher for that printed copy.
It's really not that hard. Original pirates could steal from dozens of merchants, share holders, and sailors in various ways and degrees, monies paid to monies earned, to monies owed, to monies potentially gained, by seizing the cargo of one vessel.
Children aren't focused on money and they were always last. It's hard to be childlike (totally dependent) when you think you're autonomous and wealth tends to solidify the illusion of autonomy.
I don't think the literal meaning of the Greek word matters that much to grasp the meaning of the account.
The analysis at least assumes Jesus said it and it was recorded in 3 Gospels. If one starts with that, Jesus (Whomever one believes He was [1]) meant something, used some word, and the listeners understood what He meant enough to ask a follow-up question.
In his advice to Timothy, Paul warns how a focus on words in an effort to "gain" is harmful:
"[He] is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world." 1 Tim 6:4-6
I think it ties in nicely with what Jesus said about how wealth/gain is often a hindrance to childlike humility, innocence, and trust.
[1] I agree with Peter when Jesus asked him "Who do you say that I am?"
So the only feeds that go in my RSS reader are those that let me read at least half the article to decide if I want to continue. Others I like to visit often end up in a feeds bookmark folder.
Scant few, like itsfoss.com let you read the entire article/post anymore.
I don't see ads anyway. It'd be nice if they just added a short "please consider supporting..." or something to the feed. What really torques me is when I have a subscription but the feed still only gives me the first paragraph.
It doesn't matter how much effort one puts into researching and troubleshooting (including reading many F (man)uals and forums) before asking, nor does it matter how much detail you provide to show how X (which is supposed to do Y, and does on many machines), does Z on yours for some reason, and, BTW, here's my logs and output for foo[1-5], all you get is "asked and answered RTFM, n00b."
However the interface (like Roam) is too limiting. I am used to split frames of multiple buffers with others a C-x b away, and treemacs and mu4e and Olivetti mode, and eshell, and dired, and...
Everytime I start lusting after a sweet young thing I ask: Is it local? Is it future-proof? Is it plaintext? Is it extensible by competent users? The answer is always no to one of them (unless it's basically also a text editor like Vim (shudder)), and the "heat" dissipates, and I "rejoice in the wife of my youth."
It didn't go away suddenly. We had moved, and I went 6 months without getting a new Dr so I wasn't taking any prescriptions. It never came back (15 years), so if it was medication it was a different blood pressure medication than I take now or an antidepressant which I never went back on.
Just a few: radio, radar, penicillin, automobiles, telephone, refrigeration (huge), air flight, train transport, x-rays, and much much more.
Rewrite the headline to "make phone calls obsolete" and it'll give you 1) an idea of how transformative voice transmissions were (and still are for families) and 2) an idea of how people forget what phones are actually good for.
If I had to give up everything on my smart phone except one function I would keep the ability to speak to my mother, children, and grandchildren.
Yes, I could use VoIP on my desktop if I wanted, but I don't want and I can't take my desktop with me. I can buy a GPS, radio/mp3 player, camera,e-book reader and more to replace those functions. I would retain voice calls and give up only what? Social media? I don't use any. Email when not at home (yawn)? Surfing the Web?
> "Near-death" experiences. Obviously, they didn't actually die when their heart stopped. At least, it should be obvious.
It's obvious framed that way because it's a tautology that removes the possibility of reviving (restore to life), by framing it as impossible.
Life, if truly and fully gone, cannot be restored; therefore any life that appears to have been restored must be an illusion.
E.g. Max in "A Princess Bride:" "He's only mostly dead."