Comment Re:The funny thing at my university (Score 2) 372
The only problem I would really have with handing in hard copies is that nobody uses floppies anymore,
Floppies don't really count as hard copy...
The only problem I would really have with handing in hard copies is that nobody uses floppies anymore,
Floppies don't really count as hard copy...
Do you know what a corporation is? That it is a different concept than "company"[...]?
In fairness, the definitions of those words (and whether they refer to the same thing) depends on jurisdiction. But you're right that many charities are incorporated.
3. This is why your shell has wildcards.
It's nice to be able to know what the name of a file is before deleting it - it may give some idea about whether it should be kept or not.
2. Putting non-ASCII characters in filenames is an even worse idea than putting spaces in filenames. Don't do it, and you won't have problems.
I don't do it. The users on systems I (hypothetically) maintain may not be so considerate. Especially if their first language is written in a different alphabet.
1. You should have consulted a table of Linux-compatible keyboards before you bought your keyboard.
Or perhaps consult a Linux compatibility table before deciding to be born into a country with an unsupported language? Or are you suggesting that everyone should keep two keyboards, one for the language they use all the time, and one for Linux console use? (In practice it wouldn't help either, because Linux supports virtually all keyboards in desktop environments, so your compatibility table would likely say "yes" even without full console support.)
Is it actually impossible to type in umlauts? Or does the console simply not show them correctly?
From memory, it can actually cope with both typing umlauts and displaying them - but the suggestion is that there are other internationalisation cases not handled so well.
Besides, doesn't ext2/3 reserve some disk space for the root by default? 5% if memory serves. Enough to get userspace - even X - running, at the very least.
It does do that, but in practice it doesn't always help: if a daemon running as root has issues that mean it writes lots of logs, that can fill the disk completely - and you don't necessarily want to delete the logs since you may need them for further investigation, so finding something else may be necessary.
"handles keyboards badly": Does it drop keystrokes? If it doesn't do that, there's absolutely no rational basis for this complaint. Maybe baby wants his arrow keys, or non-ASCII character set? Screw that. This is a console. Use vi commands like a grownup.
Maybe the user wants to get the ">" symbol on pressing the ">" key. Which is different on different keyboard layouts. Doesn't seem too unreasonable...
And you don't need your umlauts and accents. The commands are all composed of ASCII characters.
... but the filenames aren't. When you're trying to free up vital disk space by deleting hügë_fïlë.jpg, wouldn't it be handy to be able to type its filename?
Yes, you can override the index from which arrays are numbered.
Not in a modern release of Perl (5.16).
It works there too. There's a warning about it being deprecated, but it still works.
Actually, $foo[3] is the *fourth* element of @foo.
Yes, that's why I wrote "the element 3", not "the third element".
Yes, but unfortunately you let one "third" slip through the net:
In Perl, you have to write $foo[3] because the third element of the array is a scalar.
I'm sure $[ was equal to one for that sentence, though
Actually, $foo[3] is the *fourth* element of @foo. You count the array elements starting at 0, just like in C and assembler.
Not necessarily: it depends on the value of the $[ variable. Which isn't actually a variable. (Yes, Perl variable names can consist purely of punctuation. Yes, there are things that look like variables but actually aren't. Yes, you can override the index from which arrays are numbered.)
Turning this into a game with the hope of making money is cynical and tasteless.
Maybe, but totally protected under the 1st amendment.
True, but this isn't about Congress passing a law to restrict speech - it's about one company deciding not to sell a third party's product...
People and companies churn out tasteless crap all day. Perhaps they should all be censored. Good thing I don't have to buy Apple's crap.
Exactly - those (myself included) who are uncomfortable with either Apple's policies, or the general stranglehold they like to maintain on their ecosystem, are free to buy other stuff
...the game ran afoul of the guidelines for including Japanese flags in a WWII naval sim.
So if Godzilla were to attack New York would Apple deny a sim after the fact because it was unfair to monsters?
The policy in question was about games depicting entities that are real. Despite what Stephen King and Dr Who may have you believe, most adults consider that monsters are not real
and if a nurse who should be able to tell whether or not she was sick notices these symptoms and removes herself from those she could potentially contaminate is there that big of a difference? (honest question)
If (s)he can notice them in time, and if (s)he can safely remove him/herself from the vicinity of patients immediately without leaving them with insufficient care - then maybe.
Or what if a nurse maintained all the proper hygiene requirements that are already in place? Because the flu is definitely not the only airborne disease a nurse would come into contact with on a day to day basis.
That's true, of course, but it is a very common disease, that spreads easily and can be very harmful/dangerous to those whose health is already compromised in some way, so putting mitigation measures in place makes a lot of sense.
Is the difference in rate of infection big enough to warrant them firing nurses?
Now that is a different question entirely - putting infection control measures in place is common sense, but whether this particular action is proportionate is a lot more open to debate
Unless you can explain how the vaccinating the nurse will keep the flu infected patient from coughing and sneezing, those droplets will keep transmitting the virus.
If the vaccine stops the nurse contracting the flu, then it stops the nurse coughing and sneezing, which reduces the risk of transmission. You're right that there are other modes of transmission than patient->nurse->patient, and vectors other than airborne water droplets, but it makes sense that removing one significant transmission path will have an effect on the rate of transmission, right?
I'm curious as to how the vaccine in question prevents coughing and sneezing, though. I'm not familiar with vaccines having that effect.
The vaccine stops you getting (certain strains of) flu. The flu virus causes coughing and sneezing. Therefore, by preventing you getting the flu, it stops the coughs and sneezes that the flu would otherwise have given you. Is that really so hard to understand?
Is Dr. Orient wrong? Is there evidence that immunized workers are less likely to transmit the virus.
'Flu is transmitted (among other routes) by airborne water droplets. It also causes the sufferer to cough and sneeze (thus spraying such droplets).
It's hardly conclusive, but based on those facts I find it a little hard to believe that the vaccine (which will prevent the coughing and sneezing) has no effect on transmission...
What hath Bob wrought?
