import sys
filenames = sys.argv[1:]
def fixline(filename):
text = open(filename).read()
text = text.replace('\n\r','\n')
return text
for file in filenames:
print fixline(file)
This is of course interesting. I have thought about this before: But wouldn't it be more interesting to use (say the orient) language's mindset to set, embedded into the language at its core?
Note that they were using OpenOffice, not a more modern fork, and that they were running it in parallel with MS Office 2000, so using some form of Windows.
They're in for a rude UI awakening when jumping to MS Office 2007 or later...
Yeah, that's a sad example of what vendor lock-in closed file formats cause and what bad migration planing does. I guess IT people in Freiburg could learn a lot from their fwllows in Munich.
Personally, I like the contrast: Freiburg will get to experience Windows 8 and update us on that, while Munich will update us on how much money they saved. That's what this article is about: how much money they saved.
Jason, I found a little bio of you that said, "Jason Fried is the fastest white man you'll ever meet. He has curly hair and a sunny disposition. He loves to travel, play hoops, and watch sunsets from his roof deck. He wishes he could break dance." Is that all true?
JF: That was an old bio that someone wrote for me. I guess it's probably all true, except for the break dancing part. I really don't have any desire to do that.
No, scientists are coming from the opposite direction. Observing things, then draw conclusions and connect the dots. Pseudosciences, like homeopathy are backwards. They pull "universal truths" out of thin air, like "Law of similars", and after that they don't mind even if experiments and reality doesn't support these theories.
The direction is not the opposite for science. In Popper's philosophy of science, you form a theory beforehand and specify how it can be falsified, only then you do the experiment. Otherwise you could obtain some data and provide an ad-hoc explanation, without knowing whether it really explains anything. It's related to the Texas sharpshooters fallacy, where you shoot a gun and only afterwards draw the bull's eye around your shots. Of course practice differs from this ideal, you do get inspired to make certain theories by data (context of discovery), but to make a proper theory you need to make predictions and specify what would disprove the theory (context of justification).
I don't, I say it's part of the context of discovery (the way you come up with new hypotheses). On the other hand, you can't overlook the problem of induction, pure empiricism doesn't work. You need some theoretical framework before you can try to verify your hypotheses.
A true scientist seeks an integrated understanding. Newton related the objects that fall on Earth to the motion of the planets. One big sweeping idea for a wide range of phenomena. That's science.
The point of posting your interests online would be to attract other people with similar interests. That girl was anticipated a stalker, but what she got was most probably a perfectly normal guy who checked her out beforehand to ensure compatibility.
He was probably a perfectly normal guy, but I doubt that he checked her out to "ensure compatibility." It is perfectly normal for young men to pretend that they are interested in things which they aren't in order to attract a girl's attention. Maybe some of the guys who approached her were genuinely interested in horses, but the majority probably just wanted to give a good impression.
There's nothing wrong with trying to give someone a good impression, but when you research someone's hobbies so you can feign interest in them, you are starting your relationship off on the wrong foot. If you can't be yourself around someone, then things probably aren't going to work out anyways.
Still, you are unfairly singling out China. From the article you linked:
"It was the first known successful satellite intercept test since 1985, when the United States conducted a similar anti-satellite missile test"
"In February 2008 the US launched its own strike to destroy a malfunctioning US satellite, which demonstrated to the world that it also had the capability to strike in space"
China's test created far more debris than any previous incident, including the US incident you point to. Furthermore China created that debris in a much higher orbit so it will take much longer for it to naturally fall out of orbit.
That single incident is responsible for something like 10% of all debris in orbit that is large enough to be tracked by NASA.
It's closer to 20% due to China's ASAT test and 80% due to the collective spaceflight activities of the entire world over the last half century. You know, vs. one single event.
If China dumped as much garbage into the ocean in one event equal to 20% of the entire world's ocean dumped garbage since 1957 you can be damned sure they'd catch some flak for that.
I don't know why people in US automatically think they have the right to do anything they want, yet when somebody else does the same they find every reason to brand them evil conveniently neglecting everything they did.
There is no point in trying to act innocent, space or other wise US has been screwing earth since decades now. Wars, weapons and emissions all in the name of development. Yet now when some other countries do the exactly all that for similar reasons, they become bad?
Did you even read the comment? One Chinese demonstration created 10% of all objects we can track. The US demonstration was held in a much lower orbit and most of the fragments it created have probably burned in the atmosphere by now.
The events are not comparable. The Chinese test represented wanton disregard for orbital debris, to an extreme degree. The US anti-satellite tests (in 1985 and 2008) were on low-altitude satellites using sub-orbital weapons. This led to much smaller debris plumes that reentered the atmosphere in a short period of time (weeks or months).
Can you see the impact of the debris created by the 1985 ASAT test? No? Can you see the little bump that starts in early 2008 and goes away by 2009 that represents the debris generated by the 2008 US ASAT test? Now look at the impact of the Chinese test, it's night and day. And that's due to the altitude of the event (865 km, well above the outer fringes of the atmosphere, where orbital decay is very, very slow) and the nature of the impact from a counter-orbiting kinetic-kill vehicle, which dumped at least 4 times as much kinetic energy into the impact at the very least.
While launch vehicle and satellite makers have been trying to make their launches cleaner and leave less debris in orbit here comes China to dump in one go the same amount of debris that it takes the ENTIRE WORLD two full decades to generate. In fact, they produced about twice as much debris as the worst case natural space disaster imaginable, two satellites hitting one another (the Iridium 33 / Kosmos 2251 collision).
A simple Python program:
and its translation: