The obvious answer is to right-click on a file to open it.
If you mean open a file externally then I suggest you run acme from plan9port, then just run 'plumber' and use the program 'plumb' to send open commands to acme. It is fairly flexible:
Back to the main topic, I think in naive set theory a set of all sets will contains itself. Russell Paradox is problematic when asking the negated statement, i.e. whether a list of all lists that do not contain themselves contains itself.
That's not his point. His point is that he has connected to the music by listening to what he likes, rather than what he was told to respect. I'd hardly call that result "unexpected", though.
As for your point, it is debatable. I think the percentage of people enjoying classical music is greater today than 100 years ago.
If you actually meant that the quality of music we write today is lower, that is very hard to for us to judge until maybe 100 years later. Maybe you've heard of John Cage, Luciano Berio, or perhaps György Ligeti -- whose music was used as the soundtrack of 2001: A Space Odyssey. There are a lot of people out there writing contemporary "classical" music that are respected in the music community, but virtually unknown elsewhere (and they are respected because we are touched by their music, just like the author has written, and not because they are writing avant-garde, esoteric music).
I would admit that the percentage of quality music in the total corpus being performed and listened today is unfortunately lower than it might have been 100 years ago.
I'd say that name-based interface is indeed Pythonic.
> Any type that has the named methods [...] is said to implement the interface.
For instance, in the tutorial, the cat function takes a reader interface. fmt.Print and Println a type will output whatever its String() "method" output. This is what Python does, e.g. "print x" is eqv. to "print x.__str__()".
Well, if you're looking for features that Python was the first language to have, then I don't think Python has any "Python things". Garbage collection is still Pythonic, nonetheless.
Is it really useful or meaningful to claim every feature that Python has is "Pythonic", though? Are dicts "Pythonic"? Awk had them a decade earlier. Is garbage collection "Pythonic"? Lisp had it long ago. Dynamic typing? Generators? Etc.
To my understanding (and admittedly, while I've been using Python since around 1.5, I've largely abandoned it for Lua), 'Pythonic' is usually used to refer to the clearly preferred way of doing something that may have multiple implementations - Python's community making explicit the observation of conventions such as "for (i=0; i<N, i++) {" in C.
Using a dict rather than an int-indexed list is Pythonic, for example, because that's just the way that it's done in idiomatic Python, and the community encourages having one preferred idiom for common tasks. I don't think the concept applies to language features such as garbage collection.
It might be true the best team only has 28% chance of winning the World Cup. Though, we should know that it leaves only 72% chance for the rest of the 31 teams to win, and they are not uniform. So maybe 28% for the best team, 20% for the 2nd best, 12% for the 3rd best, etc., which sounds fair to me.
There are 32 teams playing the World Cup, if one of them is a 1:3.5 dog, they have a pretty DAMN GOOD chance. The betting odd is usually sth like 1:4 or 1:5, I think.
More importantly, the team which wins is the better team, by definition. It is a question whether they can perform consistently in a series of matches with the correct strategy each time, whether they can adapt to changes, whether they are focused at the important moments. Certainly there will be luck and drama, but the team which plays better (for most of the match duration) wins much more often than that number 28% tells you.
Look at professional poker. You can for sure say that there is more luck involved, but times and again the familiar faces show up at the final tables.
Can you explain why Vimperator is a good idea. As a vim user myself, I understand vim was designed first and foremost to input and edit text using the keyboard, is bringing those key bindings to browsing the web is a good idea?
For the best navigating experience, I feel
Opera does really well. You keep one hand on the keyboard (nearing 1, 2 to switch tab; and z, x to move back & forth in history) and one hand on the mouse to click around & do gestures.
When I used Vimperator (I finally changed back just because I don't like how FF performs on OS X) I found I was strongly bimodal — surprise — where I'd spend the majority of my time just using the keyboard, both hands, and then if something demanded the mouse I shift to my trackpad.
The thing I want to point out is how loathe I became to switch to that trackpad. Vimperator makes you despise flash even more.
You may not be aware of it, but the view command on (most?) Unix systems is basically a read-only way to execute vi. It has the same keybindings in general, of course, because it's actually the same program with the -R option, more useful than more or less. It's especially more useful because one can "break out" of the read-only limitations if necessary (and if one has the requisite permissions for the file in question), but one has to actively override those limitations.
Since the Web is, a lot of the time, basically a read-only medium with occasional need for limited editing -- and, when done well, it's a primarily textual medium -- the vi interface philosophy turns out to be quite appropriate. If you dislike having to switch interface contexts between keyboard and mouse because you're a touch-typist who has learned the efficiency and power of a keyboard driven interface for text editing, a browser that does the same thing is a very attractive idea.
Unfortunately, most people's experience of text user interface browsers is limited to the shite that has been available for more than a decade, such as the ubiquitous Lynx. While it's entirely keyboard driven, it's not a good TUI. It is, in fact, a crap TUI. Vimperator, however, has managed to improve on the failures of all other TUI Web browsers I've ever seen by importing vi idioms to the context of Web browsing -- improve on it so much that it blows away both TUI and GUI browsers, at least for me.
I also use a window manager with a keyboard driven interface, and I probably do more typing online than the vast majority of Web browser users. With all that in mind, keeping one hand on the keyboard and the other on the mouse would be broken up a lot by having to get my hands back to home row on the keyboard so I could do things like type in the browser, switch workspaces and do work there, and so on. At least 98% of the time, Vimperator obviates the need to keep one hand on the mouse the way you do it, which means there isn't any interface context switching going on in my brain at least 98% of the time for me, whereas without Vimperator I'd spend more like 60% of the time I'm using the Web browser also using a mouse and would have to switch back to home row every time I need to copy text to or from Vim in a terminal emulator (for instance).
Now, the only times I need a mouse in the browser is when I want to do something like click the upvote arrow here at HN or do something in a Flash object (such as start the Flash player, since I use Flashblock).
I used to believe that for the best browsing experience, a mouse was necessary for the majority of uses, because the Web is an inherently graphical medium. Even essentially pure-text pages seemed that way to me, because things like hyperlinks are location-specific. Vimperator has allowed me to learn the error of my reasoning in that regard.
If you mean open a file externally then I suggest you run acme from plan9port, then just run 'plumber' and use the program 'plumb' to send open commands to acme. It is fairly flexible:
The nice thing is if the file is already open, acme will jump to the right place and highlight what you want.