I've been through Clojure Programming, The Joy of Clojure, and Programming Clojure, and this is the one I'm recommending. The review hits on many of the reasons, but I also particularly liked how this book dealt with Java interop (not until after a solid foundation had been built around Clojure). I feel that many JVM language books jump too fast into talking about interacting with Java, to the detriment of learning the language in question.
I don't have a handle on the Python implementation landscape, but the various Rubies all regularly contribute to rubyspec[0] and report on how they're doing. And with rvm[1] it's incredibly easy to test code across rubies. From where I'm sitting, it seems dead simple to find the differences and how they could affect me.
Not only does Safari work, it uses this user agent: "Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.21.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Mobile/7B334b Safari/531.21.10"
I only looked at the colors/fonts/seo section, and the quality there is abysmal. Web safe colors shouldn't really be a concern anymore. This was the real winner though: http://centricle.com/ref/css/filters/?highlight_columns=true CSS compliance for IE 4 on Mac OS 9 isn't pressing anymore.
I was thinking about legal monopolies or companies barely profitable by virtue of tax credits/breaks or companies that don't have to follow certain costly regulations for some (legal) reason.
Would those factors actually make them "not really profitable" or "not actually private businesses"? Or is this where the "In a sense" part of your reply breaks down? (These are legitimate questions, but I'm afraid it might sound snarky.)
Perhaps FexEx and UPS could "destroy" the USPS if they didn't have to worry about guaranteeing relatively quick delivery for envelopes from Kirby, WY to Boone, TN for the same inexpensive price as deliveries within a few blocks. The USPS may have laws supporting it, but don't we have expectations of it that far exceed whatever private business could hope to accomplish for profit?
(And, naively, aren't there many private businesses that couldn't make a profit without laws supporting them?)
This isn't copy protection, or even watermarking to identify who's "leaking the source".
Hand-copying text is error-prone, and copies are often made from copies, so there's the chance to reconstruct a "family tree" even after knowledge of what copied from what is lost.
Did you mean that you personally didn't like it? Or that it was objectively bad or unworthy of acclaim?
Yes, there are people who think that Catcher in the Rye was "a load of rubbish", but that doesn't make it so. Having a sympathetic protagonist isn't a requirement for good art; neither is not being boring to you personally at the time you first encountered it.
It's possible that now, with greater knowledge of the sweep of literary history, that you'd recognize what's good (or even great) about it.
I'm cautiously sympathetic to you. I used to think that Joan Miró was intensely overrated, but that was before I got some more schooling in 20th century painting. Now I'm happy to see his work when I visit modern art museums.
Typically, this sort of pattern means that "low income" includes low income students across all races, that's the only selection criterion for that group. The "white" group will include all white students (including low-income), and the "black" group will include all black students (including high-income). Nothing nefarious.
But the fact that "many psychological studies suggest" that intelligence (not IQ specifically) is changeable makes this a different scenario than outright lying to students as in your gym class example.
Whether or not the students are actually getting smarter is another question. But it doesn't look to me like anyone's getting lied to.
In that case, /([^@]+)@(.+$)/.match("[email protected]")[0] returns the whole string matched by the expression, and [1] and [2] return the first and second groups. That's why the throwaway is there. To get rid of the throwaway, this is a possibility:
It seems like it would only work for subjects where students have the capacity to figure out errors on their own. It would be disastrous in a foreign language class if you were told the word for "mother" was "banana".
As I've mentioned in another discussion, I once had a math professor who would sneak in impossible problems into the homework (e.g. prove the continuum hypothesis). It worked very well to get us to spend countless hours just trying things out, and eventually to spur us to prove decidability of the problems, all of which made us much better. But I imagine it would get old fast if every class I took did something similar.
The stripe is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field of the galaxy and not in line with the ecliptic plane. The interview I heard here (http://ww.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyI...) suggests that the hydrogen that makes up the stripe is being continuously accumulated, not leftover from old times.
They're mostly gimmicky because they were all made for a middleware contest. Even their gimmickiness doesn't really go against the goals of the contest, the primary one being "to encourage Ruby developers to explore the possibilities".
In the end, even if very few end up being actually useful, there will be plenty of good short examples using a variety of different Rack tricks.
That said. Rack::Cache. And I wrote myself for one site that displays some extra info if a request comes from certain IPs (i.e. mine).
In a slight twist, and one that may only work for small classes of highly motivated students, I took a set theory class where the professor would sneak an impossible question into the homework. He warned us during the very first class that he would do that occasionally.
So every few weeks, the four of us in the class would spend days trying to prove the continuum hypothesis or something, and going over the homework, he'd get to the question and ask casually if anyone solved it. We'd all say no and he'd tell us no one could, and show us proof. But we all learned a hell of a lot trying. Sometimes an avenue we tried ended up proving something interesting on the way, and it sharpened our thinking.
Of course, we also got into the habit trying to prove something was provable before we started (which turned out helpful when, at the end of the year, we collectively recreated [with help] much of the groundwork for Gödel's big theorems).