Airplane mode control using Python?
breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Dec 23 10:18:36 CET 2013
On 23/12/2013 08:46, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:59 PM, <rurpy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 22, 2013 10:37:35 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Actually, formatting errors ARE often caused by Google Groups. Maybe
>>> it wasn't in this instance, but I have seen several cases of GG
>>> mangling code formatting, so this was a perfectly reasonable theory.
>> And you have determined format errors are coming from GG how exactly?
>> You would need to know the original contents entered into GG, yes?
>> Perhaps you have done experiments to determine these errors that you
>> could share with us?
> Previous people's posts to this very list. Search the archives, you
> know this to be true!
> Why, rurpy, do you continue to support, apologize for, and argue in
> favour of, a piece of software that (a) you know to be buggy, and (b)
> has perfectly viable alternatives?
Thinking about it the situation is laughable. You have an entry on the
*PYTHON* wiki telling you how to get around bugs in *GOOGLE* code.
> Why is it so important to you? When
> you use an ad-funded service, you are paying for it. When you pay for
> a service, you send a message that it is the one you want to use. I
> use Google Search because it is excellent; other people feel it's too
> invasive of privacy and use DuckDuckGo instead. If DDG were hopelessly
> buggy, people would argue against its use - *especially* if that
> bugginess caused problems for other people. (Imagine if its crawler
> violated robots.txt and common sense, and caused problems for web
> servers.) How would the owners/authors of DDG feel if they produced
> stupidly buggy software but everyone used it anyway? Pretty well
> justified, I would think, and so there'd be no reason for them to put
> effort into fixing the bugs.
> I'm happy to use all sorts of "free" (aka ad-funded) services - Google
> Search, Gmail, Kongregate, The Pirate Bay, Google Docs, Stack
> Overflow, IMDB... endless list. I use them because they are good, or
> at least because they are better than the alternatives. With some of
> them, there's a lock-in effect from the community. If you hate Stack
> Overflow, for instance, you have to bypass a whole lot of potential
> information. But avoiding Google Groups just means using gmane or
> Thunderbird or python-list, and you get all the same content without
> any loss. So why stick to something that sends mail with mess all over
I dislike stackoverflowe as some of the answers there are blatently
wrong. However I'll use it but make certain that the answers can be
verified before proceeding. However I feel discriminated against using
Thunderbird to read this via gmane as there isn't an entry on the python
wiki telling me how to get around the bugs in this software. Or is that
because a) there aren't any b) there aren't enough to worry anybody or
c) it isn't python's responsibility to write up work arounds for bugs in
Thunderbird or gmane?
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
More information about the Python-list