 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / March 2008finder and hidden dot files
I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files but what I'd really like is the ability to toggle this ability. I'm even willing to use a finder alternative (if it's free or very inexpensive). Tiger on my notebook and Leopard on my pro if that makes any difference. dick > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files but > what I'd really like is the ability to toggle this ability. I'm even > willing to use a finder alternative (if it's free or very inexpensive). > Tiger on my notebook and Leopard on my pro if that makes any difference. Several utilities will easily do this, including OnyX and Cocktail. Check VersionTracker or MacUpDate for details and links. --Fred > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files Why would you want to? I advise you not to do it. It's an unsupported feature that can cause the Finder to malfunction. For instance, some versions of the Finder will incorrectly and intermittently display some file listings as disabled or grayed out as a result. Most invisible files are Unix files anyway, and anyone with substantial experience in that area will tell you it's better to access such files from the command line.  SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR In article <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files > > Why would you want to? I'm teaching a Web design class for non-technical students and we are covering .htaccess etc. And I would like to show them the file's location in the non-threatening environment of folders rather than subdirectories. Having them use command line to create a file and place it in the correct place is not intuitive to typical marketing and communication majors. dick > In article > <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > dick BBEdit File --> Open Hidden... > > In article > > <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > BBEdit > File --> Open Hidden... That's what I ended up doing in class but I would have preferred to show it in finder. dick > In article > <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it in the correct place is not intuitive to typical marketing and > communication majors. But you can create and open invisible files without making them visible. For instance, the free TextWrangler plain text editor has a File > Open Hidden menu item, and lets you save files with a period (.) at the start of the filename, making them invisible. <http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/11009/textwrangler> BTW, you should always edit Unix hidden files with a plain text editor that can save with Unix line endings (TextWrangler meets both of those requirements). SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR In article <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files > > Why would you want to? Because they're there. ;) > I advise you not to do it. It's an unsupported feature that can cause > the Finder to malfunction. Really? My understanding was that Apple had to go out of their way to _not_ show the files/folders they wanted to hide, at least the ones w/o a leading period (.hidden). If that's the case, why would reverting to what one might call the original default cause a problem? Remember you can use the Go menu, type in a path, and show a _window_ for any file/folder. So, evidently, the OS does _not_ have some innate problem displaying invisible items. > For instance, some versions of the Finder > will incorrectly and intermittently display some file listings as > disabled or grayed out as a result. Well, I've been using X with invisibles showing since 10.2 and have been lucky enough never to have seen this. The only impact of showing invisibles that I've ever noticed was the faded icon syndrome, which has been finally fixed in 10.5. (As far as I know no one has ever publicly explained how show invisibles and faded icons were connected. Please supply a reference if I'm wrong because I'd love to understand the mechanism.) > Most invisible files are Unix files anyway, and anyone with substantial > experience in that area will tell you it's better to access such files > from the command line. When Apple converted to UNIX, I knew very little about it. For me, the best way to learn it was to turn on show invisibles so I could see where and what they were; and by navigating the _Mac_interface_ day after day, I learned the structure. I learned a lot perusing bin, private, sbin, and usr, not to mention .Trashes. I know you can access any of these files/folders from the command line; but, for me, if I have no concept of the structure using that approach, _especially_ given the horrendous depth, complexity, and redundant naming within UNIX's directory trees. The graphical representation (seen by showing the invisibles) is what allows me to 'grok' the structure and thus begin to get a handle on how the OS works and why. --Fred > In article > <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Because they're there. ;) That doesn't mean they should be displayed in the Finder. These aren't the type of files that benefit from a GUI-driven interface such as the Finder. You typically don't move them around or open then in different applications. They are mostly command-line configuration files. They are hidden in Finder listings for good reason. > > I advise you not to do it. It's an unsupported feature that can cause > > the Finder to malfunction. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > file/folder. So, evidently, the OS does _not_ have some innate problem > displaying invisible items. Apple doesn't support this for good reason. They haven't tested all functions of the Finder with hidden files displayed. And, again, these files don't benefit from a GUI-driven interface. > > For instance, some versions of the Finder > > will incorrectly and intermittently display some file listings as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > supply a reference if I'm wrong because I'd love to understand the > mechanism.) Unfortunately I don't have a reference. Sorry. > > Most invisible files are Unix files anyway, and anyone with substantial > > experience in that area will tell you it's better to access such files [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I learned the structure. I learned a lot perusing bin, private, sbin, > and usr, not to mention .Trashes. Sounds like the wrong way to learn about Unix to me. > I know you can access any of these files/folders from the command line; > but, for me, if I have no concept of the structure using that approach, > _especially_ given the horrendous depth, complexity, and redundant > naming within UNIX's directory trees. The graphical representation (seen > by showing the invisibles) is what allows me to 'grok' the structure and > thus begin to get a handle on how the OS works and why. Well to each his own, I guess. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR > Apple doesn't support this for good reason. They haven't tested all > functions of the Finder with hidden files displayed. And, again, these > files don't benefit from a GUI-driven interface. Well, this I'll believe. It seems less clear why users would not sometimes benefit from seeing them in a GUI-driven interface. > > Apple doesn't support this for good reason. They haven't tested all > > functions of the Finder with hidden files displayed. And, again, these > > files don't benefit from a GUI-driven interface. > > Well, this I'll believe. It seems less clear why users would not > sometimes benefit from seeing them in a GUI-driven interface. What times would those be? SignatureHelp improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups. http://improve-usenet.org/ In article <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > experience in that area will tell you it's better to access such files > from the command line. But sometimes you need to access them from Open File dialogs. For instance, when using SSHKeychain, you need to load your key files, which are normally located in ~/.ssh. But this directory doesn't show up in the Open File dialog. I've created a symlink ~/sshdir that points to it, just for the benefit of this application. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > In article > <jollyroger-D5C192.13121214032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But sometimes you need to access them from Open File dialogs. And nothing is preventing you from doing so. TextWrangler, for instance, has a File > Open Hidden menu command for just this. > For instance, when using SSHKeychain, you need to load your key files, > which are normally located in ~/.ssh. But this directory doesn't show > up in the Open File dialog. I've created a symlink ~/sshdir that points > to it, just for the benefit of this application. And that lets you do it without showing invisible files in the Finder? Great! If SSHKeychain doesn't allow you to open hidden files, that's a shortcoming of SSHKeychain of which you should make the author aware. It's possible the author didn't anticipate users storing their key files in ~/.ssh (though I can't imagine why). It's also possible the author actually intended you to do things differently than the way you are doing them. Note: In fact *all* Mac OS X applications have the inherent ability to open invisible files. It's up to the author of each application to decide whether their application will allow it. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR In article <jollyroger-C96BB9.23531914032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > Note: In fact *all* Mac OS X applications have the inherent ability to > open invisible files. It's up to the author of each application to > decide whether their application will allow it. Is every application supposed to have separate "Open" and "Open Hidden" commands, like TextWrangler? On what basis should authors decide whether to include the "Open Hidden" command? SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > In article > <jollyroger-C96BB9.23531914032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is every application supposed to have separate "Open" and "Open Hidden" > commands, like TextWrangler? Supposed to? By whose standards? > On what basis should authors decide whether to include the "Open Hidden" command? Common sense. If users of said software might need to open invisible files with the software, the software should make it easy for them to do so. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR In article <jollyroger-A26189.14445515032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > > In article > > <jollyroger-C96BB9.23531914032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > files with the software, the software should make it easy for them to do > so. Why should this be application-dependent? What is it about TextWrangler users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than users of TextEdit? SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > In article > <jollyroger-A26189.14445515032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than > users of TextEdit? End-of-line conventions? "." files tend to be configuration/parameter files for (unix) shell commands. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > In article > <jollyroger-A26189.14445515032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than > users of TextEdit? The fact that TextEdit defaults to rich text format documents is reason enough. As I have said before, invisible files (files whose names start with a period character) are typically Unix configuration files. They are plain text format files, often containing shell scripts. TextWrangler is a plain text editor designed for editing such scripts and configuration files. TextEdit is not. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR In article <jollyroger-E085A0.16323815032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, > > In article > > <jollyroger-A26189.14445515032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > TextWrangler is a plain text editor designed for editing such scripts > and configuration files. TextEdit is not. When editing an existing file, TextEdit uses the file's original format. It only uses its configured default when creating new files. So if you use it to edit a Unix config file, it won't convert it from plain text to rich text unless you use the Make Rich Text command. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > In article > <jollyroger-E085A0.16323815032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > use it to edit a Unix config file, it won't convert it from plain text > to rich text unless you use the Make Rich Text command. Regardless, it is a rich text editor first and foremost. Its features for editing plain text are very basic when compared to applications designed for plain text and shell script editing such as TextWrangler. And to top it off, Apple *obviously* doesn't intend for users to use TextEdit to edit Unix shell scripts and configuration files, because otherwise Apple would have added an "Open Hidden" menu command. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR >The fact that TextEdit defaults to rich text format documents is reason >enough. As I have said before, invisible files (files whose names start >with a period character) are typically Unix configuration files. They >are plain text format files, often containing shell scripts. >TextWrangler is a plain text editor designed for editing such scripts >and configuration files. TextEdit is not. TextEdit can be useful for editing a HTML file without seeing the HTML, and without the overhead of a program designed for that task. (Word overhead includes lots of extra HTML code). > >The fact that TextEdit defaults to rich text format documents is reason > >enough. As I have said before, invisible files (files whose names start [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > HTML, and without the overhead of a program designed for that task. > (Word overhead includes lots of extra HTML code). Yes, howard, but in this context, we're talking about an applications ability to open invisible files. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR In article <jollyroger-09F841.11440917032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [Howard Brazee]: > > TextEdit can be useful for editing a HTML file without seeing the > > HTML, and without the overhead of a program designed for that task. > > (Word overhead includes lots of extra HTML code). [J.R.]: > Yes, howard, but in this context, we're talking about an applications > ability to open invisible files. I use emacs in a terminal (iTerm in full-screen) to edit HTML (and PHP and XML and so on) files. I have the terminal set to xterm-256color and the colour highlighting makes editing these files a pretty pleasant experience. I have the same .emacs and .bashrc settings on my (remote) server, so everything always looks the same. Emacs can see and open invisible files. It can also do some filesystem stuff too, like moving and deleting files. That's not to say that TextEdit isn't useful to have around. I keep it on my Dock to drop files onto that Leopard doesn't have an "association" for, or has something in its little mind that I find silly; it wants to open .php files in GoLive, i.e. SignatureW. Oates > I use emacs in a terminal (iTerm in full-screen) to edit HTML (and PHP > and XML and so on) files. I use vim. Furthermore, my religion is better than yours. (I do understand the appeal of emacs, but I just find that I work much faster using vim despite its limitations.) I've been playing with Smultron quite a bit, and like that. > That's not to say that TextEdit isn't useful to have around. I use it on occasion. Never for .hidden files or similar, but often just to see what things are. I also use it an in intermediate step when I want a "Print Selected" service (which would be really nice, but I can't find). But I can open selected in TextEdit through a service and print from there. Cheers, -j SignatureJeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/ >> I use emacs in a terminal (iTerm in full-screen) to edit HTML (and PHP >> and XML and so on) files. > > I use vim. Furthermore, my religion is better than yours. Damn straight! > (I do understand the appeal of emacs, but I just find that I work much > faster using vim despite its limitations.) Limita-what? What sort of heretical interloper are you? SignatureThe fact that Bob and John are married does nothing to diminish anyone else s marriage any more than a black woman marrying a white man, a Jew marrying a Catholic, or an ugly Lyle marrying a Pretty Woman. <http://www.ix.lt/?as89> >The fact that Bob and John are married does nothing to diminish anyone >else s marriage any more than a black woman marrying a white man, a Jew >marrying a Catholic, The effects on other marriages and family are insignificant compared to when divorces were allowed. Or even civil marriages in the first place. (Should be churches' domain). If those effects are the issue - then go after those issues. But they aren't - the issue is gay sex is icky therefore it should be out of sight (or worse). >or an ugly Lyle marrying a Pretty Woman. My daughter didn't understand this. I take her lack of understanding as a parenting flaw in myself. >>The fact that Bob and John are married does nothing to diminish anyone >>else s marriage any more than a black woman marrying a white man, a Jew [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to when divorces were allowed. Or even civil marriages in the first > place. (Should be churches' domain). Oh, I disagree. The State has an interest in marriage for many reasons, not least of which is the shared responsibility of raising children. What we have in the US is a State sanctioned contract between two people and then, often, a religious ceremony attached to it. But the religious ceremony has no force of law behind it, it is only the legal contract that actually means anything. To then have the state exclude two individuals from that contract because of RELIGIOUS objections is laughable and absurd and it is a sad commentary that most people in the country don't seem to see that. > If those effects are the > issue - then go after those issues. But they aren't - the issue is > gay sex is icky therefore it should be out of sight (or worse). I do find it amusing that every time we get some public figure who is adamantly and viciously anti-gay, it turns out he's paying for male pro- stitutes! >>or an ugly Lyle marrying a Pretty Woman. > > My daughter didn't understand this. I take her lack of understanding > as a parenting flaw in myself. Hey, it's one of the few celebrity relationships I know about. SignatureI've always had a flair for stage directions. >> The effects on other marriages and family are insignificant compared >> to when divorces were allowed. Or even civil marriages in the first [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >and it is a sad commentary that most people in the country don't seem to >see that. But the State enforces implied marriage contracts with Palimony and requires unmarried parents to pay child support. A religious ceremony can also include a standard legal contract - or that contract can be made without a marriage. But such a legal contract should not be based upon whether that relationship is a sexual one. If I want to create such a contract with my infirmed brother or mother or the kid down the street - I should be allowed to do so. If I am married for 40 years to a housewife, then divorce and marry another woman - the wife of 40 years should get the majority of my social security benefits. I agree with you that marriage should include a legal contract - implied or explicit - but that contract should not be limited to marriages. And it's not (except for social security and testifying in court). > Oh, I disagree. The State has an interest in marriage for many reasons, > not least of which is the shared responsibility of raising children. It's not only the for raising children. When two people make a lifelong pledge to take care of each other it reduces the chance that either will end up in poverty or be a burden to the rest of society. As a society we have an interest in people making and keeping those pledges. I used to be a marriage "liberal" believing that it was a contract solely between the two individuals involved (in the childless case). This was particularly the case when I was developing a reputation for getting involved with attached women. But my position has changed to being a marriage conservative. I see it as a three way deal. It is still a deal between the two individuals, but it is also a deal between the couple and society as a whole. Society wants them to make good on their pledge to take care of each other for the rest of their lives. In return society makes it easier for them to keep their pledge (various shared benefits and a sexual "hands off" from other members of society). So as a marriage conservative, what do I see as policy recommendations. First of all, I'm certainly in favor of same sex marriage. But secondly, I'm in favor of a sharper distinction between married and unmarried in terms of "spousal" benefits. Those spousal benefits should be available only to couples who have made a reasonably binding pledge to take care of each other for life. I also think that when someone makes a major sacrifice (say in career or relocation) for a partner, it is wise to insist on marriage. This is particularly the case for women in cross-sex marriages. Women pay a higher opportunity cost then men during their youth to be paired with someone. If he is free to leave her years later when she is less attractive on the mate market, then she has more to lose by that split while he has more to gain. Serial monogamy is just about the worst arrangement for women out there. Honest polygyny would be better a better deal for women. (Earlier in the year, I liked chiding my Republican friends with the fact that they had a choice between polygamists and a Mormon). So I would make divorce harder and more costly to men along with my other marriage conservative measures. Note that I would not stigmatize or impair any couple (or threesome or whatever) who choose to live together without marriage, but I would not extend to them the benefits we give to married couples. If they want to be treated as a couple who have made a lifelong commitment to each other, than they should make that commitment in public. (Two witnesses and a listing is a public register is public enough.) > What we have in the US is a State sanctioned contract between two people See my comments above about why I think that more than just the two people are involved. If it were just between the two people, we wouldn't need to have any laws about it whatsoever. Two people can draw up pretty much any kind of contract between themselves that they wish. Marriage involves the couple's relation to the public. > [...] and then, often, a religious ceremony attached to it. But the > religious ceremony has no force of law behind it, it is only the legal > contract that actually means anything. Here I fully agree with you. The religious dimension (if any) that the couple attach to the publicly stated commitment to take care of each other is irrelevant to law. Of course, for those who believe such things, the religious aspect may have the force of God behind it. But we should let God do His own enforcing without incorporating that into law. I do find it interesting that the rates of divorce and teenage motherhood are so much higher among the religious. Look at the correlation between these across prosperous democracies and across states in the US. The more religious a state or country the higher the divorce and teenage/unwed pregnancy rates. -j SignatureJeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/ In article <alpine.OSX.1.00.0803192014490.31921@hagrid.ewd.goldmark.org>, > So as a marriage conservative, what do I see as policy recommendations. > First of all, I'm certainly in favor of same sex marriage. But secondly, > I'm in favor of a sharper distinction between married and unmarried in > terms of "spousal" benefits. Those spousal benefits should be available > only to couples who have made a reasonably binding pledge to take care of > each other for life. Does it have to be solemnized by a half-crazed shaman waggling his hands in the air and seeking the favours of whatever obscure deities he thinks have taken hold of his psyche? Or by some undereducated redneck civil servant dreaming of a big lottery win so he can escape from his fat wife and stupid children? Or can it just be unspoken? Don't you trust anyone, JG? I'm supposed to be the cynic around here. You're supposed to be the militant atheist. Is there a hidden dot file in your agenda? SignatureW. Oates > Does it have to be solemnized by a half-crazed shaman waggling his hands > in the air and... My first skim read that "solemnized" as "sodomized". :-) SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain >Does it have to be solemnized by a half-crazed shaman waggling his hands >in the air and seeking the favours of whatever obscure deities he thinks >have taken hold of his psyche? Or by some undereducated redneck civil >servant dreaming of a big lottery win so he can escape from his fat wife >and stupid children? A few months ago someone won the lottery and was tried unsuccessfully to avoid letting his wife he hadn't seen for years know about it. They just never got around to divorcing because it cost too much and wasn't worth their while - but didn't expect to see each other. > Does it have to be solemnized by a half-crazed shaman waggling his hands > in the air and seeking the favours of whatever obscure deities he thinks > have taken hold of his psyche? Of course not. As I think I said elsewhere in the my post two witnesses and an entry into some public record is enough for me. > Or by some undereducated redneck civil servant dreaming of a big lottery > win so he can escape from his fat wife and stupid children? It needs to be a matter of public record, and so I'm afraid that this bit you can't really escape from. > Or can it just be unspoken? If a couple wish to be treated as a couple by the public then it needs to be a matter of public record. Of course if they don't care whether they are treated as a couple and don't expect various spousal or family benefits on pensions or insurance then they can be as private as they wish. > Don't you trust anyone, JG? You lock your car even though you don't think that everyone is a thief. I trust lots of people, but I've also believe that lots of people (particularly women) get the short end of the stick when long term couples break up. > I'm supposed to be the cynic around here. You're supposed to be the > militant atheist. Is there a hidden dot file in your agenda? There is nothing theistic about my marriage conservatism. I have no moral qualms about unmarried people living as married. I do admit that my views on things don't correlate they way that people might expect. For example, I am a staunch secularist and atheist who mostly votes Democratic, but I support school vouchers. Or here is another pair: I opposed the invasion of Iraq at the outset (and I certainly haven't changed my mind about that), but I oppose withdrawal now. Or another pair: I am in favor of universal health care, but I'm in also in favor of private pensions replacing social security. Or another pair: I'm in favor of abortion rights, but I think that Roe v Wade should be overturned. I do not see my positions as inconsistent, but I can understand why others might. If anyone would like to enter into a discussion of those incendiary statements, please feel free to email me. I've contributed to far too many OT threads here. So I will try to resist temptation to defend my views here. -j SignatureJeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/ > I do admit that my views on things don't correlate they way that people > might expect. For example, I am a staunch secularist and atheist who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > now. Or another pair: I am in favor of universal health care, but I'm > in also in favor of private pensions replacing social security. Those seem like perfectly reasonable mainstream views to ME. I'd mostly agree with ever one of them, and I consider myself a Democrat (and so does the DNC). > Or another pair: I'm in favor of abortion rights, but I think that Roe v > Wade should be overturned. On purely legal grounds I'd agree with you. The trouble is, leaving this in the hands of the states simply makes it a matter of 'mob rule' and you end up in a situation where women who have the means to travel can travel to, say, California and get an abortion. So, you are in effect limiting access for the poor. One purely legal grounds there is a vast array of things that the Federal Government does that are clear violations of the 9th and 10th Amendments (mandating minimum drinking ages for all states and minimum drunk driving BAC levels under threat of withholding monies due the states, as one of the most egregious examples), but the courts have almost completely ignored those two Amendments. SignatureMy little brother got his arm stuck in the microwave. So my mom had to take him to the hospital. My grandma dropped acid this morning, and she freaked out. She hijacked a busload of penguins. So it's sort of a family crisis. Bye! > One purely legal grounds there is a vast array of things that the Federal > Government does that are clear violations of the 9th and 10th Amendments > (mandating minimum drinking ages for all states and minimum drunk driving > BAC levels under threat of withholding monies due the states, as one of the > most egregious examples), but the courts have almost completely ignored > those two Amendments. I'd disagree since it is, afrter all the Fed's money. Now if they tried to restrict how the States spent their own on roads based on something like this, then it would be another thing. The Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money however they please. Not to say that they don't studiously ignore the amendments, but these cases are not good ones to argue that. >> One purely legal grounds there is a vast array of things that the Federal >> Government does that are clear violations of the 9th and 10th Amendments [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not to say that they don't studiously ignore the amendments, but >these cases are not good ones to argue that. How many cases have those two amendments been cited by federal courts that successfully overturned or approve of laws in the last couple of decades? > How many cases have those two amendments been cited by federal courts > that successfully overturned or approve of laws in the last couple of > decades? A few Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to rear their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections. The 10th Amendment Recently the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. One obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Another case in 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act, this time the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program," it was unconstitutional. So, while rare, they have happened much more recently. And these are only SC rulings I could find quickly. Can't really address what the lower courts might be mucking around with. > So, while rare, they have happened much more recently. And these are >only SC rulings I could find quickly. Can't really address what the >lower courts might be mucking around with. Thanks. I expect there are some significant lower court cases, but I don't have the expertise to look them up. > > So, while rare, they have happened much more recently. And these are > >only SC rulings I could find quickly. Can't really address what the > >lower courts might be mucking around with. > > Thanks. I expect there are some significant lower court cases, but I > don't have the expertise to look them up. You can get a lot of these cases from findlaw.com (sorta a legal Google). > Another case in 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act, > this time the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a > federal program," it was unconstitutional. And yet we still have Federally mandated background checks on handgun purchases. So, not a very effective ruling. SignatureWith excitement like this, who is needing enemas? >If a couple wish to be treated as a couple by the public then it needs to >be a matter of public record. Of course if they don't care whether they >are treated as a couple and don't expect various spousal or family >benefits on pensions or insurance then they can be as private as they >wish. In Colorado, if you present yourselves as being married, common-law applies. (I don't know how that works with illegal marriages such as bigamy). >I do admit that my views on things don't correlate they way that people >might expect. Party platforms and even church platforms are created with much haggling and compromise. It is my contention that it would be an extraordinary coincidence for anybody to coincidentally believe that party line - unless he was being loyal to the party instead of having opinions on the issues. And anybody who doesn't have at least ONE issue which he believes the other side has right, and at least ONE issue which he believes his side has wrong - also doesn't care about issues, only identity. > In Colorado, if you present yourselves as being married, common-law > applies. In fact, if you are living with someone with whom you have a child, even if neither of you has ever claimed to be married to the other, you are married. > And anybody who doesn't have at least ONE issue which he believes the > other side has right, and at least ONE issue which he believes his > side has wrong - also doesn't care about issues, only identity. Seems to me that's a very large portion of the people though. All those Republicans who though Clinton should have been branded, and possibly executed for lying about sex are perfectly OK with the current administration lying about, well, everything. SignatureOh and I could be a genius if I just put my mind to i And I, I could do anything if only I could get 'round to it. > Seems to me that's a very large portion of the people though. All those > Republicans who though Clinton should have been branded, and possibly > executed > for lying about sex are perfectly OK with the current administration lying > about, well, everything. Lying UNDER OATH. Perjury. Probably obstruction of justice. But not sex. > <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote: >> If a couple wish to be treated as a couple by the public then it needs to >> be a matter of public record. > In Colorado, if you present yourselves as being married, common-law > applies. The details of how such a public declaration is made doesn't really matter for my argument. > And anybody who doesn't have at least ONE issue which he believes the > other side has right, and at least ONE issue which he believes his > side has wrong - also doesn't care about issues, only identity. I agree that such people who follow the party line on everything will be extremely rare. But it is interesting to see how certain ideas percolate through a community. To work through this example, imagine the stereo typical left leaning person from a well off family in the US. Without going into actual political views, think about them as a subculture. They share certain kinds of tastes and general outlook. This, by the way, is precisely my background, and I pretty much epitomized this in my youth. Now the same type of people existed in Eastern Europe. They read Vonnegut and Camus, went to Art films, and would hang around in coffee shops discussing pretty much everything except sports and would have nothing but contempt for current fads of popular culture. These people, however, were great believers in free markets and the loved President Reagan (despite the fact that he wasn't an intellectual). I first started learning economic theory from these people (and ended up marrying one.) Now let's take a look at an issue in the US: School Vouchers. If the vouchers are limited to schools that do not discriminate by race or religion, then this should be something really endorsed by the Left. My wife and I are well off and can afford to buy a house near a good school. And we did pay extra for this and this did play a role in where we bought a house. Furthermore, if we became sufficiently dissatisfied with the local public school we could manage to send our child to a private school. School vouchers would give some of those opportunities to the poor. It wouldn't equalizing things, but it would move things dramatically in that direction. Poorer families would gain some of the educational choices and freedom that richer people currently have for schooling their children. At the moment, the private school market is dominated by religious schools or schools for the rich, but that would change with vouchers. Anyway, the left should love vouchers. But the left doesn't. And there are two reasons for that. One is the American Federation of Teachers and the other is the National Education Association. The Democratic party is easily as dependent on the teachers' unions and public education establishment as the Republican party depends on evangelical organizations. At the 2004 Democratic national convention more than one fifth of the delegates were members of some teachers' union. Now naturally many people feel that teachers and the education establishment know best what is best for public education. And there are good reasons to believe that. Just as members of the fire fighters' unions know best about fire safety. Just as members of the police associations know best about what is best for public safety. Just as members of the American Medical Association know what's best for public health care. Just as members of the airline industry know best what is best for air safety. Just as members of the energy industry know best how to meet America's energy needs. In many cases the interests of these various groups will coincide with what is good for the country. But in many cases interest will clash, yet those groups will continue to believe that what is good for them is good for America. With school vouchers the interests of the education establishment and unions clash with what is good for the country clash in a very big way. Now teachers have always been aligned with the left. And they have managed to persuade the rest of the left that vouchers are bad. So remember: "We" have good causes; "they" have special interests. -j SignatureJeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings. http://improve-usenet.org/ In article <alpine.OSX.1.00.0803211423290.31921@hagrid.ewd.goldmark.org>, Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote: > So remember: "We" have good causes; "they" have special interests. such as Mac apps >It's not only the for raising children. When two people make a lifelong >pledge to take care of each other it reduces the chance that either will >end up in poverty or be a burden to the rest of society. As a society we >have an interest in people making and keeping those pledges. Such a contract is useful even if it doesn't fit our definitions of marriage. If I have a contract to take care of my brother or sister for life - that helps society. And society does recognize implicit contracts for palimony and child support even if the couple isn't married. The state should recognize these contracts. Whether or not they occur with a traditional marriage and/or sexual relationships. >I also think that when someone makes a major sacrifice (say in career or >relocation) for a partner, it is wise to insist on marriage. This is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >friends with the fact that they had a choice between polygamists and a >Mormon). That's why the spousal benefits part of social security is screwed up. The person that supported you through your money making period should get the "spousal" benefit, not the person you're married to when you retire. Or better yet, let you pick who gets insured when you pay your social security tax. > >It's not only the for raising children. When two people make a lifelong > >pledge to take care of each other it reduces the chance that either will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > marriage. If I have a contract to take care of my brother or sister > for life - that helps society. There is a couple in the next street down from here that have agreed, I think, to fight viciously with each other for ever. They have made it quite clear that they do not want the state to interfere with this. But I see you are going a step further in your thinking here and are raising the possibility that the state should insist that they keep this pledge. Without each other, they could be positively dangerous to society at large. A bit like a boxing match really, the fighters are not allowed to jump the ring and bash the audience at large, the punches must be confined and controlled to each other within the confines of the ropes. Signaturedorayme >> Such a contract is useful even if it doesn't fit our definitions of >> marriage. If I have a contract to take care of my brother or sister [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >confined and controlled to each other within the confines of the >ropes. Contracts can be broken - by paying the cost. My point is that what the state does should not be related to the Sacrament of Marriage. If their partnership is based upon their marriage, or if it is based upon something else - the state should handle it the same way. And let their Church handle the Marriage part. > Why should this be application-dependent? What is it about TextWrangler > users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than > users of TextEdit? In my limited Mac time, I have found that TextWrangler automatically handles some things that TextEdit doesn't. I see it has more options on its menus (although not as many as Ultra-Edit that I work with at work). Some of these things TextWrangler handles are those which work with Windows created files. I would expect it is at least as smart about BASH files. People who get into programming and BASH and such, are much more likely to need the facilities of a full-featured editor. They might want to upgrade to a pure commercial editor - and the makers of TextWrangler hope they will become comfortable with their free editor and upgrade with them. > Why should this be application-dependent? What is it about TextWrangler > users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than > users of TextEdit? Users of TextWrangler are far more likely to have a clue. Having that option in TextEdit would simply confuse many people for no good reason. SignatureBart: This is the worst day of my life. Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR. > > Why should this be application-dependent? What is it about TextWrangler > > users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than > > users of TextEdit? > > Users of TextWrangler are far more likely to have a clue. Having that > option in TextEdit would simply confuse many people for no good reason. ROFL! It's funny, because it's true! SignatureHelp improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups. http://improve-usenet.org/ > > > Why should this be application-dependent? What is it about TextWrangler > > > users that makes them more likely to need to open invisible files than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's funny, because it's true! It's certainly a good point. There are good reasons those of us who have substantial experience with such hidden files don't display them or access them in the Finder. And to me, the fact that the OP wants to display hidden files in the Finder is an indication of a lack of experience with such files. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR > In article > <jollyroger-C96BB9.23531914032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Is every application supposed to have separate "Open" and "Open Hidden" No. That would be silly. > commands, like TextWrangler? On what basis should authors decide > whether to include the "Open Hidden" command? Whether they think it might be useful in their application. In the vast majority of cases, it is not. SignatureBart: This is the worst day of my life. Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR. > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files but > what I'd really like is the ability to toggle this ability. I'm even > willing to use a finder alternative (if it's free or very inexpensive). > Tiger on my notebook and Leopard on my pro if that makes any difference. > > dick My favorite is Blind. I put into Finder's window toolbar and it's one click to hide / make visable. http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/22495/blind SignatureTim lance_1012@hotmail.com Dick Sidbury schrieb: > I've found out how to make finder default to showing hidden files but > what I'd really like is the ability to toggle this ability. I'm even > willing to use a finder alternative (if it's free or very inexpensive). > Tiger on my notebook and Leopard on my pro if that makes any difference. > > dick For this purpose I use the following bash script: ----------------8<----------------8<---------------- #!/bin/bash function usage () { echo echo "\"showhiddenfiles\" schaltet die Anzeige versteckter Dateien im Finder." echo echo "usage:" echo " showhiddenfiles ein um versteckte Dateien anzuzeigen" echo " showhiddenfiles aus um versteckte Dateien auszublenden" echo } if [ $# = 0 ]; then usage exit fi arg=$1 treffer=0 if [ "$arg" = "ein" ]; then osascript -e "tell application \"Finder\" to quit" defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles true osascript -e "tell application \"Finder\" to launch" treffer=1 fi if [ "$arg" = "aus" ]; then osascript -e "tell application \"Finder\" to quit" defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles false osascript -e "tell application \"Finder\" to launch" treffer=1 fi if [ $treffer = 0 ]; then usage fi ----------------8<----------------8<---------------- Gruss Peter Signature==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-==-== Peter Breitfeld, Bad Saulgau, Germany -- http://www.pBreitfeld.de > if [ "$arg" = "ein" ]; then > osascript -e "tell application \"Finder\" to quit" > defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles true > osascript -e "tell application \"Finder\" to launch" > treffer=1 > fi I thought quitting the finder wasn't necessary? I have to say, I would find this feature a lot more useful if quicklook could display the contents of my .bashrc (or any other .files) As it is, it just makes my home window looks cluttered. SignatureBart: This is the worst day of my life. Homer: This is the worst day of your life SO FAR. > I have to say, I would find this feature a lot more useful if quicklook > could display the contents of my .bashrc (or any other .files) That doesn't surprise me, given it's an unsupported feature. > As it is, it just makes my home window looks cluttered. That's another reason why I don't recommend it. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. JR >That doesn't surprise me, given it's an unsupported feature. For the record it is only unsupported because the quicklook plugin for text files doesn't recognize the files in question as a text file ... it seems to use creator codes rather than mime types to determine what to show and what not... >> As it is, it just makes my home window looks cluttered. > >That's another reason why I don't recommend it. You've made your bias clear ... but there are no ill effects related to toggling dotfile visibility, at least in Leopard. If you don't need to see them then you don't need to make them visible! The OP obviously has reason to see them, though, as do others. I wouldn't recommend this to a user who'd have no reason to edit (much less see) these files, but as a software developer I often do need access to them and I sometimes prefer to see them in the Finder, hence I use a Finder plugin to toggle visibility. This is not some dangerous thing, though, so you can tone down the "Apple didn't make it that way so it's probably dangerous" talk... Remember, the Mac has its roots in making this overtly simple for the user base... a lot of the default behavior still stems from that... Cheers, s0nspark >You've made your bias clear ... but there are no ill effects related to >toggling dotfile visibility, at least in Leopard. If you don't need to see >them then you don't need to make them visible! The OP obviously has reason to >see them, though, as do others. In the same token, when I use my iPod to copy data between home and work, I delete the files at work, as my Windows machine doesn't create dot files when I delete the data. >That doesn't surprise me, given it's an unsupported feature. For the record it is only unsupported because the quicklook plugin for text files doesn't recognize the files in question as a text file ... it seems to use creator codes rather than mime types to determine what to show and what not... >> As it is, it just makes my home window looks cluttered. > >That's another reason why I don't recommend it. You've made your bias clear ... but there are no ill effects related to toggling dotfile visibility, at least in Leopard. If you don't need to see them then you don't need to make them visible! The OP obviously has reason to see them, though, as do others. I wouldn't recommend this to a user who'd have no reason to edit (much less see) these files, but as a software developer I often do need access to them and I sometimes prefer to see them in the Finder, hence I use a Finder plugin to toggle visibility. This is not some dangerous thing, though, so you can tone down the "Apple didn't make it that way so it's probably dangerous" talk... Remember, the Mac has its roots in making things overtly simple for most users... a lot of the default behavior still stems from that... Cheers, s0nspark |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.