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:
$ plumb /path/to/file
$ plumb /path/to/file:35
$ plumb /path/to/file:/NameError
Except that they are not. They are called "List Articles", cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists#List_articles
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__()".
Worse is better is a conscious design choice. Unix/C follow that philosophy but does not mean they are "less designed", but simpler designed.
> Simplicity is the most important consideration in a design.
The Analects of Confucius
Actually I made a mistake, 28% would be 1:2.5 dog in betting lingo, and that's a HUGE when there are 31 other competitors.
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.