"info a2ps". I believe this will give you more detail than the man page does.
media (A4, letter etc) is selected with the -M option.
As for page layout, there are some numeric "macro" style options (-1.. -9) which have sensible defaults for 2-up, 4-up printing etc. "-2" gives you two portrait pages side-by side on a landscape print image.
Some other useful options:
--sides=duplex or -s2 (assuming your printer can print both sides)
-=book (reorganizes the pages for folding and stapling like a book)
The output can be customized exactly to your own taste, using individual options like --font-size and --lines-per-page.
You'll need to experiment a bit but it wont take you long to find the perfect combination.
To insert a form feed (which you'd do if you wanted to force a page break e.g. at the end of a chapter) in vim, you just press control-L while in edit mode. The form feed character will be visible as a "^L". Make sure though that the text which starts the following page starts on the same line as the form feed, i.e. without dropping down to a new line. Or your new page will start with a blank line.
Shatner (a classically trained actor) and the chemistry between him and Nimoy and Kelley are what made the show. Without that it would have been just another flat, cheesy 60's sci-fi serial, would have failed to make any significant impression and would have bitten the dust forever after the third season. No syndicated reruns, no massive fan base, no NextGen either.
>Did it form a blister, and then turn into the cavity? Do you have a scar?
Yes, yes and yes. Shiny white irregular star-shaped just a few mm across. Almost invisible now.
It was definitely what they called the BCG vaccination, which we were told was for TB, though I believe nowadays they use a different method to immunize against TB, one that's not nearly so dramatic.
Was it really completely needle-free? I had my BCG vaccination (i.e. against tuberculosis) in 1974 I think it was. That was a gun-like affair but it did sting a bit, and it left a ring of six tiny holes as if it had stuck me with six small needle-like teeth.
(the aftermath of this vaccination was worse than the injection itself, the shoulder swelled up pretty quickly and was quite tender for about a week, and the site of the injection opened up into a pus-filled cavity about a quarter inch wide).
This might be do-able in a technical sense but I doubt whether the obvious application will ever be acceptable in practice.
I'm talking about a scenario where a tetraplegic spinal injury patient has their prefrontal cortex wired up to their muscles (via some silicon version of the cerebellum) in order to free them from their wheelchair.
Unfortunately their physical body is now controlled directly by what you might term the "subconscious". Suppression of inappropriate impulses happens elsewhere and this scheme would bypass that. I certainly wouldn't want to be a scantily-clad woman alone with a man who had received this treatment.
It seems to me that where violent crimes were committed by such patients, it would be difficult to secure a conviction because defence lawyers would argue (I think successfully) that the accused was deprived by the surgery of their ability to limit their own actions to what was socially acceptable. Then the victims would sue the hospital or clinic that provided the treatment.
After a few especially egregious cases I doubt that any doctor would be willing to perform such a procedure.
The posters arguing that an individual's synaptic firing patterns for a given concept are completely unique, are merely guessing on the basis of what seems most likely given what they know.
But more recent brain imaging studies suggest that there is more commonality between individuals in how concepts are represented in the brain than was previously believed.
I would hazard a guess that abstract concepts will vary more widely in terms of their synaptic representation, just as every individual's inner understanding of such concepts has a different flavour. Especially across cultures. But concrete objects and the most common down-to-earth abstract notions may yet prove to be represented in a very similar way from brain to brain.
Just as well that Metcalfe has been discredited, because he is an open-source-hating nitwit. IIRC this was revealed when he was interviewed here on Slashdot a couple of years ago. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Possible, but just as likely homage to that British fellow William Heath Robinson who did the same sort of cartoons as well as many other types including fantasy art etc. Examples of his mad machines used to be found here but most of the images had to be taken down because of a breach of current copyright. A rather odd idea considering that these mostly date back to the 1910's-1930's.
There are still a few perhaps more recent examples viewable via the wayback machine eg. here and here and here.
"Legos" is only colloquial use in the US, i.e. it's not used at all in the rest of the English speaking world. The same as with "nucular" (and we know what we think of people who say "nucular" don't we?).
On more serious matters, you're spot on about having to have quite a lot of bricks. Especially if you're designing a large house, ha ha. For simplicity's sake (and to avoid the need for lots of expensive nonstandard pieces) its best to build to a scale where a standard 4x2 lego brick equates to a standard housebrick. That way you can easily substitute the cheaper knock-offs which can be bought by the bucket load from Toys R Us. If the purpose is just to be able to visualize the 3D layout, you don't need to worry too much about putting in door and window frames etc. You're not trying to win any prizes; plain holes will do.
I've done the same thing and by far the slowest and most difficult tool is 3D CAD. The easiest and fastest tool, quicker even than pen and paper, is Lego.
By the way, it's "Lego". Note the absence of a terminal 's'. Lego is the name of the system. The individual pieces are known as "bricks", There are no such things as "Legos". Ask the Lego Corporation if you fail to understand this.
Once more for those too stupid to understand: The word is "Lego". There is no such word as "Legos". If you say "Legos" you just make yourself sound poorly educated.
the overall tax burden in the UK is around 40% of GDP
The figures you quote are the bogus government figures which ignore all the stealth taxes and even then weight the statistics toward lower rate taxpayers.
The real tax burden includes not only Income Tax and National Insurance (which alone will take a middle class earner's PAYE over your 40% figure) but also VAT (17.5%), Council Tax, Stamp Duty, CGT, Inheritance Tax, TV licence fee, tax on your pension earnings, and the list goes on and on. And you can add to that the cost of preparing your own tax return since we now have to do the Inland Revenue's work for them.
You must have a really bad accountant if you're paying 70-80% tax.
He no longer has any say in the matter; the IR35 rules are very prescriptive. The Inland Revenue has taken the step of issuing rules which state that any scheme which gets you out of IR35 or otherwise reduces your liability, is automatically and *retrospectively* null and void. They have basically eliminated the concept of tax avoidance (which used to be legal) and now lump it together with tax evasion (which was always a crime). They have even made accountants thenselves liable in the event of any "misreporting" (which is a movable feast under the current rules). They are obliged to report to the IR if they suspect that you might not be totally compliant. So your accountant can no longer be counted on to fight your corner against this greedy government agency - if he did, he could end up in court facing serious fines and maybe even prison. His role is now effectively reduced to that of an auxiliary tax collector whose services *you* have to pay for out of your own pocket.
People in other businesses might not be so badly affected yet but its clear to see that this government has only contempt for knowledge workers. The IR35 tax regime is clearly designed to discourage us from being in business on our own account, indeed it makes it pointless to do so.
However as the new interpretation of S660 starts to seep through (which rules out sharing dividends with your spouse, and which will be applied retrospectively over the past six years), all manner of microbusinesses will start to be hit with sudden additional tax bills of tens of thousands of pounds.
Of course small businesspeople are in the minority, and those who are worst hit will doubtless be targets of envy for the great mass of basic rate taxpayers, so the government doesn't expect any great outcry. Until we have been bled dry, that is, and it gets to be their turn.
You are sadly misinformed. Britons pay more tax now than ever before. Much of it is indirect taxation, the so-called "stealth taxes" but some individuals such as IT contractors are being forced to pay through the nose on direct taxation as well (double NI, no tax relief on operational or capital costs).
It grieves me deeply that people such as you continue to propagate this myth about us not paying enough tax when, all told, the government already takes (one way or another) 70%-80% of what we make. And then proceeds to piss most of it down the fucking drain on pointless harebrained schemes like the Millennium Dome and "Regional Assemblies".
"I am a po-liceman (he is a po-liceman)...he has a statutory right of entry to your home"
It wasn't Willie Rushton though. It was Richard Stilgoe, and he did it for the BBC's early evening "Nationwide" programme hosted by Michael Barratt.
It might possibly have been done as part of his regular "Consumer Unit" spot with Valerie Singleton. Another song of his from that spot was about disposable razor blades and how they were cheaper to buy actually with the razor.
BTW Richard Stilgoe is still going; he presents the thrice-yearly "Family Concert" youth orchestra events at the Royal Festival Hall on London's South Bank. They're superb fun, if you want to introduce kids to live classical music this is a great way to do it.
BTW, it really pisses me off we can't purchase channels from the cable monopolies. Paying $25/mon for 2 watchable channels is a rip off IMO.
Pretty much the same situation in the UK, as BskyB has not only a monopoly on satellite TV but also controls most of the content available to cable. i.e. there is no effective competition. Prices are high, bundling is not consumer friendly, and you can only access the BskyB service via licenced hardware, i.e. no satellite PVRs apart from BskyB's own braindamaged offering and definitely no PCI DVB cards.
it dumped the file OK, and viewing the header it appears to be of the right type but I can't even get realplayer to play it, nor mplayer, kaffeine etc.
I don't think there is an "establishment" that specifically conspired to diminish the importance of Ben Franklin.
Nor do I. It's just the general reluctance, and the establishment figures have a disproportionate influence because the subject matter is political. If they don't promote it, who will?
I just don't see anything so "dangerous" in his work that academics would knowingly try to shape the public discourse so he wasn't mentioned.
It's not academics doing it. Nobody (apart from other academics) ever listens to academics anyway. The suppression (such as it is, because it doesn't need to be overtly deliberate) manifests only in an absence of support from the rich and powerful who would be most likely to consider it dangerously subversive. (Well, that's probably overstating it a bit...)
There's certainly nothing more dangerous in Franklin than in Jefferson, for example, or Locke or Rousseau for that matter.
Except that Franklin's name has a certain resonance for the American, whereas Locke and Rousseau don't (and what patriotic American in these troubled times is going to even want to read a book with a French name on the cover?) As for Jefferson, I would expect *all* the Fathers of the American revolution who promoted freedom of the common man, small government and vigilance against tyranny to be subject to the same lack of interest. Less vocal historical figures can safely remain popular, if they have enough to recommend them.
That's nonsense. It has nothing to do with "the establishment."
You don't really know that.
Yes, of course books will gain and lose in popularity according to what use people find for them.
But the popularity of those books may wax and wane partly as the result of influential people talking about them, or not talking about them. Try to remember that governments routinely use much heavier-handed methods than _that_ in order to control the spread of information and ideas.
I'm not even suggesting a conspiracy - just a general reluctance on the part of those who are currently "doing well" to rock the boat by encouraging Franklinist thought. Hence the declining public interest in the real actual writings of Ben Franklin - whereas in past eras his message was kept alive by educators and statesmen, it's now simply being allowed to slip from the public consciousness.
Not that they encourage Marx of course. but Marx provides much more meat for political scientists (and academia tends to be fashionably left wing of course) so yes there is bound to be more Marxist content in the political science curriculum.
There are therefore at least two factors at work. A political philosophy "fashion" in academia continues to promote Marx, while the establishment's shift to the right withdraws support from Franklin.
Yes its just a theory made up on the spur of the moment, but no you don't know that it isn't true all the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"info a2ps". I believe this will give you more detail than the man page does.
.. -9) which have sensible defaults for 2-up, 4-up printing etc. "-2" gives you two portrait pages side-by side on a landscape print image.
media (A4, letter etc) is selected with the -M option.
As for page layout, there are some numeric "macro" style options (-1
Some other useful options:
--sides=duplex or -s2 (assuming your printer can print both sides)
-=book (reorganizes the pages for folding and stapling like a book)
The output can be customized exactly to your own taste, using individual options like --font-size and --lines-per-page.
You'll need to experiment a bit but it wont take you long to find the perfect combination.
To insert a form feed (which you'd do if you wanted to force a page break e.g. at the end of a chapter) in vim, you just press control-L while in edit mode. The form feed character will be visible as a "^L". Make sure though that the text which starts the following page starts on the same line as the form feed, i.e. without dropping down to a new line. Or your new page will start with a blank line.
An appeal to tradition isn't wrong or fallacious if there are good reasons for the tradition which are still valid.
There should surely be a category of fallacy for the misapplication of this particular fallacy label. Not all tradition is bad.
Shatner (a classically trained actor) and the chemistry between him and Nimoy and Kelley are what made the show. Without that it would have been just another flat, cheesy 60's sci-fi serial, would have failed to make any significant impression and would have bitten the dust forever after the third season. No syndicated reruns, no massive fan base, no NextGen either.
>Did it form a blister, and then turn into the cavity? Do you have a scar?
Yes, yes and yes. Shiny white irregular star-shaped just a few mm across. Almost invisible now.
It was definitely what they called the BCG vaccination, which we were told was for TB, though I believe nowadays they use a different method to immunize against TB, one that's not nearly so dramatic.
Was it really completely needle-free? I had my BCG vaccination (i.e. against tuberculosis) in 1974 I think it was. That was a gun-like affair but it did sting a bit, and it left a ring of six tiny holes as if it had stuck me with six small needle-like teeth.
(the aftermath of this vaccination was worse than the injection itself, the shoulder swelled up pretty quickly and was quite tender for about a week, and the site of the injection opened up into a pus-filled cavity about a quarter inch wide).
This might be do-able in a technical sense but I doubt whether the obvious application will ever be acceptable in practice.
I'm talking about a scenario where a tetraplegic spinal injury patient has their prefrontal cortex wired up to their muscles (via some silicon version of the cerebellum) in order to free them from their wheelchair.
Unfortunately their physical body is now controlled directly by what you might term the "subconscious". Suppression of inappropriate impulses happens elsewhere and this scheme would bypass that. I certainly wouldn't want to be a scantily-clad woman alone with a man who had received this treatment.
It seems to me that where violent crimes were committed by such patients, it would be difficult to secure a conviction because defence lawyers would argue (I think successfully) that the accused was deprived by the surgery of their ability to limit their own actions to what was socially acceptable. Then the victims would sue the hospital or clinic that provided the treatment.
After a few especially egregious cases I doubt that any doctor would be willing to perform such a procedure.
The posters arguing that an individual's synaptic firing patterns for a given concept are completely unique, are merely guessing on the basis of what seems most likely given what they know.
But more recent brain imaging studies suggest that there is more commonality between individuals in how concepts are represented in the brain than was previously believed.
I would hazard a guess that abstract concepts will vary more widely in terms of their synaptic representation, just as every individual's inner understanding of such concepts has a different flavour. Especially across cultures. But concrete objects and the most common down-to-earth abstract notions may yet prove to be represented in a very similar way from brain to brain.
Just as well that Metcalfe has been discredited, because he is an open-source-hating nitwit. IIRC this was revealed when he was interviewed here on Slashdot a couple of years ago. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Possible, but just as likely homage to that British fellow William Heath Robinson who did the same sort of cartoons as well as many other types including fantasy art etc. Examples of his mad machines used to be found here but most of the images had to be taken down because of a breach of current copyright. A rather odd idea considering that these mostly date back to the 1910's-1930's.
There are still a few perhaps more recent examples viewable via the wayback machine eg. here and here and here.
the spinning cups thing for measuring wind speed is called an anemometer.
But, a fox always smells his own hole.
"Legos" is only colloquial use in the US, i.e. it's not used at all in the rest of the English speaking world. The same as with "nucular" (and we know what we think of people who say "nucular" don't we?).
On more serious matters, you're spot on about having to have quite a lot of bricks. Especially if you're designing a large house, ha ha. For simplicity's sake (and to avoid the need for lots of expensive nonstandard pieces) its best to build to a scale where a standard 4x2 lego brick equates to a standard housebrick. That way you can easily substitute the cheaper knock-offs which can be bought by the bucket load from Toys R Us. If the purpose is just to be able to visualize the 3D layout, you don't need to worry too much about putting in door and window frames etc. You're not trying to win any prizes; plain holes will do.
It won't last long. Your turn soon. Heaven help you.
I've done the same thing and by far the slowest and most difficult tool is 3D CAD. The easiest and fastest tool, quicker even than pen and paper, is Lego.
By the way, it's "Lego". Note the absence of a terminal 's'. Lego is the name of the system. The individual pieces are known as "bricks", There are no such things as "Legos". Ask the Lego Corporation if you fail to understand this.
Once more for those too stupid to understand: The word is "Lego". There is no such word as "Legos". If you say "Legos" you just make yourself sound poorly educated.
Where did I say we don't pay enough tax?
You strongly implied as much.
the overall tax burden in the UK is around 40% of GDP
The figures you quote are the bogus government figures which ignore all the stealth taxes and even then weight the statistics toward lower rate taxpayers.
The real tax burden includes not only Income Tax and National Insurance (which alone will take a middle class earner's PAYE over your 40% figure) but also VAT (17.5%), Council Tax, Stamp Duty, CGT, Inheritance Tax, TV licence fee, tax on your pension earnings, and the list goes on and on. And you can add to that the cost of preparing your own tax return since we now have to do the Inland Revenue's work for them.
You must have a really bad accountant if you're paying 70-80% tax.
He no longer has any say in the matter; the IR35 rules are very prescriptive. The Inland Revenue has taken the step of issuing rules which state that any scheme which gets you out of IR35 or otherwise reduces your liability, is automatically and *retrospectively* null and void. They have basically eliminated the concept of tax avoidance (which used to be legal) and now lump it together with tax evasion (which was always a crime). They have even made accountants thenselves liable in the event of any "misreporting" (which is a movable feast under the current rules). They are obliged to report to the IR if they suspect that you might not be totally compliant. So your accountant can no longer be counted on to fight your corner against this greedy government agency - if he did, he could end up in court facing serious fines and maybe even prison. His role is now effectively reduced to that of an auxiliary tax collector whose services *you* have to pay for out of your own pocket.
People in other businesses might not be so badly affected yet but its clear to see that this government has only contempt for knowledge workers. The IR35 tax regime is clearly designed to discourage us from being in business on our own account, indeed it makes it pointless to do so.
However as the new interpretation of S660 starts to seep through (which rules out sharing dividends with your spouse, and which will be applied retrospectively over the past six years), all manner of microbusinesses will start to be hit with sudden additional tax bills of tens of thousands of pounds.
Of course small businesspeople are in the minority, and those who are worst hit will doubtless be targets of envy for the great mass of basic rate taxpayers, so the government doesn't expect any great outcry. Until we have been bled dry, that is, and it gets to be their turn.
You are sadly misinformed. Britons pay more tax now than ever before. Much of it is indirect taxation, the so-called "stealth taxes" but some individuals such as IT contractors are being forced to pay through the nose on direct taxation as well (double NI, no tax relief on operational or capital costs).
It grieves me deeply that people such as you continue to propagate this myth about us not paying enough tax when, all told, the government already takes (one way or another) 70%-80% of what we make. And then proceeds to piss most of it down the fucking drain on pointless harebrained schemes like the Millennium Dome and "Regional Assemblies".
OT I suppose, but I remember it too:
"I am a po-liceman (he is a po-liceman)...he has a statutory right of entry to your home"
It wasn't Willie Rushton though. It was Richard Stilgoe, and he did it for the BBC's early evening "Nationwide" programme hosted by Michael Barratt.
It might possibly have been done as part of his regular "Consumer Unit" spot with Valerie Singleton. Another song of his from that spot was about disposable razor blades and how they were cheaper to buy actually with the razor.
BTW Richard Stilgoe is still going; he presents the thrice-yearly "Family Concert" youth orchestra events at the Royal Festival Hall on London's South Bank. They're superb fun, if you want to introduce kids to live classical music this is a great way to do it.
> For example, we just found out what actually happened to the Klingon's faces.
What? Are you serious? What episode was that?
(sorry but I've not been following Enterprise ever since the early season 1 suckage)
Pretty much the same situation in the UK, as BskyB has not only a monopoly on satellite TV but also controls most of the content available to cable. i.e. there is no effective competition. Prices are high, bundling is not consumer friendly, and you can only access the BskyB service via licenced hardware, i.e. no satellite PVRs apart from BskyB's own braindamaged offering and definitely no PCI DVB cards.
I explained this recently as the failure of government regulators and was modded down as flamebait. I've no idea why though.
yeah I tried:
/ g2demand/scifi/battlestar/33/33.rm'
mplayer -dumpstream 'pnm://rx-wes-sea138.rbn.com/farm/*/usanet/usanet
it dumped the file OK, and viewing the header it appears to be of the right type but I can't even get realplayer to play it, nor mplayer, kaffeine etc.
Anybody know why?
Yeah but they're labelled W and Z and one is rumoured to be more massive than the other.
ROTFLMAO! Thanks!
I don't think there is an "establishment" that specifically conspired to diminish the importance of Ben Franklin.
Nor do I. It's just the general reluctance, and the establishment figures have a disproportionate influence because the subject matter is political. If they don't promote it, who will?
I just don't see anything so "dangerous" in his work that academics would knowingly try to shape the public discourse so he wasn't mentioned.
It's not academics doing it. Nobody (apart from other academics) ever listens to academics anyway. The suppression (such as it is, because it doesn't need to be overtly deliberate) manifests only in an absence of support from the rich and powerful who would be most likely to consider it dangerously subversive. (Well, that's probably overstating it a bit...)
There's certainly nothing more dangerous in Franklin than in Jefferson, for example, or Locke or Rousseau for that matter.
Except that Franklin's name has a certain resonance for the American, whereas Locke and Rousseau don't (and what patriotic American in these troubled times is going to even want to read a book with a French name on the cover?) As for Jefferson, I would expect *all* the Fathers of the American revolution who promoted freedom of the common man, small government and vigilance against tyranny to be subject to the same lack of interest. Less vocal historical figures can safely remain popular, if they have enough to recommend them.
You don't really know that.
Yes, of course books will gain and lose in popularity according to what use people find for them.
But the popularity of those books may wax and wane partly as the result of influential people talking about them, or not talking about them. Try to remember that governments routinely use much heavier-handed methods than _that_ in order to control the spread of information and ideas.
I'm not even suggesting a conspiracy - just a general reluctance on the part of those who are currently "doing well" to rock the boat by encouraging Franklinist thought. Hence the declining public interest in the real actual writings of Ben Franklin - whereas in past eras his message was kept alive by educators and statesmen, it's now simply being allowed to slip from the public consciousness.
Not that they encourage Marx of course. but Marx provides much more meat for political scientists (and academia tends to be fashionably left wing of course) so yes there is bound to be more Marxist content in the political science curriculum.
There are therefore at least two factors at work. A political philosophy "fashion" in academia continues to promote Marx, while the establishment's shift to the right withdraws support from Franklin.
Yes its just a theory made up on the spur of the moment, but no you don't know that it isn't true all the same.