Well, I've worked a fair amount with infrared hacking my own data acquisition hardware. It certainly has its benefits, but the line of sight issue mentioned by others can create problems.
I had to give it up as an auto racing timing and scoring system over line of sight issues. RF works better in that application.
However, for testing a single car under non rain/fog conditions it's spiffy, cheap, and easy to setup and use. Just about anybody who can afford to build a soapbox car could afford to time it with a simple IR system.
Best of all, it's completely unregulated.
If it suits your usage, go for it.
It won't suit that many people's usage though, which is why the movement has been to RF devices despite the need to comply with FCC regulation.
I empathise with your position as a human being, and I've never had any particular problem with police officers in general and certainly don't think of them as pigs.
I also really meant what I said in my previous post. A really good police officer ought to be one of the most respected people in society, far more so than mere presidents.
Nor are all the troubles you face of your own making. You do not make policy or the law, and you are called upon to enforce laws that, in my opinion, bring your profession into disrespect.
However, there is truth to the fact that service is entirely voluntary. The belligerant trolling is uncalled for, but the point must stand, as well as my own point that when you wear a badge you are the government and will be justifiably treated as such. In those places where the government is in disrespect you will be treated with disrespect. In places where it is not you will not.
Personally I've never met a cop who didn't join the force explicitly because he/she wanted to one of the good guys, but the concept of good guy is a highly relative one.
Your closing statement is troubling. It really doesn't help your position and is nonsequitor with regards to the issue. While I myself have been perfectly forthcoming in expressing my belief that working in the software industry is a sucker's game for many, many years, equating the job of a private citizen with that of a police officer is what brought me into this conversation in the first place.
Personally I don't know how a software engineer who really understands his field could work for Oracle and sleep at night. His job is voluntary and I think he should leave it. If he does not I'm left in the position of thinking of him as unethical by my standards, or I have to conclude that he does not really understand his field.
I can apply similar reasoning to police work.
However, to equate the job of a private citizen with that of a law enforcment officer is a fallacy and thus troubling in an officer.
Because you have a gun and certain authority to use it. The Oracle engineer does not. I can respectfully decline to participate in any releationship with the engineer. You can compell me, and do so in a manner that completely strips me of respect and human dignity.
Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds?
Garbage men work for the man. The janitor at city hall works for the man.
The second you put on a badge you are the man. Your personal identity ceases. You are the government in all its might and power incarnate, and with all the restrictions that apply to government power.
An officer approaches his job with this realization and with respect for what it entails, and accepts the responsibility and the risks to his very life is an object worthy of respect, even a certain amount of reverence. Such officers should be held as our most valued citizens.
Honestly, meaning no personal disrespect officer, but a man who thinks of police duty as a job, like working at McDonald's, should really find another line of work, and there is no shame in doing so.
I've got 5 megs of perfectly empty Time-Warner web space too. I've looked at it a couple of times and couldn't figure out what to do with it.
You'll find much of what I have to say already emedded in Thoreau's "Life Without Principle," which is already available on the web, and Thoreau's language is exquisite.
I suppose what I do best is translate much the same ideas into the modern context and colloquialisms, which has value of its own. In my recent readings I've come across some items that have prodded me a bit to consider the issue.
In "Innocent's Abroad" Twain has some pointed things to say about the value of a journal, even one kept by a complete amateur. Roger Ebert related a story about before he was a reviewer and complained to his editor that he was tired of writing the same editorial column over, and over, and over. His editor responded, "That's because they don't get it yet. You have to keep writing it until they do."
I note that most of Shakespeare's plays are written that way. First tell them what you're going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you've said.
In reading Chesterton's autobiography (also someone who expresses ideas somewhat similar to my own when the subject isn't religion) he notes that he once wrote an editorial column called "The Defense," then berated himself for the youthful ignorance of the title, because he was not accused.
It gave me the idea for a website devoted to being an "Advocate for the Defense," devoted to reasoned arguments in support of unpopular ideas that are either under direct assualt somewhere, perhaps in law, or perhaps only stand accused in the thoughtless manner of society, condemned without even consideration. It would be liberal in the classical sense of the Age of Enlightenment, apolitical, the idea being the important thing. Which means, of course, that modern "liberals" would consider it right wing and modern "conservatives" would consider it left wing.
The problem with an independent liberal point of view is that both sides, and the middle, all join hands to throw rocks at you.
And I'm perfectly happy just tending to my tomato plants and being left in peace.
It's a somewhat dangerous idea with no immediately discernable "reader demographic," while requiring full time attention to do even vaguely well. The research load alone is a daunting thought, as I would not be content with the sort of throwaway rant typical on the web these days, and even in my own posts.
And yet the very fact that it's a somewhat dangerous idea is an argument in favor of its value from my point of view.
I'll have to give it a little think.
In the meantime I'll also give some thought as to what I might put into a journal. The typical blog "My cat honked up a hairball today" has no interest to me.
In what way is this different than the current situation?
What sort of legislation would increase your ability or right to block or filter?
What "power" are you thinking of? Do you have to be born on Krypton to get it?
Do you suggest legislating the structure of the internet? How would you go about doing that and enforcing it? If it can be done by altering the structure of the internet what is the need of legislation?
Yes, I too am sick of paying for it, seeing it, filtering it, having it clog up the whole bloody net, etc.
The spammer's "power" is no different than my own though. The power to use email. The primary difference is that I'm not an asshole.
If one could legislate away assholes, hey, I'd be the first to endorse it. The instant the bill passed there would be a loud sort of "Whoooooph!" inside the Capitol Building, followed closely by the implosion of the dome as a result of the sudden low pressure inside.
Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress? But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
No. To tell you the truth I wouldn't even know how other than by brute force method. You'll just have to wait for it to come around on the guitar again, at which point, feel free to join in the chorus.
Watch for key phrases like:
"Large corporations are not an innate part of capitalism"
"The Constitution is a liberal document"
"The modern left is not liberal, it's fascist"
"I am a conservative. That's why I'm a liberal"
"The corporate system is essentially fuedal. If you have a "good job" you are in service, which is antithetical to the American Dream."
Believe it or not, given the empirical evidence, I really don't have a lot to say. I have opinion, and enjoy a certain amount of writing, but I'm not a proselytizer, per se.
Others are speakers and promoters. I'm just a noodge and have no particular problem with being treated as such. I can be very responsive, but I just don't have that urge to step forward.
So basically you'll find me here playing Falstaff.
I am routinely accused of being a philosopher. I deny it catagorically and don't think I could spout Kant if I wanted to. At least not without putting in few hours of reading as a refresher.
For whatever it's worth, the kinetic theory of gasses was the first thing that as a young physics student I looked at and said,"Holy bejeezus! That's frickin' asthetically beautiful."
I'd never known before that what a mathmatician or physicist meant when they talked about a "beautiful" theory/proof.
Even a scietist is allowed personal observation and opinion if he does not claim them to be otherwise. Even to the extent of giant farts of rhetoric.
If, however, you wish to read more you could start with my oft refered to "Too Much College," by Stephen Leacock, Professor of Economics at McGill University. The writings of John Holt can also be instructive. John spent 20 years trying to reform the lower educational systems and finally gave it up as hopeless, founding the modern, secular, homeschooling movement.
Googling on Randi, Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Fabian Pascal and Dijkstra should also turn up some relevant material, although I warn you that some of these are curmudgeons in good standing, and have been for quite some time.
I came to realise that there are different kinds of science. Social scientists tend to find their own truths and fight over it. Truth in this sense is not absolute, it depends on the proponent.
Q.E.D. I'm afraid, with this caveat: I used the word truth in the colloquial sense, not the scientific sense. Thus when I said truth I meant something akin to fact. The syntax and grammer of English is not suitable for making the distinction casually unfortunately. You must choose between sounding like an verbose, overacademic pompous ass, or colloquial brevity and reasonable grammar. I try to steer a course down the middle. I often fail.
In the sense that the word "truth" might be used in a mathmatically technical sense the social sciences contain little to no truth at all, although they proudly stand on what they claim to be a mathmatically scientific foundation. That foundation is made up of mathmatical aether filled aerogel.
When you begin fighting over untestable, nonabsolute "truth," you are not discussing science at all. You are discussing religion.
Natural sciences, however, are much more focussed on the one truth which can be proved either by formal methods (which themselves are known to be correct) or by facts.
And there is even a name for this: Science.
If a nobel laureate (of the natural sciences) says that someone is twisting the truth, then it should make you think. If 20 nobel laureates do so, then even more.
Over the course of my liftime I have often been in the habit of hanging out with Nobel Laureates and nominees for periods of time, although far less so in my dottage than in my youth. Now I tend to hang out with their writings far more. I think that most of them would agree substantially with my post, and I think my post supports the point of view that the Bush administration is twisting the truth.
As did Clinton's, Big Bush's, Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's, Nixon's, LBJ's and Kennedy's.
Those are the ones with which I can claim some personal familitarty. I can rely on literature to assure me the practice is not entirely contemporary, but accelerting. Rapidly.
Well, as a scientist who is a lifetime registered independent and who's point of view is at least unbiased enough that I have been attacked on Slashdot as a flag waving, right wing, conservative neonazi, capitalist pig, America right or wrong type and a politically correct, commie pinko, marxist cant spouting anticapitalist lacky. ..for the same bloody post, I can at least put forward my observations:
These scientists may well have a political bias in attacking the Bush administration, but it isn't necessary. You could attack any administration for exactly the same thing.
Science is in a deplorable state, not just in America, but nearly everywhere, do to being so heavily influenced and outright directed by politics that even many scientists are unaware of it. Poorly trained in colleges that have been so embued with "political" science many of them can't even recognize a valid scientific methodology from an invalid one, and not a few now overtly claim that such isn't even necessary, that truth is the pragmatic.
And they still call themselves scientists.
War is Peace, brother.
Newspeak is completely destroying science and admiting fields into the fold for civil and academic political purposes which have little to no scientific basis at all.
The issue isn't the Bush administration. The issue is administration. And there are damned few "scientists" these days who even have the knowledge, let alone the guts, to stand up to it.
It's not good for recieving grants and tenure. In some places it's not good for staying out of jail, and I don't mean in China.
The situation is deplorable.
That's my opinion as a scientist.
Tomorrow I shall return to my usual Slashdot rant about how business has devolved college education to a tradeschool for the uneducatable.
Please tune in.
This has been a broadcast of the Old Curmudgeon Network. Slashdot editors are not responsible for my posted views. They've got enough troubles supporting their own.
God help me if I had used "larn," as I almost did to sound even quainter. I would have had to include a link to dictionary.com to show that it was a proper word. In future perhaps I'll include a full etymological study of my posts.
Or I could just ignore the spelling/grammar Nazis. I actually learn from them on occasion, but I think it's best not to let them know that. They certainly don't need any encouragement.
The usage isn't even particularly archaic and is supported by most dictionaries, although not in the examples of usage. It's a bit too "hick" for city folk tastes.
X is not a GUI system. It is a display system. Ratpoison, for instance, requires X to run, since it runs in graphical mode as opposed to text mode, but is not a GUI.
As such replacing X really has nothing to do with replacing your GUI.
There is something to be said, however, for occasionally replacing old, crufty systems with newer shiney ones that work better.
In the case of X though, since it's function is so low level, arguements as to what is meant by "better" abound.
Yes, it is a trademark of Bayer, but it comes from the German word "heroisch," and means "Heroic Treatment," or, more loosely translated, "Fanfuckingtastic drug." It was sold as a "safe" alternative, as were any number of dangerous substances, to morphine, which had relatively recently been found to be addictive. As such it was used for military purposes, but only in the "aftermath," as an anasthetic, and it was as an anasthetic that it could be used a cough rememdy by numbing the troat.
Nor was heroin developed in Germany. It was discovered in England in 1874, at St. Mary's Hospital Medical College where they were seeking such an anasthetic.
Other "traditional" drugs have certainly been used in wartime though to encourage heroism, particularly among "native" troops. In southeast Asia during the Vietnam war I have a report that Laotian paratroopers used to wear little carved Buddhas around their necks. Before every jump they would pop the Buddha into their mouth. Thought to be some sort of odd local religious custom, it turns out the Buddhas were carved out of opium.
I'll have to check out Scanpan. Thanks for the tip. I'm on Calphalon right now, but the wok isn't really suitable for stir frying. The aluminum just doesn't heat properly.
I don't need a mixer. I'm on the "flour will kill me" diet. Kinda puts the kabosh on the toaster too.:)
My mom's 40 year old, 400 pound, chrome and steel Osterizer is killer though.
But I need some good knives, dammit. Gotta start saving my German boxtops.
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed. Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K; and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I've worked a fair amount with infrared hacking my own data acquisition hardware. It certainly has its benefits, but the line of sight issue mentioned by others can create problems.
I had to give it up as an auto racing timing and scoring system over line of sight issues. RF works better in that application.
However, for testing a single car under non rain/fog conditions it's spiffy, cheap, and easy to setup and use. Just about anybody who can afford to build a soapbox car could afford to time it with a simple IR system.
Best of all, it's completely unregulated.
If it suits your usage, go for it.
It won't suit that many people's usage though, which is why the movement has been to RF devices despite the need to comply with FCC regulation.
KFG
Indeed. It's silly to think of Bluetooth as dead when it's finally gotten BSD support.
KFG
Damn good thing The Turtles was taken already too. I don't think that would have worked out in this context quite so well.
"Yo Flo, Eddie, move goddammit!
KFG
I empathise with your position as a human being, and I've never had any particular problem with police officers in general and certainly don't think of them as pigs.
I also really meant what I said in my previous post. A really good police officer ought to be one of the most respected people in society, far more so than mere presidents.
Nor are all the troubles you face of your own making. You do not make policy or the law, and you are called upon to enforce laws that, in my opinion, bring your profession into disrespect.
However, there is truth to the fact that service is entirely voluntary. The belligerant trolling is uncalled for, but the point must stand, as well as my own point that when you wear a badge you are the government and will be justifiably treated as such. In those places where the government is in disrespect you will be treated with disrespect. In places where it is not you will not.
Personally I've never met a cop who didn't join the force explicitly because he/she wanted to one of the good guys, but the concept of good guy is a highly relative one.
Your closing statement is troubling. It really doesn't help your position and is nonsequitor with regards to the issue. While I myself have been perfectly forthcoming in expressing my belief that working in the software industry is a sucker's game for many, many years, equating the job of a private citizen with that of a police officer is what brought me into this conversation in the first place.
Personally I don't know how a software engineer who really understands his field could work for Oracle and sleep at night. His job is voluntary and I think he should leave it. If he does not I'm left in the position of thinking of him as unethical by my standards, or I have to conclude that he does not really understand his field.
I can apply similar reasoning to police work.
However, to equate the job of a private citizen with that of a law enforcment officer is a fallacy and thus troubling in an officer.
Because you have a gun and certain authority to use it. The Oracle engineer does not. I can respectfully decline to participate in any releationship with the engineer. You can compell me, and do so in a manner that completely strips me of respect and human dignity.
It makes a difference.
KFG
Because he works for "the man" instead of McDonalds?
Garbage men work for the man. The janitor at city hall works for the man.
The second you put on a badge you are the man. Your personal identity ceases. You are the government in all its might and power incarnate, and with all the restrictions that apply to government power.
An officer approaches his job with this realization and with respect for what it entails, and accepts the responsibility and the risks to his very life is an object worthy of respect, even a certain amount of reverence. Such officers should be held as our most valued citizens.
Honestly, meaning no personal disrespect officer, but a man who thinks of police duty as a job, like working at McDonald's, should really find another line of work, and there is no shame in doing so.
KFG
I've got 5 megs of perfectly empty Time-Warner web space too. I've looked at it a couple of times and couldn't figure out what to do with it.
You'll find much of what I have to say already emedded in Thoreau's "Life Without Principle," which is already available on the web, and Thoreau's language is exquisite.
I suppose what I do best is translate much the same ideas into the modern context and colloquialisms, which has value of its own. In my recent readings I've come across some items that have prodded me a bit to consider the issue.
In "Innocent's Abroad" Twain has some pointed things to say about the value of a journal, even one kept by a complete amateur. Roger Ebert related a story about before he was a reviewer and complained to his editor that he was tired of writing the same editorial column over, and over, and over. His editor responded, "That's because they don't get it yet. You have to keep writing it until they do."
I note that most of Shakespeare's plays are written that way. First tell them what you're going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you've said.
In reading Chesterton's autobiography (also someone who expresses ideas somewhat similar to my own when the subject isn't religion) he notes that he once wrote an editorial column called "The Defense," then berated himself for the youthful ignorance of the title, because he was not accused.
It gave me the idea for a website devoted to being an "Advocate for the Defense," devoted to reasoned arguments in support of unpopular ideas that are either under direct assualt somewhere, perhaps in law, or perhaps only stand accused in the thoughtless manner of society, condemned without even consideration. It would be liberal in the classical sense of the Age of Enlightenment, apolitical, the idea being the important thing. Which means, of course, that modern "liberals" would consider it right wing and modern "conservatives" would consider it left wing.
The problem with an independent liberal point of view is that both sides, and the middle, all join hands to throw rocks at you.
And I'm perfectly happy just tending to my tomato plants and being left in peace.
It's a somewhat dangerous idea with no immediately discernable "reader demographic," while requiring full time attention to do even vaguely well. The research load alone is a daunting thought, as I would not be content with the sort of throwaway rant typical on the web these days, and even in my own posts.
And yet the very fact that it's a somewhat dangerous idea is an argument in favor of its value from my point of view.
I'll have to give it a little think.
In the meantime I'll also give some thought as to what I might put into a journal. The typical blog "My cat honked up a hairball today" has no interest to me.
KFG
In Perl? Absolutely. Nolo Contendre. Dead to rights.
Since I only use it to use it the only way I've found to combat the problem is to settle on one way of doing things. Discipline.
Hey! Wait a minute. I can do that in elisp.
KFG
Squeak! Squeak!
KFG
Yes, but the flip side comes only a day later, when I sit down at my Python code and immediately start editing.
Whereas I look at my Perl code for about an hour and a half thinking, "Ummmmmmm, what the fuck is this supposed to mean?
Not that either of them have a patch on APL, mind you. APL Roolz.
KFG
In what way is this different than the current situation?
What sort of legislation would increase your ability or right to block or filter?
What "power" are you thinking of? Do you have to be born on Krypton to get it?
Do you suggest legislating the structure of the internet? How would you go about doing that and enforcing it? If it can be done by altering the structure of the internet what is the need of legislation?
Yes, I too am sick of paying for it, seeing it, filtering it, having it clog up the whole bloody net, etc.
The spammer's "power" is no different than my own though. The power to use email. The primary difference is that I'm not an asshole.
If one could legislate away assholes, hey, I'd be the first to endorse it. The instant the bill passed there would be a loud sort of "Whoooooph!" inside the Capitol Building, followed closely by the implosion of the dome as a result of the sudden low pressure inside.
Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress? But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
KFG
KFG
No. To tell you the truth I wouldn't even know how other than by brute force method. You'll just have to wait for it to come around on the guitar again, at which point, feel free to join in the chorus.
Watch for key phrases like:
"Large corporations are not an innate part of capitalism"
"The Constitution is a liberal document"
"The modern left is not liberal, it's fascist"
"I am a conservative. That's why I'm a liberal"
"The corporate system is essentially fuedal. If you have a "good job" you are in service, which is antithetical to the American Dream."
Stuff like that usually stirs things up a bit.
KFG
No, I do not. I've never seen the point.
Believe it or not, given the empirical evidence, I really don't have a lot to say. I have opinion, and enjoy a certain amount of writing, but I'm not a proselytizer, per se.
Others are speakers and promoters. I'm just a noodge and have no particular problem with being treated as such. I can be very responsive, but I just don't have that urge to step forward.
So basically you'll find me here playing Falstaff.
KFG
I am routinely accused of being a philosopher. I deny it catagorically and don't think I could spout Kant if I wanted to. At least not without putting in few hours of reading as a refresher.
The accusations do not stop, however.
KFG
For whatever it's worth, the kinetic theory of gasses was the first thing that as a young physics student I looked at and said,"Holy bejeezus! That's frickin' asthetically beautiful."
I'd never known before that what a mathmatician or physicist meant when they talked about a "beautiful" theory/proof.
What they mean is beautiful. Go figure.
KFG
I can at least put forward my observations:
.my usual Slashdot rant. . .
. .
Even a scietist is allowed personal observation and opinion if he does not claim them to be otherwise. Even to the extent of giant farts of rhetoric.
If, however, you wish to read more you could start with my oft refered to "Too Much College," by Stephen Leacock, Professor of Economics at McGill University. The writings of John Holt can also be instructive. John spent 20 years trying to reform the lower educational systems and finally gave it up as hopeless, founding the modern, secular, homeschooling movement.
Googling on Randi, Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Fabian Pascal and Dijkstra should also turn up some relevant material, although I warn you that some of these are curmudgeons in good standing, and have been for quite some time.
KFG
What science are you in?
Physics is my primary field.
I came to realise that there are different kinds of science. Social scientists tend to find their own truths and fight over it. Truth in this sense is not absolute, it depends on the proponent.
Q.E.D. I'm afraid, with this caveat: I used the word truth in the colloquial sense, not the scientific sense. Thus when I said truth I meant something akin to fact. The syntax and grammer of English is not suitable for making the distinction casually unfortunately. You must choose between sounding like an verbose, overacademic pompous ass, or colloquial brevity and reasonable grammar. I try to steer a course down the middle. I often fail.
In the sense that the word "truth" might be used in a mathmatically technical sense the social sciences contain little to no truth at all, although they proudly stand on what they claim to be a mathmatically scientific foundation. That foundation is made up of mathmatical aether filled aerogel.
When you begin fighting over untestable, nonabsolute "truth," you are not discussing science at all. You are discussing religion.
Natural sciences, however, are much more focussed on the one truth which can be proved either by formal methods (which themselves are known to be correct) or by facts.
And there is even a name for this: Science.
If a nobel laureate (of the natural sciences) says that someone is twisting the truth, then it should make you think. If 20 nobel laureates do so, then even more.
Over the course of my liftime I have often been in the habit of hanging out with Nobel Laureates and nominees for periods of time, although far less so in my dottage than in my youth. Now I tend to hang out with their writings far more. I think that most of them would agree substantially with my post, and I think my post supports the point of view that the Bush administration is twisting the truth.
As did Clinton's, Big Bush's, Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's, Nixon's, LBJ's and Kennedy's.
Those are the ones with which I can claim some personal familitarty. I can rely on literature to assure me the practice is not entirely contemporary, but accelerting. Rapidly.
KFG
Well, as a scientist who is a lifetime registered independent and who's point of view is at least unbiased enough that I have been attacked on Slashdot as a flag waving, right wing, conservative neonazi, capitalist pig, America right or wrong type and a politically correct, commie pinko, marxist cant spouting anticapitalist lacky. . .for the same bloody post, I can at least put forward my observations:
These scientists may well have a political bias in attacking the Bush administration, but it isn't necessary. You could attack any administration for exactly the same thing.
Science is in a deplorable state, not just in America, but nearly everywhere, do to being so heavily influenced and outright directed by politics that even many scientists are unaware of it. Poorly trained in colleges that have been so embued with "political" science many of them can't even recognize a valid scientific methodology from an invalid one, and not a few now overtly claim that such isn't even necessary, that truth is the pragmatic.
And they still call themselves scientists.
War is Peace, brother.
Newspeak is completely destroying science and admiting fields into the fold for civil and academic political purposes which have little to no scientific basis at all.
The issue isn't the Bush administration. The issue is administration. And there are damned few "scientists" these days who even have the knowledge, let alone the guts, to stand up to it.
It's not good for recieving grants and tenure. In some places it's not good for staying out of jail, and I don't mean in China.
The situation is deplorable.
That's my opinion as a scientist.
Tomorrow I shall return to my usual Slashdot rant about how business has devolved college education to a tradeschool for the uneducatable.
Please tune in.
This has been a broadcast of the Old Curmudgeon Network. Slashdot editors are not responsible for my posted views. They've got enough troubles supporting their own.
KFG
God help me if I had used "larn," as I almost did to sound even quainter. I would have had to include a link to dictionary.com to show that it was a proper word. In future perhaps I'll include a full etymological study of my posts.
Or I could just ignore the spelling/grammar Nazis. I actually learn from them on occasion, but I think it's best not to let them know that. They certainly don't need any encouragement.
The usage isn't even particularly archaic and is supported by most dictionaries, although not in the examples of usage. It's a bit too "hick" for city folk tastes.
Which is exactly why I used it.
KFG
I'm with you, with this caveat though.
X is not a GUI system. It is a display system. Ratpoison, for instance, requires X to run, since it runs in graphical mode as opposed to text mode, but is not a GUI.
As such replacing X really has nothing to do with replacing your GUI.
There is something to be said, however, for occasionally replacing old, crufty systems with newer shiney ones that work better.
In the case of X though, since it's function is so low level, arguements as to what is meant by "better" abound.
KFG
Yes, it is a trademark of Bayer, but it comes from the German word "heroisch," and means "Heroic Treatment," or, more loosely translated, "Fanfuckingtastic drug." It was sold as a "safe" alternative, as were any number of dangerous substances, to morphine, which had relatively recently been found to be addictive. As such it was used for military purposes, but only in the "aftermath," as an anasthetic, and it was as an anasthetic that it could be used a cough rememdy by numbing the troat.
.200 maybe.
Nor was heroin developed in Germany. It was discovered in England in 1874, at St. Mary's Hospital Medical College where they were seeking such an anasthetic.
Parent poster wasn't completely smacked out. Batting
Other "traditional" drugs have certainly been used in wartime though to encourage heroism, particularly among "native" troops. In southeast Asia during the Vietnam war I have a report that Laotian paratroopers used to wear little carved Buddhas around their necks. Before every jump they would pop the Buddha into their mouth. Thought to be some sort of odd local religious custom, it turns out the Buddhas were carved out of opium.
KFG
Of course. That'll learn me to try to make an emacs joke.
KFG
. . .get email through Morse code!
It'll probably end up as an emacs mode.
KFG
I'll have to check out Scanpan. Thanks for the tip. I'm on Calphalon right now, but the wok isn't really suitable for stir frying. The aluminum just doesn't heat properly.
:)
I don't need a mixer. I'm on the "flour will kill me" diet. Kinda puts the kabosh on the toaster too.
My mom's 40 year old, 400 pound, chrome and steel Osterizer is killer though.
But I need some good knives, dammit. Gotta start saving my German boxtops.
KFG
Yeah. I lost it in the cut and paste. That's the trouble with Slashdot. No support for ed.
l o?
?
help
?
?
?
quit
?
exit
?
bye
?
hel
?
eat flaming death
?
^C
?
^C
?
^D
?
KFG
Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!
Ed is for those who can *remember* what they are working on. If you
are an idiot, you should use Emacs. If you are an Emacs, you should
not be vi. If you use ED, you are on THE PATH TO REDEMPTION. THE
SO-CALLED "VISUAL" EDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE BY ED TO TEMPT THE
FAITHLESS. DO NOT GIVE IN!!! THE MIGHTY ED HAS SPOKEN!!!
--Patrick J. LoPresti
KFG