Hmm... Perhaps we're being to literalist about this, and we should just read the metaphor:
Maybe what it's really meant to communicate is the question "How different are we from the apes?"
It's a pretty classic archetype, the hero who returns home, and finds it's no longer really home, that it is all that he despised abroad, and it's essentially the experience that a satirist is trying to give his/her audience: you've read my recasting of things, now how far, really, is your "reality" from it? And the original book was, I am told, a satire of sorts (not in the funny sense). Similar idea to the soldier who returns home victorious, only to be feared for his/her murderousness (seen, iirc, in this movie, when one of the humans shies away from an ape who just defended him); Similar, I think, to some of the sentiments in Gulliver's Travels (Swift- satirist again!); Similar to the real experiences, perhaps, of ocuntless people, eg (more crudely) Lawrence of Arabia.
Similar, even, for that matter, to the end of the Lord of the Rings (tho' I've never read it)
Besides which, I was responding to someone attacking Voulez-vous coucher avec qui ce soir? as illegal, and advocating replacing it with qui...avec..., which is even worse, I am quite sure.
I have been places where they speak French, I sort of live in one, though I admit my grasp of colloquialisms is probably limited. So you have a point, (I hadn't seen the comment where it was pointed out that we were dealing in slang.)
However, things end up like $#% anything in slang, so it's not much of a defence, or a good form to follow in text. And splitting a preposition from its object is bad form in three of the languages I know, and downright illegal in two -- so I think it's fair of me to guess that this is one of the more broken examples of slang.
Of course, no meaning is lost, so of course you can say this in slang.... It just doesn't strike me as very pretty. I thought I refrained from "major ouch", though...:-)
Actually, se coucher means simply to go to bed, to sleep, in all innocence.
Coucher, non reflexive, means... Well, actually, there's a pretty good English analogue, in terms of origin: Do you want to sleep with me? (As in the obvious/)
It's Avec qui voulez-vous couchez ce soir? or Avec qui est-ce vous voulez coucher ce soir? The phrase Voulez-vous coucher avec qui....etc. is perhaps not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than splitting the preposition from its object, which is a major ouch... (Yes, I do realise my...etc. took up more room than ce soir. What's you point?)
Actually, in the days before I saw the 64mb light and upgraded, I found konq really fast if I ran it out of just twm... faster than in kde...
Re:IE on WinME moderates just fine
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 1
I once (Once! Tell me truly, raven, will I ever again!) had the opportunity of moderating on a 256 MB ram machine... Still couldn't handle it... Didn't actually hose the entire system, but a definite will-not work, can-not use level problem. It's not local. I have this on every one of several machines I've tried...
I see only binaries and headers. This is not open source... The point about open source is that you have the source: you can debug it, use it, change it -- heck, even the ability to recompile on a new platform is worth something. I have none of these with Apple's SDK.
You really have no sense of taste. You disclaim the whole debate about about "freeness" with "blahblahblah", and then make a nasty and ill-founded insinuation... Really. If I had mod points now...
You have a good point about GnuCash. Don't betray it with petty idiocies...
Really, the submitter for this post should have done a better job... Other people have already pointed out that jets have already gone faster...
But this doesn't even sound like it's a jet: (I haven't read the article, but just from the post) It's a (SC?)RAMjet, a very interesting tech, potentially allowing relatively normal (read feasible) hypersonic engines, and moreover the fact they seem to want to fly it normally to high speed before switching over is interesting (though unclear: they could just use the raw power of the rocket), but it's not a jet. It's something potentially better, as a turboSCRAMjet (SCRAMjet+turbine-RAM transition ability) would allow normal acceleration to hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere, something potentially useful for next-generation shuttle type things (ie for flying (most of the way) into orbit.) Especially if we could then just seal the front and make a rocket...
"Drop" from orbit? Think about that for a minute...
You CAN'T "drop" things from orbit. That's the whole point -- things in orbit stay up there. You need to accelerate them back down/rremove orbital velocity...
Please, I don't think that this is an appropriate forum to rail about the right to bear railguns. Let's not let this dicussion get derailed by meaningless railing about railguns regaling us.
... Which are numbered, distributed, and maintained alongside the kernel. They' pratically, *are* part of the kernel, onw which just happens to run in userspace. Please. Give us some real user-level apps... (If, of course, you can...)
MS doesn't need a working product to sell their goods. Trust me. I've used all but 3 of their OSs... (2000, Dos 2 and Dos 1. ME doesn't count...:-)
I've been using 2.4 to some considerable benefit (my APM now works right) and no detriment for some time now. I think the idea that 2.4.1 implies the inadequacy of 2.4 is wrong, or at least oversimplified... 2.4.1, if you read the changefile, largely works on the more experimental aspects (DevFS, LVM, J*-FS); Actually, I heard it suggested that the VM handling went downhill in certain situations... I don't think I beleive it, though...
I know this measure. IT'S NOT SERIOUS! It's done, or was done first, by the Economist, which is an excellent magazine that even has a sense of humour. It's a bit of fun poked at the extreme arbitrariness of the goods chosen for c.o.l. and purchasing power parity comparisons, as well as a reasonablyt consumer-ish product which, while not perfect, works at least for McCulture countries, and gives some idea of the changes. I haven't looked at the details; I think they actually take into account the oddities, and the entire thing is then converted into some sort of index so it can be used for comparing rates of change, but the important thing is, IT'S DONE IN JEST! And the Economist is British, anyways...
I'm writing this in Konqueror from KDE2.0 under RH6.2 (somewhat upgraded -- eg libssl).
I love it. I find it extremely stable, and quite quick. (Much quicker than Mozilla). I've had it crash only once or twice (on some odd JavaScript; eg. that at Britannica.com); and rendering is occaisionally odd, but is almost always beautiful. It seems to do ok on CSS1... Though I haven't tested it in detail. My one compaint about it is that it doesn't really fit into 32mb ram -- when I get the entire thing into ram, it seems (eg. login to twm only and run konqueror from the command line), it is dramatically faster. Usually I wait for my harddrive... It's still faster than Navigator or Mozilla, though...
As for its code, I'm just beginning to read it, and so can't comment (pun, pun..) However, there is a fairly helpful document on the architecture at developer.kde.org...
Right. Is it really only me who finds the idea of the "New Economy" and the "New Old Economy" solving all the woes of the economy for the raven's evermore not only Monty Pythian (New Old New Old New Old Old New Economy) but patently ridiculous?
Why is using the computers and internet magically going to prevent the next recession? Certainly, the fact that there is another industrial revolution going, or at least a new bussiness tool developing, with the potential for high returns, may have helped. But if it wasn't this, it would have been something else. And at the end of the day, we will be left with the same old economic problems/question: how do we prevent the bust after the boom? (aka crash, crisis of oversupply, inflationary crisis (well, sortof), etc.) Economicists had seen these issues before the advent of hydroelectric power. They're a little more fundamental than the medium of my market...
The computers, their development and installation certainly fuel the boom, but how are they going to stop the crash -- there have been technologies of equivalent economic impact in the past.
The one argument I can see being interesting is that computers bring new liquidity to the information market. This approach has promise, and I'd be interested to see it (well) argued; but it runs against my observations. I've seen no argument or evidence so far that it should be a stabilizing influence. If anything, it seems to make the market more volatile, if slightly more responsive to its causative pressures. But if these pressures themselves remain unchanged, why should the market be any safer?
Well, yes, generally, you do have the right to do what you like... Where things get complicated (as usual) is when other people get involved. For example, it's alright to leave the door open, the yard unfenced, etc.; but it has to be clear to other people what you expect of them. If you leave your yard unfenced and unsignposted, and it's in an open area, you can't complain if someone wanders into it. Further, you can be charged with negligence of varying degrees if you help another come to harm, for example, by leaving firearms (barbaric devices! Leave'em to the Army/on the range) lying about or (to borrow a famous example, which I can't remember clearly) build a large pile/pyre of dry hay in hot weather next to someone's house and douse it in paraffin.
Of course, there is obviously some middle ground -- for example, leaving your door open does not prevent the theif from being charged with unlawful entry. Generally (at least in systems derived from Common Law), the test is that of a "reasonable person" -- which is, of course, a tad fuzzy, but it does simplify matters by stating clearly that *everyone* is expected to take "reasonable care", even if they don't happen to be reasonable. (At least, this is the test for negligence -- I think it's also used for things like trespass, and general issues of following the law...)
Anyways, there's my undesrtanding. I, for one, think this is a reasonable test; particularly when extended, as it is, with "common practice", etc. I think the netadmin at a high bandwidth establishment clearly does have a "duty of care" to the public, and should be accountable, and equally, I think if she or he has taken reasonable precautions, they should not be faulted for flaws they could not or did not anticipate. Just as I feel the fool who leaves a gun lying about in the open is somewhat accountable for a murder or accident involving that weapon.
No. A BOFH is the hero of the technological class, reminding everyone that it is, indeed, the ruling class.
He makes life a living hell for everyone who makes his life (and his life style of IT competency/discipline) a living hell. It's really a rehash of the hero myth, in a way, the outlaw figure who does what we all secretly think about. (usually to some lesser degree, but still...) He is a hero of those people who are really technically competent (and oppressed by both the ignorant who pester and the wannabes who irritate -- obviously the latter is not all of the former, in both cases...)
I volounteer-managed a lab (alas! they have since returned to their dark MS ways) for a year, and I defy anyone to claim that some "users" have never irritated them.
Besides, the BOFH only hurts 'users', with the implicit premise that users aren't people:-) Honour among theives...
QN: (I haven't really thought about this in detail; I'm waiting for my print version to arrive; this is out of the darkness of my mind) Well, yes, but I think they're right inasmuch as when.net becomes the primary means of selling windows, it will have subsumed windows, financially, by its success, and technically, by its nature..NET is a new way for MS to dominate the industry; and it is neither os nor office app, so whoever ends up with it will be lucky in the breakup...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe what it's really meant to communicate is the question "How different are we from the apes?"
It's a pretty classic archetype, the hero who returns home, and finds it's no longer really home, that it is all that he despised abroad, and it's essentially the experience that a satirist is trying to give his/her audience: you've read my recasting of things, now how far, really, is your "reality" from it? And the original book was, I am told, a satire of sorts (not in the funny sense). Similar idea to the soldier who returns home victorious, only to be feared for his/her murderousness (seen, iirc, in this movie, when one of the humans shies away from an ape who just defended him); Similar, I think, to some of the sentiments in Gulliver's Travels (Swift- satirist again!); Similar to the real experiences, perhaps, of ocuntless people, eg (more crudely) Lawrence of Arabia.
Similar, even, for that matter, to the end of the Lord of the Rings (tho' I've never read it)
However, things end up like $#% anything in slang, so it's not much of a defence, or a good form to follow in text. And splitting a preposition from its object is bad form in three of the languages I know, and downright illegal in two -- so I think it's fair of me to guess that this is one of the more broken examples of slang.
Of course, no meaning is lost, so of course you can say this in slang.... It just doesn't strike me as very pretty. I thought I refrained from "major ouch", though... :-)
Coucher, non reflexive, means... Well, actually, there's a pretty good English analogue, in terms of origin: Do you want to sleep with me? (As in the obvious/)
NO!
It's Avec qui voulez-vous couchez ce soir? or Avec qui est-ce vous voulez coucher ce soir? The phrase Voulez-vous coucher avec qui....etc. is perhaps not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than splitting the preposition from its object, which is a major ouch... (Yes, I do realise my ...etc. took up more room than ce soir. What's you point?)
And note the subtle meaning difference between the reflexive and non-reflexive forms of the verb "coucher"
This was, I think 98SE with IE 5.something, and iirc there was Word 2000 and the rest of Office was 97...
You have a good point about GnuCash. Don't betray it with petty idiocies...
But this doesn't even sound like it's a jet: (I haven't read the article, but just from the post) It's a (SC?)RAMjet, a very interesting tech, potentially allowing relatively normal (read feasible) hypersonic engines, and moreover the fact they seem to want to fly it normally to high speed before switching over is interesting (though unclear: they could just use the raw power of the rocket), but it's not a jet. It's something potentially better, as a turboSCRAMjet (SCRAMjet+turbine-RAM transition ability) would allow normal acceleration to hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere, something potentially useful for next-generation shuttle type things (ie for flying (most of the way) into orbit.) Especially if we could then just seal the front and make a rocket...
You CAN'T "drop" things from orbit. That's the whole point -- things in orbit stay up there. You need to accelerate them back down/rremove orbital velocity...
MS doesn't need a working product to sell their goods. Trust me. I've used all but 3 of their OSs... (2000, Dos 2 and Dos 1. ME doesn't count... :-)
I've been using 2.4 to some considerable benefit (my APM now works right) and no detriment for some time now. I think the idea that 2.4.1 implies the inadequacy of 2.4 is wrong, or at least oversimplified... 2.4.1, if you read the changefile, largely works on the more experimental aspects (DevFS, LVM, J*-FS); Actually, I heard it suggested that the VM handling went downhill in certain situations... I don't think I beleive it, though...
I love it. I find it extremely stable, and quite quick. (Much quicker than Mozilla). I've had it crash only once or twice (on some odd JavaScript; eg. that at Britannica.com); and rendering is occaisionally odd, but is almost always beautiful. It seems to do ok on CSS1... Though I haven't tested it in detail. My one compaint about it is that it doesn't really fit into 32mb ram -- when I get the entire thing into ram, it seems (eg. login to twm only and run konqueror from the command line), it is dramatically faster. Usually I wait for my harddrive... It's still faster than Navigator or Mozilla, though...
As for its code, I'm just beginning to read it, and so can't comment (pun, pun..) However, there is a fairly helpful document on the architecture at developer.kde.org...
Why is using the computers and internet magically going to prevent the next recession? Certainly, the fact that there is another industrial revolution going, or at least a new bussiness tool developing, with the potential for high returns, may have helped. But if it wasn't this, it would have been something else. And at the end of the day, we will be left with the same old economic problems/question: how do we prevent the bust after the boom? (aka crash, crisis of oversupply, inflationary crisis (well, sortof), etc.) Economicists had seen these issues before the advent of hydroelectric power. They're a little more fundamental than the medium of my market...
The computers, their development and installation certainly fuel the boom, but how are they going to stop the crash -- there have been technologies of equivalent economic impact in the past.
The one argument I can see being interesting is that computers bring new liquidity to the information market. This approach has promise, and I'd be interested to see it (well) argued; but it runs against my observations. I've seen no argument or evidence so far that it should be a stabilizing influence. If anything, it seems to make the market more volatile, if slightly more responsive to its causative pressures. But if these pressures themselves remain unchanged, why should the market be any safer?
Of course, there is obviously some middle ground -- for example, leaving your door open does not prevent the theif from being charged with unlawful entry. Generally (at least in systems derived from Common Law), the test is that of a "reasonable person" -- which is, of course, a tad fuzzy, but it does simplify matters by stating clearly that *everyone* is expected to take "reasonable care", even if they don't happen to be reasonable. (At least, this is the test for negligence -- I think it's also used for things like trespass, and general issues of following the law...)
Anyways, there's my undesrtanding. I, for one, think this is a reasonable test; particularly when extended, as it is, with "common practice", etc. I think the netadmin at a high bandwidth establishment clearly does have a "duty of care" to the public, and should be accountable, and equally, I think if she or he has taken reasonable precautions, they should not be faulted for flaws they could not or did not anticipate. Just as I feel the fool who leaves a gun lying about in the open is somewhat accountable for a murder or accident involving that weapon.
Hmm, I'm getting that -2250 secs. thing, too...
He makes life a living hell for everyone who makes his life (and his life style of IT competency/discipline) a living hell. It's really a rehash of the hero myth, in a way, the outlaw figure who does what we all secretly think about. (usually to some lesser degree, but still...) He is a hero of those people who are really technically competent (and oppressed by both the ignorant who pester and the wannabes who irritate -- obviously the latter is not all of the former, in both cases...)
I volounteer-managed a lab (alas! they have since returned to their dark MS ways) for a year, and I defy anyone to claim that some "users" have never irritated them.
Besides, the BOFH only hurts 'users', with the implicit premise that users aren't people :-) Honour among theives...
2.4.0 (BTW, it's great, tho' LVM won't compile as a module)!
ipfilters (?) -- unless you compile in ipchains support...
Shame school's just restarted, I could do with some time to set up the new firewall system...