You are using anjuta-0.1.6, That's a very bad bug in that release. Get anjuta-0.1.7 which will work properly.
So I wrote him back after trying that. Even with 0.1.9
> I'm running Mandrake 8, and I can now generate projects. I cannot build
> them,
> because it keeps looking I assume for header files it can't find. I've
> installed
> glademm, gtkmm, gnomemm and the like...
>
> I assume that the makefile doesn't add the gnomemm, etc. bits into the
> configuration file
> it does gnome-config --cflags but doesn't add gnomemm etc. after it.
>
> Is there some issue with the way my configuration is set up?
Well, it seems that the c++ buld files for gnomemm and gtkmm is not being generated properly. I have not done anything in gnomemm and gtkmm, so, I am helpless here. The gnomemm and gtkmm support was added by Johannes Schmid . I hope he is around to help us resolve this.
Herr Schmid never answered. And three releases later, even the most basic project won't build. I give up.
RE: Care to elaborate on your problem ? I assure you that we try to answer as many user queries as possible.
Maybe I was talking to the wrong guy. I sent my emails to the guy who is listed as the prime developer, who said that gnomemm support was done by someone else, maybe it would be fixed in 1.9, maybe it's a Mandrake issue, etc. etc. etc.
The documentation assumes everything works right. Someone really should take the trouble to write up what's going on under the hood for debugging purposes. I'd do it, but I'm not conversant enough with the way Anjuta sets up its build.
RE: Please join Anjuta-List and post your problem there.
I'm not interested in joining a list and sifting through 300 mails a day just to get an answer to one question. Here's the downside to Open Source.
RE: There is also a bug tracking mechanism available which is regularly monitored - you might file a bug there with full details.
Real simple. Install Anjuta 1.9 on a Mandrake 8.1 machine. Run the wizard to generate anything but a simple console program. Compile. See tons of errors. Write the developers. Get no response. Realise based on one feedback that a version went out without any kind of error checking (hence fix in 1.9)
Eventually, have conversation on Slashdot about it not working, and be invited to submit a bug report to a list.
RE: You might also consider downloading the nightly CVS tarball available from the website [sf.net] and building it - to see if your problems have been addressed there.
Why not just try what I suggest and see why it doesn't work? Simple, really.
Problem is, it doesn't work. Try installing it on a Mandrake system, then building even the simplest project. It barfs all over the place.
I tried asking the developers for assistance as to why nothing would freakin' build. Or any clue as to how to use Glade with it - and received NO REPLY.
Any websites out there as to how to get Anjuta to actually WORK?
RE: You deny not only the evolution of language but also social attitudes. I built a sentence in the most socially sentive and least clumsy way I could
Evolution? Excuse me? Could you please explain to me why misusing words is "evolution of a language"? I don't give a rat's ass what your "social attitudes" are, don't use "they" in conjunction with "one". I don't care how "socially just" it is, it is WRONG. There are other alternatives that are just as non-clumsy. The pervading social attitude is that English is meant to be trampled all over, and if you're functionally illiterate (e.g. "I be" rather than "I am" or using apostrophe s to denote the plural) you can justify your ignorance by claiming that it's progressive, politically correct, or "an evolution of language".
RE: Finally, please don't compare my socially progressive structure to the mis-use of the apostrophe. Just don't.
Of course I can. They're both wrong; and, as usual, there are folks who claim that their bad grammar is actually something else.
RE: No reason; there's just no move to change English in that direction.
Yes, there is. It's offensive to African American people of colour, who are holding on to cultural values of an Afro-Asiatic series of languages crushed by the oppressive WHITE boot of EVIL WHITE EUROPEAN COLONIALISM etc. to say that it is wrong to say "I is" or "I be" instead of "I am". No word of a lie, Jack. They call it "Ebonics".
RE: Saying that the third person generic-human singular pronoun is the same as the third person human plural pronoun
Uh, you've lost me there. "One" is third person singular, as is "he". Where does "third person singular = third person singular" come in? Using "they" and "one" together is saying that singular = plural.
RE: Yes, of course. You're attacking them, not their argument.
Their argument, then, is meaningless. Grammar is grammar, and there is an acceptable alternative to deciding to change number and tense rules.
RE: What he should have said - and maybe did say, but there's many that would say that he left out the first a
He either flubbed his line, or actually said it, but the first "a" was lost in transmission. That was how it was scripted.
RE: Since man is undeniably male here, the parellel structure would indeed lead people to the conclusion that mankind is implying maleness, too.
Even the term "human" contains the word "man". Listen, I couldn't care less one bit about the change from, say, the "Museum of Man" to the "Museum of Civilisation" - or "Man In Society" as a course in high school to "Society: Challenge And Change". But I do object to the idea that there's no difference between singular and plural.
RE: "mankind" brings different images than "humanity".
There are those who would scold you for saying "human".
RE: What is the big deal about one minor grammatical change? Grammatical rules aren't going to hell; they're simply being changed in a minor way.
It's a big deal because it's a fundamental idea in English grammar that somewhere, somehow, nouns should be in accord with verbs and other related nouns. If we're going to say that plural can be the same as singular, then why not just go the whole hog and say "I is" is perfectly acceptable because language is mutable and besides we're respecting different cultures, here, etc. bleat bleat bleat.
RE: Yes, they are. It's clear your problem is more with those pushing this change rather then with any problem inherant in this change itself.
Nope. Just trying to show how ridiculous it sounds. Calling me some kind of penis-wielding, testocentric phallocrat because I say "human" or "he" is somehow OK, but it is an ad hominem attack to suggest that the lunatic fringe that want English re-tailored to their particular prejudices aren't a load of wackos?
RE: Correctness, in languages, is defined by usage. Or do you still use thou and thine?
From time to time, I do. And "wherefore" as well. I'm one of the few people on this planet that seems to remember that it isn't Shakespearian English for "where" and therefore the tired joke "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo." "Down here, Juliet, ya blind?" is nonsensical.
RE: Nice use of charged language there.
Well, the whole PC backlash crap insists that using the term "mailman" or "he" is charged language to begin with. Should we start calling people in charge personagers? Where does it end?
RE: Personally, I'm not a fan of feminism. But when someone uses the word "he", I'm inclined to think of the antecedent as male. "He" is not gender-neutral, and never has been; at times, it has been acceptable to use the male pronoun when referring to a female.
"He" isn't gender-neutral: however, its usage can be. I don't care if you want to reverse the situation and use "she" instead. That would be correct English. In fact, I've read several books that use "she" as a catch-all term for both sexes in such instances that would warrant a word to match "anyone", "everyone", etc. and not cared about it one whit.
RE: There's a difference. The use of "they" or "humanity" instead of "he" or "mankind" implies less about the gender of what you're talking about.
When Neil Armstrong said (excuse the misquote - don't remember it exactly) "one step for man, one giant leap for mankind" was he referring only to those humans that possess external genitals?
RE: How does an internal change make any more mongrealized that it already is?
The use of different words is fine, and more than acceptable. In fact, English is notorious for taking nouns from other cultures and languages, for example "pukka", "cul-de-sac", etc. However, there is a marked difference between using a new term for something and deciding that grammatical rules can go to hell because it might offend the hairy legged clumpy booted Sistren of the Apocalypse ("Stereotypes... the language of hate... etc"). There is worse out there, though: the horrid practice of "verbing" practiced by the marketing droids at any given firm.
Do you know what? I am glad you posted this drivel. It's given me the opportunity to draw this back to the original thread without risking a loss of karma due to offtopic (though the spectre of "troll" still lingers).
Many have commented here about people being blocked access to science because of politics (e.g. "people should only learn about creationism", "it'd be a lot easier if we just agreed PI was 4", etc). It seems that your homothropic gang of "the usual suspects" wants to impose its own twisted views on language.
I took the liberty of following your second link. I am no more going to say "ey spoke to Sair Thatcher" (rather than "they spoke to Mrs. Thatcher") than I am to go the whole hog and start writing like Genesis P-Orridge.
You're quoting your own nonsense as proof? Please go away.
I'll use the term human, mankind, etc. as I see fit, with the justification being that it is proper English.
Call me a patriarchal phallocrat agent of the testocracy, but I'm not going to start using workperson's compensation, mynholes, wimmin, mynipulation, pre-mynstrual tension, etc. just to satisfy a bunch of crystal gazing, macrobiotic berry nibblers who wouldn't recognise the basics of grammar if they ganged up and assaulted them.
I don't condone the use of "I be dat" either, even though I'm supposed to because it's "Ebonics" instead of "wrong". Does that make me a racist?
RE: In modern English, it is becoming increasingly accepted to use "their" as a third person singular pronoun.
However, it must be stated that it isn't correct English. I cringe at this. Will the increasingly used and modern spelling mistake of using "apostrophe s" to denote the plural become "accepted English" as well? I give as an example the illiterate scrawl "Please dont (sic) read the magazine's (sic)" I saw in a book store, of all places, yesterday.
The reason this mistake is being made is political correctness. Noone used to think you were a testostocratic, phallocentric oppressor for using terms like mankind, human, or the formerly gender-neutral pronoun "he".
I haven't changed anything in the sentence, by the way, it used to be accepted practice to consider he, him, and his as potentially applying to both sexes.
If you really want to neuter the language, then, change the sentence to "someone who cannot program his or her VCR" or "someone who cannot program one's VCR" or even "someone who cannot program a VCR." However, throwing in the plural as a singular simply because you're trying to be POLITICALLY CORRECT is nothing more than the same kind of mongrelisation that led to "ain't" in the US and "wiv'nt" in England.
RE: Fine, you try explaining quantum theory to someone who can't program their VCR
Try explaining English grammar to some people.
It should be
"Some one who can not program his VCR."
Note that you're literally saying that ONE is plural. Maybe this particular ONE has MPD? The problem is, probably, that your education focussed on science stuff and geeky things at the expense of English. I know of many straight A math/science students who can't write a simple sentence using a verb, a noun, and proper punctuation.
I'm not trying to troll per se, just pointing out that you can argue this point about ANY subject. People tend to forget that science guys don't usually study much about art or history - history buffs argue the importance of history but duck math, etc. We need to hold people who are Renaissance men up as models - the Da Vincis of this world. Da Vinci contributed to art, science, and engineering, and was in such good shape that he could straighten an iron horseshoe with his bare hands. I'll bet you he knew classics and history too.
Oh, and by the way, union or no union, those Harvardosi are there. I'd rather just negotiate as best as I can and deal with the issues rather than entrust that to some self-serving middlemen, and STILL have the Harvardosi AND a bunch of socialist fat throwback backslapper mafia types on my case.
I CAN choose to tell the Harvardosi to shag off and work for someone else. I cannot, however, work in union-ridden industries without holding a union card, paying union taxes, and taking the short end of the stick all the time because the union just exists to pad those at the top.
No, it's cause they're not STUPID or COMMUNIST enough to entrust their negotiation of salaries, etc. to a bunch of self-serving, pocket-lining mafiosi who ALWAYS run a sector into the ground.
RE: I'll do my best to ignore the flamebait in your response...
But you won't succeed (see below)
RE: You need to look at who sponsored the studies you are referring to.
You don't. All you need to do is look at the science. And strangely enough, even back in the 20s, weight trainers realised if they upped their protein intake, they'd also up their body size. Grimek et. al. did this. They drank gallons of milk, ate tons of meat and fish, and bulked up.
RE:Since you don't cite a paticular source,
Because I don't have the time or trouble to remember it. It wasn't the egg council in the 20s, though.
RE: In fact, I am a 150#,
That's proved vegan=anemic stick boy better than I ever could
RE: vegan triathlete; in the summer I generally bike 10-30 miles a day, swim 1/2-1 mile every other day, run 5 miles every other day, as well as basic weight training every day for my upper body.
Dutch, you're not a hardcore weight trainer. You're mostly an ENDURANCE ATHLETE. And guess what? You guys need a more vegetable based diet. Vegetarians do WAY better in endurance sport. But weightlifting, powerlifting etc is NOT an endurace sport.
RE: Most people do not need really high intake levels of protein.
Nor did I say they did.
RE: Most people who want to increase their protein intake by 30% generally increase the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. If a supposed study suggests that people need a 30% increase in their protein intake, who benefits? The meat, dairy and egg industries benefit because people go out and buy 30% more of their products then before.
Actually, I get most of my protein from supplements. RE: If a study is published by a research group funded and supported by these industries, it becomes very difficult to believe that the study does not have an inherent bias.
Look up "ad hominem". Then get back to me. RE: And as I said before, you can derive any and all of these amino acids from plant sources.
Or you can just eat meat like a normal person.
RE:The research on rats simply doesn't transfer to humans.
Gosh, then I guess all animal testing is pointless!
RE: Classic food combinations include: rice and beans, tortilla and beans, bulgar wheat and garbanzo beans, pita bread with hummus (made from garbanzo beans), rice chapatis with dal (lentils), soy with rice, soy with millet, and soy with barley. Instead of eating a steak, have two bean burritos.
I have cubicle mates, a life, and that's too much starch. I have type O blood, that stuff makes me ill.
RE: Furthermore, it's just not healthy to eat a steak and nothing else. This is especially true of someone with an active lifestyle. Amino acids should not be your only concern. A person also needs to be heavily concerned with their intake of other nutrients: Vitamin A, Vitamin C, the Vitamin B complex, Calcium, Iron, etc. Eating a steak does not provide you with necessary levels of all of these nutrients.
I didn't say that either.
RE: I don't know if you were abused or neglected as a child or if you have difficulty satisfying your partner sexually,
RE: Third, the idea that you need to consume 1+ grams of protein per pound of bodyweight to maintain weight and thrive is a myth.
Well, if you sit around all day doing nothing, sure. But WEIGHT TRAINING ATHLETES participating in STRENUOUS EXERCISE have been shown in RECENT studies to need AT LEAST 1g/1lb bodyweight PER DIEM.
RE: scientific calculations fall within the range of "2.5% of our total daily calories up to a high estimate of over 8%" (Robbins 173). Who benefits from higher estimates of protein needs?
Weightlifters, powerlifters, football players, manual laborers.... people who don't sit around on hemp mats all day living off rice and ambient moisture in the air.
RE:Fourth, meat is far from being the only source of large amounts of protein.
I agree. I prefer fish. It's leaner. And chicken. And whey protein, which is 92% protein. http://www.proteinfactory.com
RE: Spinach, for example, provides 49% of its calories from protein.
Excellent! But you have to understand that just saying "protein" isn't enough. There are lots of amino acids, and you have to have them all.
RE: At this point, it truly isn't known whether or not these theories hold true for humans, since most of the related research has been funded by the meat/dairy industries.
So what? So long as the research is sound...
RE: That may be true fom some soy protein supplements, but there is absolutely no basis for that when examining natural plant sources. In "Diet for a Small Planet", Francis Moore Lappe demonstrated that eating combinations of vegetables can easily provide the same pattern of amino acids as found in animal sources.
I don't have the time and energy to go out and eat fifty kinds of bean. A steak tastes better, is more filling, provides heme iron, balanced amino acid profiles...
RE:Frankly, I'm not sure where you got this idea.
Research. That's why soy protein is out of favor with weightlifters. They're trying to max testosterone and be manly, not mince around with tons more estrogen in their systems. Maybe that's why vegans are more in touch with their feelings, and don't know how to use a car in reverse gear.
RE: Indeed, it is very healthy for women to consume and has been shown to help reduce the risks of breast and cervical cancer,
So's the birth control pill, which is pure estrogen and progesterone.
Um, dunno about you, but I lift weights. I enjoy lifting large, heavy things. And in order to do so and thrive, I need to consume 1+g of protein per day per pound of bodyweight. That as it stands right now is 250g/day.
Notwithstanding the fact that soy protein has a crap amino acid balance, and the fact that in order to get any reasonable amount of protein I'd have to become one of those guys who can eat 50 hot dogs in 5 minutes to cram that much bean into my face per meal, I am NOT eating that much ESTROGENIC substance. That's right, ESTROGENIC.
Meat, on the other hand, builds heme levels, red blood, you know, the kind that gives you a real man's build.
So carry on with your tofu ice cream or whatever. Just by breathing, you're killing billions of bacteria. You can't win. As far as I am concerned, it is evil to cause suffering to an animal. But rearing it, caring for it, and then SUDDENLY killing it is not evil.
Harvard professor and medical dude showed that dietary cholestorol is negligible. The real problem is that the body tries to plug its own leaks if it's vitamin deficient.
So yeah, you can eat that steak.
Besides, we want our astronauts to be the kind of guys who are tough and ready to get the job done, not some anemic sandal-wearing pond scum drinkers.
First the doctors, then the nurses, then the software engineers, now the North Pole.
Looks like EVERYONE who can is leaving Canada.
Predictably, Jean Chretien denies that anything is wrong in any way whatsoever, and that more poles are MOVING to Canada than are leaving, resulting in a net pole gain.
Of course, the Canadian Post Office are probably relieved by this - in a few years letters addressed to "Santa Claus" will no longer go to Canada Post - they'll be Siberia's problem. The Union is overjoyed! Less work! But they'll still strike for more money, mind.
A monopoly in "Canaduh". Above any kind of boycott or reprisal. Basically, fly with us, or walk. And if you don't like our attitude, eff you. Stop flying? We'll just get the government to tax your ass harder to pay for all our surly, incompetent staff.
ENGINEERING MANAGER: "Ok, the suit resists bullets, mortar fire, acid, cold, heat, biological weaponry, nerve gas and electrical discharge. On to the final test."
ENGINEER: "Ok, boss."
(Female soldier steps forward. Her eyes are particularly large. Her hair is a strange lemon yellow color)
ENGINEERING MANAGER: "Release the tentacles!"
ENGINEER: "Yes, sir!"
(Tentacles emerge from the ground. The suit rips into fifty million pieces, each one strangely hovering in mid-air)
The ENGINEERING MANAGER starts slamming his fist against the desk.
ENGINEERING MANAGER: "Back to the drawing board. Private. Go rescue the recruit."
ENGINEER: (agog, ducking various flying fluids) "With all due respect, you first, sir."
Slashdot Mirror
From my exchange with Naba Kumar:
> If I try generating any other type of project
>
> It keeps complaining there is no configure.in
> Autogen doesn't work either.
>
> What gives?
You are using anjuta-0.1.6, That's a very bad bug in that release. Get
anjuta-0.1.7 which will work properly.
So I wrote him back after trying that. Even with 0.1.9
> I'm running Mandrake 8, and I can now generate projects. I cannot build
> them,
> because it keeps looking I assume for header files it can't find. I've
> installed
> glademm, gtkmm, gnomemm and the like...
>
> I assume that the makefile doesn't add the gnomemm, etc. bits into the
> configuration file
> it does gnome-config --cflags but doesn't add gnomemm etc. after it.
>
> Is there some issue with the way my configuration is set up?
Well, it seems that the c++ buld files for gnomemm and gtkmm is not
being generated properly. I have not done anything in gnomemm and gtkmm,
so, I am helpless here. The gnomemm and gtkmm support was added by
Johannes Schmid . I hope he is around to help us
resolve this.
Herr Schmid never answered. And three releases later, even the most basic project won't build.
I give up.
RE: Care to elaborate on your problem ? I assure you that we try to answer as many user queries as possible.
Maybe I was talking to the wrong guy. I sent my emails to the guy who is listed as the prime developer, who said that gnomemm support was done by someone else, maybe it would be fixed in 1.9, maybe it's a Mandrake issue, etc. etc. etc.
The documentation assumes everything works right. Someone really should take the trouble to write up what's going on under the hood for debugging purposes. I'd do it, but I'm not conversant enough with the way Anjuta sets up its build.
RE: Please join Anjuta-List and post your problem there.
I'm not interested in joining a list and sifting through 300 mails a day just to get an answer to one question. Here's the downside to Open Source.
RE: There is also a bug tracking mechanism available which is regularly monitored - you might file a bug there with full details.
Real simple. Install Anjuta 1.9 on a Mandrake 8.1 machine. Run the wizard to generate anything but a simple console program. Compile. See tons of errors. Write the developers. Get no response. Realise based on one feedback that a version went out without any kind of error checking (hence fix in 1.9)
Eventually, have conversation on Slashdot about it not working, and be invited to submit a bug report to a list.
RE: You might also consider downloading the nightly CVS tarball available from the website [sf.net] and building it - to see if your problems have been addressed there.
Why not just try what I suggest and see why it doesn't work? Simple, really.
Problem is, it doesn't work. Try installing it on a Mandrake system, then building even the simplest project. It barfs all over the place.
I tried asking the developers for assistance as to why nothing would freakin' build. Or any clue as to how to use Glade with it - and received NO REPLY.
Any websites out there as to how to get Anjuta to actually WORK?
RE: You have the right to work, but for the work's sake only. You have no right to the fruits of work. --Bhagavad Gita
Whoever wrote the Bhagavad Gita was obviously a communist.
RE: You deny not only the evolution of language but also social attitudes. I built a sentence in the most socially sentive and least clumsy way I could
Evolution? Excuse me? Could you please explain to me why misusing words is "evolution of a language"? I don't give a rat's ass what your "social attitudes" are, don't use "they" in conjunction with "one". I don't care how "socially just" it is, it is WRONG. There are other alternatives that are just as non-clumsy.
The pervading social attitude is that English is meant to be trampled all over, and if you're functionally illiterate (e.g. "I be" rather than "I am" or using apostrophe s to denote the plural) you can justify your ignorance by claiming that it's progressive, politically correct, or "an evolution of language".
RE: Finally, please don't compare my socially progressive structure to the mis-use of the apostrophe. Just don't.
Of course I can. They're both wrong; and, as usual, there are folks who claim that their bad grammar is actually something else.
RE: No reason; there's just no move to change English in that direction.
Yes, there is. It's offensive to African American people of colour, who are holding on to cultural values of an Afro-Asiatic series of languages crushed by the oppressive WHITE boot of EVIL WHITE EUROPEAN COLONIALISM etc. to say that it is wrong to say "I is" or "I be" instead of "I am". No word of a lie, Jack. They call it "Ebonics".
RE: Saying that the third person generic-human singular pronoun is the same as the third person human plural pronoun
Uh, you've lost me there. "One" is third person singular, as is "he". Where does "third person singular = third person singular" come in? Using "they" and "one" together is saying that singular = plural.
RE: Yes, of course. You're attacking them, not their argument.
Their argument, then, is meaningless. Grammar is grammar, and there is an acceptable alternative to deciding to change number and tense rules.
RE: What he should have said - and maybe did say, but there's many that would say that he left out the first a
He either flubbed his line, or actually said it, but the first "a" was lost in transmission. That was how it was scripted.
RE: Since man is undeniably male here, the parellel structure would indeed lead people to the conclusion that mankind is implying maleness, too.
Even the term "human" contains the word "man". Listen, I couldn't care less one bit about the change from, say, the "Museum of Man" to the "Museum of Civilisation" - or "Man In Society" as a course in high school to "Society: Challenge And Change". But I do object to the idea that there's no difference between singular and plural.
RE: "mankind" brings different images than "humanity".
There are those who would scold you for saying "human".
RE: What is the big deal about one minor grammatical change? Grammatical rules aren't going to hell; they're simply being changed in a minor way.
It's a big deal because it's a fundamental idea in English grammar that somewhere, somehow, nouns should be in accord with verbs and other related nouns. If we're going to say that plural can be the same as singular, then why not just go the whole hog and say "I is" is perfectly acceptable because language is mutable and besides we're respecting different cultures, here, etc. bleat bleat bleat.
RE: Yes, they are. It's clear your problem is more with those pushing this change rather then with any problem inherant in this change itself.
Nope. Just trying to show how ridiculous it sounds. Calling me some kind of penis-wielding, testocentric phallocrat because I say "human" or "he" is somehow OK, but it is an ad hominem attack to suggest that the lunatic fringe that want English re-tailored to their particular prejudices aren't a load of wackos?
RE: Correctness, in languages, is defined by usage. Or do you still use thou and thine?
From time to time, I do. And "wherefore" as well. I'm one of the few people on this planet that seems to remember that it isn't Shakespearian English for "where" and therefore the tired joke "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo." "Down here, Juliet, ya blind?" is nonsensical.
RE: Nice use of charged language there.
Well, the whole PC backlash crap insists that using the term "mailman" or "he" is charged language to begin with. Should we start calling people in charge personagers? Where does it end?
RE: Personally, I'm not a fan of feminism. But when someone uses the word "he", I'm inclined to think of the antecedent as male. "He" is not gender-neutral, and never has been; at times, it has been acceptable to use the male pronoun when referring to a female.
"He" isn't gender-neutral: however, its usage can be. I don't care if you want to reverse the situation and use "she" instead. That would be correct English. In fact, I've read several books that use "she" as a catch-all term for both sexes in such instances that would warrant a word to match "anyone", "everyone", etc. and not cared about it one whit.
RE: There's a difference. The use of "they" or "humanity" instead of "he" or "mankind" implies less about the gender of what you're talking about.
When Neil Armstrong said (excuse the misquote - don't remember it exactly) "one step for man, one giant leap for mankind" was he referring only to those humans that possess external genitals?
RE: How does an internal change make any more mongrealized that it already is?
The use of different words is fine, and more than acceptable. In fact, English is notorious for taking nouns from other cultures and languages, for example "pukka", "cul-de-sac", etc. However, there is a marked difference between using a new term for something and deciding that grammatical rules can go to hell because it might offend the hairy legged clumpy booted Sistren of the Apocalypse ("Stereotypes... the language of hate... etc"). There is worse out there, though: the horrid practice of "verbing" practiced by the marketing droids at any given firm.
Do you know what? I am glad you posted this drivel. It's given me the opportunity to draw this back to the original thread without risking a loss of karma due to offtopic (though the spectre of "troll" still lingers).
Many have commented here about people being blocked access to science because of politics (e.g. "people should only learn about creationism", "it'd be a lot easier if we just agreed PI was 4", etc). It seems that your homothropic gang of "the usual suspects" wants to impose its own twisted views on language.
I took the liberty of following your second link. I am no more going to say "ey spoke to Sair Thatcher" (rather than "they spoke to Mrs. Thatcher") than I am to go the whole hog and start writing like Genesis P-Orridge.
You're quoting your own nonsense as proof? Please go away.
I'll use the term human, mankind, etc. as I see fit, with the justification being that it is proper English.
Call me a patriarchal phallocrat agent of the testocracy, but I'm not going to start using workperson's compensation, mynholes, wimmin, mynipulation, pre-mynstrual tension, etc. just to satisfy a bunch of crystal gazing, macrobiotic berry nibblers who wouldn't recognise the basics of grammar if they ganged up and assaulted them.
I don't condone the use of "I be dat" either, even though I'm supposed to because it's "Ebonics" instead of "wrong".
Does that make me a racist?
RE: In modern English, it is becoming increasingly accepted to use "their" as a third person singular pronoun.
However, it must be stated that it isn't correct English. I cringe at this. Will the increasingly used and modern spelling mistake of using "apostrophe s" to denote the plural become "accepted English" as well? I give as an example the illiterate scrawl "Please dont (sic) read the magazine's (sic)" I saw in a book store, of all places, yesterday.
The reason this mistake is being made is political correctness. Noone used to think you were a testostocratic, phallocentric oppressor for using terms like mankind, human, or the formerly gender-neutral pronoun "he".
I haven't changed anything in the sentence, by the way, it used to be accepted practice to consider he, him, and his as potentially applying to both sexes.
If you really want to neuter the language, then, change the sentence to "someone who cannot program his or her VCR" or "someone who cannot program one's VCR" or even "someone who cannot program a VCR." However, throwing in the plural as a singular simply because you're trying to be POLITICALLY CORRECT is nothing more than the same kind of mongrelisation that led to "ain't" in the US and "wiv'nt" in England.
Maybe someone should try explaining HTML to me. :)
Sorry about that.
RE: Fine, you try explaining quantum theory to someone who can't program their VCR
Try explaining English grammar to some people.
It should be
"Some one who can not program his VCR."
Note that you're literally saying that ONE is plural. Maybe this particular ONE has MPD? The problem is, probably, that your education focussed on science stuff and geeky things at the expense of English. I know of many straight A math/science students who can't write a simple sentence using a verb, a noun, and proper punctuation.
I'm not trying to troll per se, just pointing out that you can argue this point about ANY subject. People tend to forget that science guys don't usually study much about art or history - history buffs argue the importance of history but duck math, etc. We need to hold people who are Renaissance men up as models - the Da Vincis of this world. Da Vinci contributed to art, science, and engineering, and was in such good shape that he could straighten an iron horseshoe with his bare hands. I'll bet you he knew classics and history too.
Oh, and by the way, union or no union, those Harvardosi are there. I'd rather just negotiate as best as I can and deal with the issues rather than entrust that to some self-serving middlemen, and STILL have the Harvardosi AND a bunch of socialist fat throwback backslapper mafia types on my case.
I CAN choose to tell the Harvardosi to shag off and work for someone else. I cannot, however, work in union-ridden industries without holding a union card, paying union taxes, and taking the short end of the stick all the time because the union just exists to pad those at the top.
No, it's cause they're not STUPID or COMMUNIST
enough to entrust their negotiation of salaries,
etc. to a bunch of self-serving, pocket-lining
mafiosi who ALWAYS run a sector into the ground.
RE: I'll do my best to ignore the flamebait in your response...
:) (see above)
But you won't succeed (see below)
RE: You need to look at who sponsored the studies you are referring to.
You don't. All you need to do is look at the science. And strangely enough, even back in the 20s, weight trainers realised if they upped their protein intake, they'd also up their body size. Grimek et. al. did this. They drank gallons of milk, ate tons of meat and fish, and bulked up.
RE:Since you don't cite a paticular source,
Because I don't have the time or trouble to remember it. It wasn't the egg council in the 20s, though.
RE: In fact, I am a 150#,
That's proved vegan=anemic stick boy better than I ever could
RE: vegan triathlete; in the summer I generally bike 10-30 miles a day, swim 1/2-1 mile every other day, run 5 miles every other day, as well as basic weight training every day for my upper body.
Dutch, you're not a hardcore weight trainer. You're mostly an ENDURANCE ATHLETE. And guess what? You guys need a more vegetable based diet. Vegetarians do WAY better in endurance sport. But weightlifting, powerlifting etc is NOT an endurace sport.
RE: Most people do not need really high intake levels of protein.
Nor did I say they did.
RE: Most people who want to increase their protein intake by 30% generally increase the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. If a supposed study suggests that people need a 30% increase in their protein intake, who benefits? The meat, dairy and egg industries benefit because people go out and buy 30% more of their products then before.
Actually, I get most of my protein from supplements.
RE: If a study is published by a research group funded and supported by these industries, it becomes very difficult to believe that the study does not have an inherent bias.
Look up "ad hominem". Then get back to me.
RE: And as I said before, you can derive any and all of these amino acids from plant sources.
Or you can just eat meat like a normal person.
RE:The research on rats simply doesn't transfer to humans.
Gosh, then I guess all animal testing is pointless!
RE: Classic food combinations include: rice and beans, tortilla and beans, bulgar wheat and garbanzo beans, pita bread with hummus (made from garbanzo beans), rice chapatis with dal (lentils), soy with rice, soy with millet, and soy with barley. Instead of eating a steak, have two bean burritos.
I have cubicle mates, a life, and that's too much starch. I have type O blood, that stuff makes me ill.
RE: Furthermore, it's just not healthy to eat a steak and nothing else. This is especially true of someone with an active lifestyle. Amino acids should not be your only concern. A person also needs to be heavily concerned with their intake of other nutrients: Vitamin A, Vitamin C, the Vitamin B complex, Calcium, Iron, etc. Eating a steak does not provide you with necessary levels of all of these nutrients.
I didn't say that either.
RE: I don't know if you were abused or neglected as a child or if you have difficulty satisfying your partner sexually,
Told you so. I knew it
I'm not trolling you, I'm just curious.
What's your max for the bench press/squat/deadlift/snatch/clean and jerk?
Any other stats?
Interested to hear the result
RE: Third, the idea that you need to consume 1+ grams of protein per pound of bodyweight to maintain weight and thrive is a myth.
Well, if you sit around all day doing nothing, sure. But WEIGHT TRAINING ATHLETES participating in STRENUOUS EXERCISE have been shown in RECENT studies to need AT LEAST 1g/1lb bodyweight PER DIEM.
RE: scientific calculations fall within the range of "2.5% of our total daily calories up to a high estimate of over 8%" (Robbins 173). Who benefits from higher estimates of protein needs?
Weightlifters, powerlifters, football players, manual laborers.... people who don't sit around on hemp mats all day living off rice and ambient moisture in the air.
RE:Fourth, meat is far from being the only source of large amounts of protein.
I agree. I prefer fish. It's leaner. And chicken. And whey protein, which is 92% protein. http://www.proteinfactory.com
RE: Spinach, for example, provides 49% of its calories from protein.
Excellent! But you have to understand that just saying "protein" isn't enough. There are lots of amino acids, and you have to have them all.
RE: At this point, it truly isn't known whether or not these theories hold true for humans, since most of the related research has been funded by the meat/dairy industries.
So what? So long as the research is sound...
RE: That may be true fom some soy protein supplements, but there is absolutely no basis for that when examining natural plant sources.
In "Diet for a Small Planet", Francis Moore Lappe demonstrated that eating combinations of vegetables can easily provide the same pattern of amino acids as found in animal sources.
I don't have the time and energy to go out and eat fifty kinds of bean. A steak tastes better, is more filling, provides heme iron, balanced amino acid profiles...
RE:Frankly, I'm not sure where you got this idea.
Research. That's why soy protein is out of favor with weightlifters. They're trying to max testosterone and be manly, not mince around with tons more estrogen in their systems. Maybe that's why vegans are more in touch with their feelings, and don't know how to use a car in reverse gear.
RE: Indeed, it is very healthy for women to consume and has been shown to help reduce the risks of breast and cervical cancer,
So's the birth control pill, which is pure estrogen and progesterone.
Um, dunno about you, but I lift weights. I enjoy lifting large, heavy things. And in order to do so and thrive, I need to consume 1+g of protein per day per pound of bodyweight. That as it stands right now is 250g/day.
Notwithstanding the fact that soy protein has a crap amino acid balance, and the fact that in order to get any reasonable amount of protein I'd have to become one of those guys who can eat 50 hot dogs in 5 minutes to cram that much bean into my face per meal, I am NOT eating that much ESTROGENIC substance. That's right, ESTROGENIC.
Meat, on the other hand, builds heme levels, red blood, you know, the kind that gives you a real man's build.
So carry on with your tofu ice cream or whatever. Just by breathing, you're killing billions of bacteria. You can't win. As far as I am concerned, it is evil to cause suffering to an animal. But rearing it, caring for it, and then SUDDENLY killing it is not evil.
Harvard professor and medical dude showed that dietary cholestorol is negligible. The real problem is that the body tries to plug its own leaks if it's vitamin deficient.
So yeah, you can eat that steak.
Besides, we want our astronauts to be the kind of guys who are tough and ready to get the job done, not some anemic sandal-wearing pond scum drinkers.
First the doctors, then the nurses, then the software engineers, now the North Pole.
Looks like EVERYONE who can is leaving Canada.
Predictably, Jean Chretien denies that anything is wrong in any way whatsoever, and that more poles are MOVING to Canada than are leaving, resulting in a net pole gain.
Of course, the Canadian Post Office are probably relieved by this - in a few years letters addressed to "Santa Claus" will no longer go to Canada Post - they'll be Siberia's problem. The Union is overjoyed! Less work! But they'll still strike for more money, mind.
Let me ask you this question. Who in their RIGHT MIND would travel to St. John's, Nfld. to perform a terrorist act there?
I mean, these guys are from a godforsaken desert full of rocks, but come on. There's no way they'd even bother with St. John's.
I think Canada's got another think coming if it thinks it's under any threat from anyone.
A monopoly in "Canaduh". Above any kind of boycott or reprisal. Basically, fly with us, or walk. And if you don't like our attitude, eff you. Stop flying? We'll just get the government to tax your ass harder to pay for all our surly, incompetent staff.
He's lucky they only damaged his implants.
ENGINEERING MANAGER: "Ok, the suit resists bullets, mortar fire, acid, cold, heat, biological weaponry, nerve gas and electrical discharge. On to the final test."
ENGINEER: "Ok, boss."
(Female soldier steps forward. Her eyes are particularly large. Her hair is a strange lemon yellow color)
ENGINEERING MANAGER: "Release the tentacles!"
ENGINEER: "Yes, sir!"
(Tentacles emerge from the ground. The suit rips into fifty million pieces, each one strangely hovering in mid-air)
The ENGINEERING MANAGER starts slamming his fist against the desk.
ENGINEERING MANAGER: "Back to the drawing board. Private. Go rescue the recruit."
ENGINEER: (agog, ducking various flying fluids) "With all due respect, you first, sir."