Well at least its better than the binary shit that office produces now. XML is meant to be readable by human beings and this will at least give us an opportunity to get a nice spec of what the fileformat exactly supports. I wonder if their DTD is available?? Or don't they use one (I think that ms xml parser was non validating but i'm not sure)
Of course with advances in transplantation techniques, it would not necessarily have to be a human body. After all there's already some experimentation going on with pigs hearths and other organs, so why not an entire pig body. Quite a funny idea. I suddenly get these visions of these monty python like creatures (i'm refering to the opening sequence animations).
But even if only human bodies would be possible I don't mind. There's plenty of people dying of braindamage (for instance because of a car crash). While the head in those situation is not much use, the body can still be reused. I have no problem with this. In fact my body is available should such a thing ever happen to me.
Yes why not. Nearly everybody uses office like applications to do stuff like wordprocessing so there's definately an interest to fix bugs and add features. I think suns license is a nice compromise between GPL and propietary software. It allows some freedom to developers without sun losing ownership of their investment. Of course from an opensource perspective things can't be open enough but from Sun's perspective that probably doesn't matter.
Would anybody who's more into licenses then I am comment on what the differences between the two licenses exactly are?
I'll answer that for you: yes. It would not be visble seen from the front (until the car hits you) but it would be visble from say 45 degrees of the traveling direction.
"You don't see two dogs, cat, squirls or monkeys on the side of the road getting each other up the ass"
You're ill informed, probably due to the conservative, inbreeding community you grew up in (which explains your ignorant statement). What you find ethical and moral is your business but please don't spread incorrect information. Homosexual behavior is very characteristics for primates such as the Bonobo monkeys (one of the more intelligent species) who fuck everything that has a hole, preferably several times a day. They also engage in masturbation. So in contrary what you're thinking, homosexual behavior is very natural behavior.
As for the rest of your statement, on behalf of the gay community (I'm not gay myself): Fuck You
I think the technique is already there. In order to use them, there will have to be standardization and new laws. The laws should provide legal status to emails. Right now it is hard to claim things if it is not written down on paper. Digitally signed documents need to be treated in the same manner so we can use them to replace paper contracts and letters.
One major obstacle has been the US position on encryption keys for the past few years. As long as that has not been resolved, it will be hard to get useful standards.
So yes I think email will replace snailmail in the long term. There is no technical issues here and I think laws and standards will show up eventually.
Since I'm not a legal expert nor an encryptionb expert perhaps somebody else can point out if there are any major flaws in my reasoning.
I'm sure the guy did not mean to turn of sound permanently (which would be the case if he did what you suggested). Anyway, even the hassle of pushing the stop buttom to shit up an ad is enough to make the ad annoying.
BTW what has linux got to do with it? I'm sure you don't have this problem in lynx.
good for linux good for borland
on
Delphi for Linux
·
· Score: 1
Right now the only way to write crossplatform code is to use Java (which in many cases is not really an option right now). If Borland somehow manages to make delphi programs cross platform (i.e. you can pick up delphi source and compile it on both linux and windows), that would be a huge gain for the Linux community (more apps) but also for Borland because this will attract loads of new customers (windows programmers who like to create programs for Linux too and Linux programmers who like to create programs for windows too).
lets not forget the fact that they actually had a working JavaOS (proof of concept) It just wasn't marketable but that had nothing to do with performance. I would also like to point out that there are Java environments for palm computers and windows CE machines. Those are machines that are far smaller than the type of machine that the JavaOS was targeting (terminals with a nice processor and some memory).
It seems everytime the word Java is dropped in a story on slashdot there are some persons who triomfantically claim that it will never be as fast as C. Apart from the fact this is irrelevant, I also think it's a false statement. Especially if there is going to be Java optimized hardware (like majc from sun) we might very well see Java programs outperforming the c variant. This is already happening on the serverside with the hotspot VM.
Besides Moore's law as been active ever since Java was introduced in 1995. Computers are about 4 times as fast now. Also current Java VM's are far more efficient than they were in 1995. So please stop the speed whining whenever Java is mentioned.
So a kernel built for 90% on Java is not a such a bad idea (from the point of view of performance). Especially if you want your kernel to be highly portable. Of course JavaOS was a bad implementation of this concept (lacking features).
Somewhere in the story it is mentioned that: "Sun, meanwhile, claims that the widespread adoption of "Internet standards" have made both the JavaOS for Business and the Lean Client/Network Computer spec unnecessary."
I think this is the bottomline. There no longer is a need for a pure JavaOS. In the past two years linux has become the portable operating system. The apps ontop of linux are also portable so there is no need to write them in Java. I think we are going to see a lot of linux/Java combinations on several types of machines (from servers to embedded stuff) in the future.
Some people who pirate software would have bought it. This is especially true for big products like Office, Photoshop, etc. I think the bottomline here is that as soon as you start making money of using a pirated product you probably would spent money to obtain this product if you couldn't pirate it. If you don't you're a thief.
On the other hand most pirates are just kids who want to try out some cool software. I suspect there are a lot of people out there that use photoshop (or some other bigshot photo editing software) to produce crappy images for their personal homepage. Assuming this type of person would spent hundreds or even thousends of dollars to obtain the software is of course rediculous.
The first case is in my opinion a clear case of theft, the second case is arguably good for the company selling the software: - in case the pirate gets really interested in the product, he might actually buy it (yay one more customer) - he might advise other people to buy the software (assuming he likes it).
I think the real future of th GUI lies in web GUI. I admit that most of them look clumsy right now but things are improving rapidly (mozilla, xml and stuff like that). The problem with X and other GUI systems is that they are inherently platform specific. While it's more open and standard than the rest, you won't find X on many propietary OSes like windows, os2, BEOS (?, i'm not sure here).
I think that more and more applications will have a web interface (thus allowing for greater portability). On the long term I don't think any current propietary windowing system has much chance of survival. If they survive it will be as lower level layers tucked away in the OS with more abstract stuff running on top of it.
.. So if Darwin has stated in 1971 that the theory..
The man was dead for a few years by 1971, you probably mean 1871 ... Another *very* intelligent person (according to society's terms), George Wald (winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science and Harvard Professor) has said this (and I'll paraphrase), that (1) only creation and evolution are the possibilities for the origin of life, no third option; (2) Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, and that leads us on Creation; and (3) "We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." ...
(1) show me the proof (2) show me the proof (3) as long as you make clear that there's no proof whatsoever its fine with me.
I'm especially interested in the 'proof' for (2). I no doubt would be able to identify its weak spot in minutes.
BTW. I think schools should teach both evolution and creationism. The discussion is relevant (at least from a point of view sociology, accepting creationism now would defy more than a century of scientific research). If you take away evolution or creationism you are limiting the freedom of choice. Children should decided for themselves what they want to believe in and evolution is definately a relevant topic to consider when making that choice.
... does everyone know that Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes, Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell were all devoted Christians ...
Does it matter what they thought about religion? They weren't theologists were they? After all most of these people lived in an age where the church ruled over life and death. Scientists with different beliefs ususally kept their mouths wide shut on religious issues and if they didn't they often met with their tragic fate.
... if someone accepted creation ...
This is the key issue here. Nobody denies anyone the right to accept creation (and its consequences). Personally I refuse to belief in something so rediculously stupid but hey, I don't care what others CHOOSE to believe. What does piss me of is that there are people who are trying to limit the choice of others (because they belief in creationism). This is not about religion it is about lack of choice.
OK, enough talk about this. I already know I'm not going to convince anybody. Christian (or any) fundamentalists are not receptive to logic.
We have had the same thing in Holland where christian groups tried to remove evolution as a topic from the school exams (which means that no teacher will bother to waste precious time on it). Luckily they failed.
Christian fundamentalism to me is as big a worry as muslim fundamentalism. I was watching CNN a few days ago (at the time of the Atlanta shooting) and saw the major mumble something 'let us all pray for the victims now'. It was by far the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen, I sort of felt sick about it. Also US presidents semm to make such Christian references all the time. Now, I believe in religious freedom and I claim the right not to believe in any god. I'm sure that right wing christian America won't deny me this right (for the moment) but I think it's a very bad sign that they have the power to get one of the most fundamental laws in Biology out of a school for religious reasons. I think the children in those schools have a right to be protected from the religious fundamentalism of their parents and teachers. Christians are probably right that evolution makes one wonder whether the Adam and Eve crap is fantasy (I'm convinced at least) and that doubting that story makes you wonder how much truth there is in all the other stories. Well maybe it is time for them to step back in reality and reevaluate the bible from that perspective.
I don't want to get in a theological discussion here, though. It is my firm elief that logical arguments never convice a fundamentalist, which is why they choose to ignore evolution rather than face its consequences for christinaity (i.e. the fact that the bible is not consistent with reality). I'm just saying that understanding Evolution theory, whether you agree or not, is important to understand anything that is going on in biology and genetics right now. No school can seriously talk about biology and skip evolution.
They're rarely used 'properly' and that's because 'proper URL' are no standard. Basically you're saying: if people don't behave badly there's no problem. Well people behave badly so there is a problem.
For SGI there's only one thing that counts: selling hardware. Their IRIX workstations have long been top quality graphics workstations but now slowly IRIX is beginning to backfire. SGI does not have a large portion of the UNIX market -> nor does IRIX. Keeping an OS up to date with modern technology is hard and expensive. So if SGI changes to linux (NT fails on the modern (new:)) technology part), they gain a lot: (1) thy no longer have to maintain an entire OS (2) suddenly a lot of applications can run on their systems (3) they have a free ride on OSS, great for PR.
They still have their hardware patents and knowledge to guarantee that they can deliver superior hardware (after all they've always targeted the high end workstation market)
So to me it seems perfectly logical that they do this in order to survive.
Of course it may backfire: Company X comes up with a nice workstation that is able to compete with SGI's stuff, Old IRIX users are pissed of because IRIX is no longer supported,...
There seem to be people posting here who missed the context thingy mentionted in the article. It's basically a directory service they are proposing.
I think directories are better than url's for one reason: URL are tied to physical locations and directories are not. For instance my email address jgurp@yahoo.com (don't flame please) is tied to Yahoo. If for whatever reason I would want to change provider, I would have to notify everybody I know not to use that address anymore. The same applies to documents. I don't give a flying fuck on which server company X has stored document Y, I just want to access it quickly.
The way I see it company X would store it's document Y somewhere and link one or more keywords in one or more directories to its location (i.e./world/US/companies/Boeing/products/747/manual/scr ew10990814097254.3 instead of www.boeing.com/lots/of/cryptic/stuf/that/changes/a ll/the/time/manual.html).
By using a local server access can be controlled. By linking the local server into another server (again under a directory), a global directory system can be created.
This also makes searching a lot easier. Unlike with domain names, it would be no problem for each individual to have a unique branch in this global directory tree (for instance/world/europe/holland/citizens/hometown/me). Of course it should be possible to have multiple paths to the same directory so that the same directory can also be linked under the company I work.
the problem with your database approach is that it doesn't take into account that the data is (a) distributed (b) diverse It would probably work for something as boeings manual system (they probably have something like that) but you would basically have to do maintenance on both your server and client systems if youn would want to store something else. I'm not sure yet what the common name resolution protocol exactly (the article was a bit vague on that and I don't feel like doing a search on the matter) is but I suspect it has something to do with organizing URL's into directories. Thus keywords have a context/directory specific meaning. If I'm in the directory/emailaddresses/world and type John Smith, well... But if I'm in/emailaddresses/world/Europe/Sweden/Ronneby/SoftCe nter/IPD and type John Smith you will probably get an error because there's no such person at the department I work:)
Main Entry: facetious Pronunciation: f&-'sE-sh&s Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia Date: 1599 1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH 2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious synonym see WITTY - facetiously adverb - facetiousness noun
---- I fail to see the humor in your posting, though.
english is not my native language (dutch is), nor is swedish, german and french yet I manage to at least make myself clear in those languages. But I guess cowboys don't need to speak anything else but english.
Slashdot Mirror
Well at least its better than the binary shit that office produces now. XML is meant to be readable by human beings and this will at least give us an opportunity to get a nice spec of what the fileformat exactly supports. I wonder if their DTD is available?? Or don't they use one (I think that ms xml parser was non validating but i'm not sure)
Of course with advances in transplantation techniques, it would not necessarily have to be a human body. After all there's already some experimentation going on with pigs hearths and other organs, so why not an entire pig body.
Quite a funny idea. I suddenly get these visions of these monty python like creatures (i'm refering to the opening sequence animations).
But even if only human bodies would be possible I don't mind. There's plenty of people dying of braindamage (for instance because of a car crash). While the head in those situation is not much use, the body can still be reused. I have no problem with this. In fact my body is available should such a thing ever happen to me.
Yes why not. Nearly everybody uses office like applications to do stuff like wordprocessing so there's definately an interest to fix bugs and add features.
I think suns license is a nice compromise between GPL and propietary software. It allows some freedom to developers without sun losing ownership of their investment. Of course from an opensource perspective things can't be open enough but from Sun's perspective that probably doesn't matter.
Would anybody who's more into licenses then I am comment on what the differences between the two licenses exactly are?
I think word 2000 already supports XML (probably with ms extensions though)
probably both unless of course you take a body appart and reassemble it using the same parts :)
I'll answer that for you: yes. It would not be visble seen from the front (until the car hits you) but it would be visble from say 45 degrees of the traveling direction.
mooo!
"You don't see two dogs, cat, squirls or monkeys on the side of the road getting each other up the ass"
You're ill informed, probably due to the conservative, inbreeding community you grew up in (which explains your ignorant statement). What you find ethical and moral is your business but please don't spread incorrect information. Homosexual behavior is very characteristics for primates such as the Bonobo monkeys (one of the more intelligent species) who fuck everything that has a hole, preferably several times a day. They also engage in masturbation.
So in contrary what you're thinking, homosexual behavior is very natural behavior.
As for the rest of your statement, on behalf of the gay community (I'm not gay myself): Fuck You
I'm up (I live in europe). Usually the first postings appear at 3 PM (local time). So 6.58AM is just after lunch for me :)
I think the technique is already there. In order to use them, there will have to be standardization and new laws. The laws should provide legal status to emails. Right now it is hard to claim things if it is not written down on paper. Digitally signed documents need to be treated in the same manner so we can use them to replace paper contracts and letters.
One major obstacle has been the US position on encryption keys for the past few years. As long as that has not been resolved, it will be hard to get useful standards.
So yes I think email will replace snailmail in the long term. There is no technical issues here and I think laws and standards will show up eventually.
Since I'm not a legal expert nor an encryptionb expert perhaps somebody else can point out if there are any major flaws in my reasoning.
can you remember PIII hardware identification? This is the same thing.
I'm sure the guy did not mean to turn of sound permanently (which would be the case if he did what you suggested). Anyway, even the hassle of pushing the stop buttom to shit up an ad is enough to make the ad annoying.
BTW what has linux got to do with it? I'm sure you don't have this problem in lynx.
Right now the only way to write crossplatform code is to use Java (which in many cases is not really an option right now). If Borland somehow manages to make delphi programs cross platform (i.e. you can pick up delphi source and compile it on both linux and windows), that would be a huge gain for the Linux community (more apps) but also for Borland because this will attract loads of new customers (windows programmers who like to create programs for Linux too and Linux programmers who like to create programs for windows too).
So, way to go Borland!
probably any application in any language
lets not forget the fact that they actually had a working JavaOS (proof of concept) It just wasn't marketable but that had nothing to do with performance. I would also like to point out that there are Java environments for palm computers and windows CE machines. Those are machines that are far smaller than the type of machine that the JavaOS was targeting (terminals with a nice processor and some memory).
It seems everytime the word Java is dropped in a story on slashdot there are some persons who triomfantically claim that it will never be as fast as C. Apart from the fact this is irrelevant, I also think it's a false statement. Especially if there is going to be Java optimized hardware (like majc from sun) we might very well see Java programs outperforming the c variant. This is already happening on the serverside with the hotspot VM.
Besides Moore's law as been active ever since Java was introduced in 1995. Computers are about 4 times as fast now. Also current Java VM's are far more efficient than they were in 1995. So please stop the speed whining whenever Java is mentioned.
So a kernel built for 90% on Java is not a such a bad idea (from the point of view of performance). Especially if you want your kernel to be highly portable. Of course JavaOS was a bad implementation of this concept (lacking features).
Somewhere in the story it is mentioned that:
"Sun, meanwhile, claims that the widespread adoption of "Internet standards" have made both the JavaOS for Business and the Lean Client/Network Computer spec unnecessary."
I think this is the bottomline. There no longer is a need for a pure JavaOS. In the past two years linux has become the portable operating system. The apps ontop of linux are also portable so there is no need to write them in Java. I think we are going to see a lot of linux/Java combinations on several types of machines (from servers to embedded stuff) in the future.
As usual there's some truth in both arguments.
Some people who pirate software would have bought it. This is especially true for big products like Office, Photoshop, etc. I think the bottomline here is that as soon as you start making money of using a pirated product you probably would spent money to obtain this product if you couldn't pirate it. If you don't you're a thief.
On the other hand most pirates are just kids who want to try out some cool software. I suspect there are a lot of people out there that use photoshop (or some other bigshot photo editing software) to produce crappy images for their personal homepage. Assuming this type of person would spent hundreds or even thousends of dollars to obtain the software is of course rediculous.
The first case is in my opinion a clear case of theft, the second case is arguably good for the company selling the software:
- in case the pirate gets really interested in the product, he might actually buy it (yay one more customer)
- he might advise other people to buy the software (assuming he likes it).
I think the real future of th GUI lies in web GUI. I admit that most of them look clumsy right now but things are improving rapidly (mozilla, xml and stuff like that). The problem with X and other GUI systems is that they are inherently platform specific. While it's more open and standard than the rest, you won't find X on many propietary OSes like windows, os2, BEOS (?, i'm not sure here).
I think that more and more applications will have a web interface (thus allowing for greater portability). On the long term I don't think any current propietary windowing system has much chance of survival. If they survive it will be as lower level layers tucked away in the OS with more abstract stuff running on top of it.
.. So if Darwin has stated in 1971 that the theory ..
The man was dead for a few years by 1971, you probably mean 1871
...
Another *very* intelligent person (according to society's terms), George Wald (winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science and Harvard Professor) has said this (and I'll paraphrase), that (1) only creation and evolution are the possibilities for the origin of life, no third option; (2) Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, and that leads us on Creation; and (3) "We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
...
(1) show me the proof
(2) show me the proof
(3) as long as you make clear that there's no proof whatsoever its fine with me.
I'm especially interested in the 'proof' for (2). I no doubt would be able to identify its weak spot in minutes.
BTW. I think schools should teach both evolution and creationism. The discussion is relevant (at least from a point of view sociology, accepting creationism now would defy more than a century of scientific research). If you take away evolution or creationism you are limiting the freedom of choice. Children should decided for themselves what they want to believe in and evolution is definately a relevant topic to consider when making that choice.
...
does everyone know that Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes, Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Lord Kelvin, and James Maxwell were all devoted Christians
...
Does it matter what they thought about religion? They weren't theologists were they? After all most of these people lived in an age where the church ruled over life and death. Scientists with different beliefs ususally kept their mouths wide shut on religious issues and if they didn't they often met with their tragic fate.
...
if someone accepted creation
...
This is the key issue here. Nobody denies anyone the right to accept creation (and its consequences). Personally I refuse to belief in something so rediculously stupid but hey, I don't care what others CHOOSE to believe. What does piss me of is that there are people who are trying to limit the choice of others (because they belief in creationism). This is not about religion it is about lack of choice.
OK, enough talk about this. I already know I'm not going to convince anybody. Christian (or any) fundamentalists are not receptive to logic.
We have had the same thing in Holland where christian groups tried to remove evolution as a topic from the school exams (which means that no teacher will bother to waste precious time on it). Luckily they failed.
Christian fundamentalism to me is as big a worry as muslim fundamentalism. I was watching CNN a few days ago (at the time of the Atlanta shooting) and saw the major mumble something 'let us all pray for the victims now'. It was by far the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen, I sort of felt sick about it. Also US presidents semm to make such Christian references all the time. Now, I believe in religious freedom and I claim the right not to believe in any god. I'm sure that right wing christian America won't deny me this right (for the moment) but I think it's a very bad sign that they have the power to get one of the most fundamental laws in Biology out of a school for religious reasons. I think the children in those schools have a right to be protected from the religious fundamentalism of their parents and teachers.
Christians are probably right that evolution makes one wonder whether the Adam and Eve crap is fantasy (I'm convinced at least) and that doubting that story makes you wonder how much truth there is in all the other stories. Well maybe it is time for them to step back in reality and reevaluate the bible from that perspective.
I don't want to get in a theological discussion here, though. It is my firm elief that logical arguments never convice a fundamentalist, which is why they choose to ignore evolution rather than face its consequences for christinaity (i.e. the fact that the bible is not consistent with reality). I'm just saying that understanding Evolution theory, whether you agree or not, is important to understand anything that is going on in biology and genetics right now. No school can seriously talk about biology and skip evolution.
well quite simply,
They're rarely used 'properly' and that's because 'proper URL' are no standard. Basically you're saying: if people don't behave badly there's no problem. Well people behave badly so there is a problem.
For SGI there's only one thing that counts: selling hardware. Their IRIX workstations have long been top quality graphics workstations but now slowly IRIX is beginning to backfire. SGI does not have a large portion of the UNIX market -> nor does IRIX. Keeping an OS up to date with modern technology is hard and expensive. So if SGI changes to linux (NT fails on the modern (new :)) technology part), they gain a lot: (1) thy no longer have to maintain an entire OS (2) suddenly a lot of applications can run on their systems (3) they have a free ride on OSS, great for PR.
...
They still have their hardware patents and knowledge to guarantee that they can deliver superior hardware (after all they've always targeted the high end workstation market)
So to me it seems perfectly logical that they do this in order to survive.
Of course it may backfire:
Company X comes up with a nice workstation that is able to compete with SGI's stuff, Old IRIX users are pissed of because IRIX is no longer supported,
There seem to be people posting here who missed the context thingy mentionted in the article. It's basically a directory service they are proposing.
/world/US/companies/Boeing/products/747/manual/scr ew10990814097254.3 instead of www.boeing.com/lots/of/cryptic/stuf/that/changes/a ll/the/time/manual.html).
/world/europe/holland/citizens/hometown/me). Of course it should be possible to have multiple paths to the same directory so that the same directory can also be linked under the company I work.
I think directories are better than url's for one reason: URL are tied to physical locations and directories are not. For instance my email address jgurp@yahoo.com (don't flame please) is tied to Yahoo. If for whatever reason I would want to change provider, I would have to notify everybody I know not to use that address anymore. The same applies to documents. I don't give a flying fuck on which server company X has stored document Y, I just want to access it quickly.
The way I see it company X would store it's document Y somewhere and link one or more keywords in one or more directories to its location (i.e.
By using a local server access can be controlled. By linking the local server into another server (again under a directory), a global directory system can be created.
This also makes searching a lot easier. Unlike with domain names, it would be no problem for each individual to have a unique branch in this global directory tree (for instance
the problem with your database approach is that it doesn't take into account that the data is (a) distributed (b) diverse /emailaddresses/world and type John Smith, well ... But if I'm in /emailaddresses/world/Europe/Sweden/Ronneby/SoftCe nter/IPD and type John Smith you will probably get an error because there's no such person at the department I work :)
It would probably work for something as boeings manual system (they probably have something like that) but you would basically have to do maintenance on both your server and client systems if youn would want to store something else.
I'm not sure yet what the common name resolution protocol exactly (the article was a bit vague on that and I don't feel like doing a search on the matter) is but I suspect it has something to do with organizing URL's into directories. Thus keywords have a context/directory specific meaning. If I'm in the directory
webster says:
Main Entry: facetious
Pronunciation: f&-'sE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
Date: 1599
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious
synonym see WITTY
- facetiously adverb
- facetiousness noun
----
I fail to see the humor in your posting, though.
sorry,
english is not my native language (dutch is), nor is swedish, german and french yet I manage to at least make myself clear in those languages. But I guess cowboys don't need to speak anything else but english.