He wasn't using the word lightly at all. Corporations *are* taking *our* freedom away from us so that *they* can make money. Politicians are looking the other way, and more often than not, aiding the corporations seige on the american people's freedom. I don't know how the situation is in other countries, but it's getting worse and worse every day here in the US.
I'm sure what you're saying is correct.
But please explain: precisely what "freedom" is it that corporations are in this particular situation "taking away from us"? The "freedom" to purchase a DVD and play it on a Unix box? If that's a "freedom", I'm afraid I can't agree with the use of the word. Sure, it's crummy for a record maker to require you to buy their record player, or for a car company to require you to buy only their gas. And while this would limit the *choice*, I do not understand how "freedom" applies.
What a wonderful world it is when a controversial posting that disagrees with our pet little religious philosophies get plonked as flamebait. The Jesuits would not be please.
Wait. I shall redeem myself....
Thanks be the FSF! All glory, love, and honour to them! All praise to Richard Stallman, Our Lord and Saviour. He has sacrified His wrists to deliver us from bondage! He is the way, the truth, and the light -- no man cometh unto Free Software save through the FSF! Bill Gates is Lucifer Incarnate, who enslaves the minds of children and rapes the bank accounts of the parents! Those who have touched Windows are ritually unclean. Let them be cast from the highest precipice into the deepest pit. Maybe Saint Richard smite the Archdevil Bill on Judgment Day.
There, is that good enough for you rabid lunatics? Now that I've blathered my absolutions, may I please speak up now?
The word "freedom" is too important to be watered down into a rallying cry for every single cause célèbre that occurs. And thwapping anyone who mentions this fact is about as far from freedom as you can get.
The day started like any other for retired bank VP Harry Breitfeller until he found the box on his doorstep. His name and address were on the label, but no return address. When he opened the box, he saw two objects unlike any he'd seen before. The box held two Gismos.
A device so simple, so pervasive, it could even clone itself. No more work. No more want. No more need.
The end of life on Earth as we know it. It was only a matter of time until someone duplicated people...
In 1972, Damon Knight publisher a book entitled A for Anything. The premise was that two machines were found that could copy anything--including each other. (One, obviously, wouldn't have sufficed:-). This book identified many issues that occur when anything is infinitely copiable. Traditional society breaks down.
Now, we haven't gotten to Knight's endgame--copying people--but as increasingly large sectors of our world becomes infinitely copiable, some of the same issues begin to apply. I doubt whether I've read it in twenty years, but I think I'm going to see whether I can't dig it up.
Even though we won the battle today we will be always be attacked by corporations who think that it's their right to make money at the exchange of freedom.
I get the feeling that you would have been happier to stop the sentence after the word "money". As written, that's a remarkably broad and needlessly emotional statement that you have there--wouldn't you agree? What would the American founding fathers say about this "freedom" you refer to? What would Adam Smith say?
I can't quite pin my finger on why, but I really do get the feeling that the word "freedom" is taking a beating here that it is doesn't deserve. Or if not a beating, then at least a stretching and distortion -- a spin. It's as though the word were being impressed into service for a job it was not really cut out for.
This is the kind of talk that gets people shaking their heads in confusion, if not, in fact, in abject disbelieve. Let us not thoughtlessly coöpt so important a word into our service without just and severe cause. There's been more than enough of that kind of despicable word games and devisive spin doctoring in our community already.
Maybe this use it justified. It really does seem extreme, even if the other side is whacked out (and yes, of course they are). But if we use the word "freedom" so lightly, we run the risk that,in the end, it may mean nothing much at all.
I bet most people here won't catch your implicit reference to "All the world's a Vax". It's amusing that this should come out of The Company Formerly Known as DEC. The pain of the 16-bit PDPs to the 32-bit Vaxes was bad enough.
On another thread here, regarding the mistaken notion that a machine with 32-bit pointers can't hold more then 2**32 memory, it seems to me that an 11/70 would allow more than 64k of memory per machine, but would only let you map in 64k per process.
Actually, for true multithreading, check out Tera supercomputers. Hardware support for multiple threads means threading is broken down to the instruction level.
The Convex had threading in hardware as well. That meant you had assembly level instructions like fork and join. It was interesting work. And Convex was a 64bit BSD way back in the 80s. And Cray had a 64bit SysV, too.
George Bernard Shaw wrote to The Times of London about an overzealous editor with a wooden ear: ``There is a pedant on your staff who spends far too much of his time searching for split infinitives. Every good literary craftsman uses a split infinitive if he thinks the sense demands it. I call for this man's instant dismissal; it matters not whether he decides to quickly go or to go quickly or quickly to go. Go he must, and at once.''
Let me state up front, categorically, that there exists no rule banning split infinitives in English. If you believe me, skip the rest. If you don't believe me, then perhaps you should check with Oxford.:-)
What you're seeing here is widely consider to be unreasonably fallout from the nutty English grammarians of the 18th century who tried to reanalyse English using Latin grammar. Why? They thought that Latin was the most nearly perfect language they do. Innumerable bogus rules have been injected into the heads of the weak-mined. Such rules include the rule to never split infinitives, as well as the one that prepositions are not words to end sentences with. These bogosities have no place in English.
Look at this sentence: ``He learned to quickly read.'' If you make it ``He learned quickly to read,'' you've altered the meaning, and if you make it ``He learned to read quickly,'' you've introduced an infelicitous ambuiguity. Did he learn quickly, or read quickly?
Consider, please, the following:
"Why can't you really understand me?", asked Jane.
"Because", replied Dick, "I don't want to really understand you."
The confused folks who decry interposing an adverb between the particle to and the following verb will have an impossibly difficult time finding a better home for really in the previous sentence. Not one of these means the same thing as the forbidden phrase means, and at least one isn't even grammatical:
Really, I don't want to understand you.
I really don't want to understand you.
I don't really want to understand you.
I don't want really to understand you.
*I don't want to understand really you.
I don't want to understand you, really.
I don't want to understand you.
In the sentence above, the verb in the infinitive is, in fact, only understand, without its to component. Why do I say this? Because copious examples of verbs in the infinitive without that to are readily demonstrable.
I helped her to break the ice.
I helped her break the ice.
I saw her break the ice.
I made her break the ice.
I let her break the ice.
See? With many verbs, you don't even have to have a to in the infinitive. In his book The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker writes:
"Of course, forcing modern speakers of English to not--whoops, not to split an infinitive because it isn't done in Latin makes about as much sense as forcing modern residents of England to wear laurels and togas. Julius Caesar could not have have split an infinitive if he had wanted to. In Latin the infinitive is a single word like
facere or dicere, a syntatic atom. English is a different kind of language. It is an "isolating" language, building sentences around many simple words instead of a few complicated ones. The infinitive is composed of two words--a complementizer, to, and a verb, like go. Words, by definition, are rearrangeable units, and there is no conceivable reason why an adverb should not come between them:
Space--the final frontier.... These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Here's a longer quote from Fowler (1965):
The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve; and (5) those who know and distinguish.
Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes. 'To really understand' comes readier to their lips and pens than 'really to understand'; they see no reason why they should not say it (small blame to them, seeing that reasons are not their critics' strong point), and they do say it, to the discomfort of some among us, but not to their own.
To the second class, those who do not know but do care, who would as soon be caught putting their knives in their mouths as splitting an infinitive but have only hazy notions of what constitutes that deplorable breach of etiquette, this article is chiefly addressed. These people betray by their practice that their aversion to the split infinitive springs not from instinctive good taste, but from tame acceptance of the misinterpreted opinion of others; for they will subject their sentences to the queerest distortions, all to escape imaginary split infinitives. 'To really understand' is a s.i.; 'to really be understood' is a s.i.; 'to be really understood' is not one; the havoc that is played with much well-intentioned writing by failure to grasp that distinction is incredible. Those upon whom the fear of infinitive-splitting sits heavy should remember that to give conclusive evidence, by distortions, of misconceiving the nature of the s.i. is far more damaging to their literary pretensions than an actual lapse could be; for it exhibits them as deaf to the normal rhythm of English sentences. No sensitive ear can fail to be shocked if the following examples are read aloud, by the strangeness of the indicated adverbs. Why on earth, the reader wonders, is that word out of its place? He will find, on looking through again, that each has been turned out of a similar position, viz between the word be and a passive participle. Reflection will assure him that the cause of dislocation is always the same -- all these writers have sacrificed the run of their sentences to the delusion that 'to be really understood' is a split infinitive. It is not; and the straitest non-splitter of us all can with a clear conscience restore each of the adverbs to its rightful place: He was proposed at the last moment as a candidate likely generally to be accepted. / When the record of this campaign comes dispassionately to be written, and in just perspective, it will be found that... / New principles will have boldly to be adopted if the Scottish case is to be met. / This is a very serious matter, which dearly ought further to be inquired into. / The Headmaster of a public school possesses very great powers, which ought most carefully and considerately to be exercised. / The time to get this revaluation put through is when the amount paid by the State to the localities is very largely to be increased.
The above writers are bogy-haunted creatures who for fear of splitting an infinitive abstain from doing something quite different, i.e. dividing be from its complement by an adverb; see further under POSITION OF ADVERBS. Those who presumably do know what split infinitives are, and condemn them, are not so easily identified, since they include all who neither commit the sin nor flounder about in saving themselves from it -- all who combine a reasonable dexterity with acceptance of conventional rules But when the dexterity is lacking disaster follows. It does not add to a writer's readableness if readers are pulled up now and again to wonder -- Why this distortion? Ah, to be sure, a non-split die-hard! That is the mental dialogue occasioned by each of the adverbs in the examples below. It is of no avail merely to fling oneself desperately out of temptation; one must so do it that no traces of the struggle remain. Sentences must if necessary be thoroughly remodelled instead of having a word lifted from its original place and dumped elsewhere: What alternative can be found which the Pope has not condemned, and which will make it possible to organise legally public worship ? / It will, when better understood, tend firmly to establish relations between Capital and Labour. / Both Germany and England have done ill in not combining to forbid flatly hostilities. / Every effort must be made to increase adequately professional knowledge and attainments. / We have had to shorten somewhat Lord D--'s letter. / The kind of sincerity which enables an author to move powerfully the heart would... / Safeguards should be provided to prevent effectually cosmopolitan financiers from manipulating these reserves.
Just as those who know and condemn the s.i. include many who are not recognisable, since only the clumsier performers give positive proof of resistance to temptation, so too those who know and approve are not distinguishable with certainty. When a man splits an infinitive, he may be doing it unconsciously as a member of our class 1, or he may be deliberately rejecting the trammels of convention and announcing that he means to do as he will with his own infinitives. But, as the following examples are from newspapers of high repute, and high newspaper tradition is strong against splitting, it is perhaps fair to assume that each specimen is a manifesto of independence: It will be found possible to considerably improve the present wages of the miners without jeopardizing the interests of capital. / Always providing that the Imperialists do not feel strong enough to decisively assert their power in the revolted provinces. / But even so, he seems to still be allowed to speak at Unionist demonstrations. / It is the intention of the Minister of Transport to substantially increase all present rates by means of a general percentage. / The men in many of the largest districts are declared to strongly favour a strike if the minimum wage is not conceded.
It should be noticed that in these the separating adverb could have been placed outside the infinitive with little or in most cases no damage to the sentence-rhythm (considerably after miners, decisively after power, still with clear gain after be, substantially after rates, and strongly at some loss after strike), so that protest seems a safe diagnosis.
The attitude of those who know and distinguish is something like this: We admit that separation of to from its infinitive is not in itself desirable, and we shall not gratuitously say either 'to mortally wound' or 'to mortally be wounded', but we are not foolish enough to confuse the latter with 'to be mortally wounded', which is blameless English nor 'to just have heard' with 'to have just heard', which is also blameless. We maintain, however, that a real s.i., though not desirable in itself, is preferable to either of two things, to real ambiguity, and to patent artificiality. For the first, we will rather write 'Our object is to further cement trade relations' than, by correcting into 'Our object is further to cement...', leave it doubtful whether an additional object or additional cementing is the point. And for the second, we take it that such reminders of a tyrannous convention as 'in not combining to forbid flatly hostilities' are far more abnormal than the abnormality they evade. We will split infinitives sooner than be ambiguous or artificial; more than that, we will freely admit that sufficient recasting will get rid of any s.i. without involving either of those faults, and yet reserve to ourselves the right of deciding in each case whether recasting is worth while. Let us take an example: 'In these circumstances, the Commission, judging from the evidence taken in London, has been feeling its way to modifications intended to better equip successful candidates for careers in India and at the same time to meet reasonable Indian demands.' To better equip ? We refuse 'better to equip' as a shouted reminder of the tyranny; we refuse 'to equip better' as ambiguous (bett er an adjective?); we regard 'to equip successful candidates better' as lacking compactness, as possibly tolerable from an anti-splitter, but not good enough for us. What then of recasting? 'intended to make successful candidates fitter for' is the best we can do if the exact sense is to be kept, it takes some thought to arrive at the correction; was the game worth the candle?
After this inconclusive discussion, in which, however, the author's opinion has perhaps been allowed to appear with indecent plainness, readers may like to settle the following question for themselves. 'The greatest difficulty about assessing the economic achievements of the Soviet Union is that its spokesmen try absurdly to exaggerate them; in consequence the visitor may tend badly to underrate them.' Has dread of the s.i. led the writer to attach his adverbs to the wrong verbs, and would he not have done better to boldly split both infinitives, since he cannot put the adverbs after them without spoiling his rhythm? Or are we to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he really meant absurdly to qualify try and badly to qualify tend?
It is perhaps hardly fair that this article should have quoted no split infinitives except such as, being reasonably supposed (as in 4) to be deliberate, are likely to be favourable specimens. Let it therefore conclude with one borrowed from a reviewer, to whose description of it no exception need be taken: 'A book... of which the purpose is thus -- with a deafening split infinitive -- stated by its author: "Its main idea is to historically, even while events are maturing, and divinely -- from the Divine point of view -- impeach the European system of Church and States".'
This all shows that you should boldy split infinitives as the sense demands. Or, if you prefer ``ought to'' over ``should'', that you ought to boldly split infinitives.:-)
the Mass in B Minor, perhaps the greatest piece of religious music ever written
I would substitute "choral" for "religious" above. Or maybe add it. And I certainly know folks who would go with the St Matthew Passion instead. But I'm probably with you on this. At least the Mass doesn't require a bathroom break in the middle.:-)
A man who wrote an entire enclyopedia worth of music without writing a single bad note. A man from from whom much of western music directly descends from, including the music you listen to. A man who affects more of us in our daily lives than we can possibly imagine. A man who had more than 20 children from the same wife. A man whose music is as relevant today as it was 350 years ago. A man who could see truths so deep that we still have no way of analyzing them today.
Thank you. That was stirring. I doubt he will count for sheer icon appeal the way Einstein does, but thank you for drawing attention to a man whose long lifetime of humble service to his music has left every last one of us immeasurably enriched for his selfless devotion to his labors. Bach wrote not just for his day, but consciously created works for all humanity in the ages to come. Think about whom he truly wrote the Bm Mass or Die Kunst der Fuge (The Art of the Fugue) for: for all of us, for his legacy.
The sheer quantity of music produced by JS Bach is incredible. Just look at the BWVs compared with, say, the Köchels for a sense of the volume. Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart, and Chopin all had copies of the WTC. Chopin especially praised it as a daily font of inspiration. Many would have picked Mozart. I don't think so. Mozart is trendy and overhyped. Yes, he did very pretty stuff. Sometimes he did great works. But truly, Mozart is accorded more glory in our superstar-filled age than he would to me appear to legimately merit.
Sometimes I hear in Mozart the echoes of a greater work that came before him. On glory and reflected glory, do but compare the Kyries between the Bach Bm Mass and the Mozart Requiem. Do you hear the resonances? Now, study the harmonic work, the counterpoint. What doubt is there as to who was the master? I recommend the Joshua Rifkin recording of the Bm.
Go listen to the Bach suites for unaccompanied cello, or the sonatas and partitas for unaccompanied violin. Listen to the haunting pain in the Sarabande in the 2nd cello suite. Listen to the joy and light in the 6th one. Listen to the phantom instruments that aren't there in the fugues for solo violin, and 'ware the divine terror of regarding a musical intelligence that could piece together so awe-inspiring a contrapuntal work on what is fundamentally a single-threaded instrument. Now find string works by Mozart. Oh, they're nice enough, but majesty?
For the keyboard, listen to Bach's St Anne fugue for organ, or the many shorter works, like the Dm (Dorian) prelude and fugue. Or just play through the 48. Now, what do we have from Mozart and the kyeboard? Plenty of stately classical music, of course. But greatness? Hm. Yes, I suppose so. The Dm piano concerto is fine enough, I'll grant you that. And some of the piano sonatas are, again, pretty. But still you feel yourself more often in the presence of a child prodigy than of a measured master. What keyboard work of Mozart comes close to the opera magna for organ from Bach? Perhaps it exists, but I don't know it. I wish I did.
At this time of the year, the Bach Christmas works are especially noticeable. The quiet chorales and glorious choruses fill us rapture and inspiration. Who here this season has not heard the simple but compelling melodies of Jesu bleibet meine Freude ("Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring") or Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress is Our God")? Don't get lost on mechanics and subtleties of counterpunctual intricacies. Melody--plain, simple, and warming melody--is at the very heart of Bach, the foundation for everything else. In his vocal works, melody is right there waiting for you to hum along to.
Please don't mistake me. I love Mozart. I really do. I doubt a week goes by without playing something of his. I love Beethoven, too. And Chopin. And Schubert. And Liszt and Mendelssohn and Schumann. And fifty other delightful composers who never get the time of day, much to our impoverishment.
But no day finishes without Bach in my life, somewhere. Sometimes he is in my fingers. Sometimes on the CD player. Sometimes he finds his way into my whistle, or shower singing. Sometimes I sit in meetings and let my fingers trace through inventions and fugues on the conference table. And best of all, on those long flights across the ocean, I sometimes close my eyes and quietly let the the Bm Mass or St Matt's unfold in silent sonority and sublime splendor in my mind's eye. After all, who really needs piped-in airplane music when you can at will summon up Bach?
If you are not yet accquanted with it, do yourself a favor: go out today and get the Canadian Brass's recording of the Art of the Fugue. It is a warm and comforting work, perfect for sitting by the fireplace on a cold and wintry night with family and friends. You will be happy you did this.
Gates's fundamental contribution was the concept that the computer and its software should be cheap and popular, that every person should have these. Without him, computers and software would be like airplanes are today: widely used for mass transportation, but only rich people can own one.
Another of Gates's ideas was that his programmers should earn enough to buy his software. This had huge indirect effects in reducing the "social class" dogmata of old money versus new money, and of equalizing yuppie society by raising up peons into conspicuous consumers.
Ok, fine. That's not what you wrote. But it was sure close.:-)
I just feel like being a dick... Geezus H Christ...you must be an absolute moron
And a very Merry Christmas to you, as well. May you in the year to come find more sensitivity in choosing your words than you have just now displayed through your pejorative use of one particular name that means so incredibly much to countless individuals of all stations throughout this tired world.
On this day--of all the possible days that the year is long--on this very day apart from all others, one might have held out a scintilla of hope for a tiny bit more charity, caring, and compassion than is otherwise customary. But one would then have been forgetting the nature of our medium, the particular allure of faceless lack of accountability, and the bilous hate, hurt, and harm that daily spew from Slashdot. Though the morrow bring ample opportunity for once again being the poster children for Man's inhumanity to Man, why put off till tomorrow what could be mercilessly inflicted today?
GUI's simply make sense. They make people a lot more productive. It's faster to click something, then to type an entire command line with arguments.
gcc program.c -o program or F7 or Press the compile button with your mouse
Congratulations. That's all wrong. You don't have function keys bound so specifically in real programs. You'll mess up your clean shell.
Usually simple make program suffices, or better yet, just make. Imagine mk were aliased to make. Now, learn about completion. So you often need to type no more than
mk p[TAB]
to get build that program, and probably less than this.
And with reasonable programmable completion, you can just hit the tab after the command, and it will tell you valid arguments. For example
And how do you propose to "replicate" the creative efforts of the software author ? Are you attempting to argue that the software author is not worthy of compensation for his/her efforts ?
``Get thee behind me, foul dweomerlayk!'', cried the elflord, Glorfindel. ``The Servants of Stallman hold no power here!''
No discs are shiny acrylic things. Disks are probably what you're talking about. And hard drives work too.
It's at times like this that the geekspeak translator might come in handy. Nonprogrammers tend to use "hard drive" when they mean any of some dozen odd things.
Explain, very slowly how it is not about money, and how it hurts. You need to prove damages now, counsellor. We await your response. Or we'll throw you out of court.
It does *NOT* screw you to have your software used commercially. This is your problem: You're afraid that someone might make money. What's your beef?
Your product, X, is still free, still yours, still open, still accessible. What happens with commercial product XY *does*not*matter* to you. It *does*not*hurt* you.
I'm going to make it as easy as I can. Software product X is free. It is used to make software product XY, which is then sold commercially under a typical fee-for-licence arrangement. This makes XY nonfree. But the X program is still free. Now, and in the future. Forever. That's why it's forever free.
Slashdot Mirror
But please explain: precisely what "freedom" is it that corporations are in this particular situation "taking away from us"? The "freedom" to purchase a DVD and play it on a Unix box? If that's a "freedom", I'm afraid I can't agree with the use of the word. Sure, it's crummy for a record maker to require you to buy their record player, or for a car company to require you to buy only their gas. And while this would limit the *choice*, I do not understand how "freedom" applies.
Please fill me in on what I'm missing here.
Wait. I shall redeem myself....
There, is that good enough for you rabid lunatics? Now that I've blathered my absolutions, may I please speak up now?
The word "freedom" is too important to be watered down into a rallying cry for every single cause célèbre that occurs. And thwapping anyone who mentions this fact is about as far from freedom as you can get.
And go read the moderator guidelines.
Now, we haven't gotten to Knight's endgame--copying people--but as increasingly large sectors of our world becomes infinitely copiable, some of the same issues begin to apply. I doubt whether I've read it in twenty years, but I think I'm going to see whether I can't dig it up.
I can't quite pin my finger on why, but I really do get the feeling that the word "freedom" is taking a beating here that it is doesn't deserve. Or if not a beating, then at least a stretching and distortion -- a spin. It's as though the word were being impressed into service for a job it was not really cut out for.
This is the kind of talk that gets people shaking their heads in confusion, if not, in fact, in abject disbelieve. Let us not thoughtlessly coöpt so important a word into our service without just and severe cause. There's been more than enough of that kind of despicable word games and devisive spin doctoring in our community already.
Maybe this use it justified. It really does seem extreme, even if the other side is whacked out (and yes, of course they are). But if we use the word "freedom" so lightly, we run the risk that,in the end, it may mean nothing much at all.
On another thread here, regarding the mistaken notion that a machine with 32-bit pointers can't hold more then 2**32 memory, it seems to me that an 11/70 would allow more than 64k of memory per machine, but would only let you map in 64k per process.
They're doing Beethoven's Ninth for New Year's Eve down in Denver. Might be worth going to.
You can read more about Paul Hoffman's writings on Paul Erdös through the given link.
Such paradiorthoses grate more than any genuinely improper transgression of correct usage.
George Bernard Shaw wrote to The Times of London about an overzealous editor with a wooden ear: ``There is a pedant on your staff who spends far too much of his time searching for split infinitives. Every good literary craftsman uses a split infinitive if he thinks the sense demands it. I call for this man's instant dismissal; it matters not whether he decides to quickly go or to go quickly or quickly to go. Go he must, and at once.''
Let me state up front, categorically, that there exists no rule banning split infinitives in English. If you believe me, skip the rest. If you don't believe me, then perhaps you should check with Oxford. :-)
What you're seeing here is widely consider to be unreasonably fallout from the nutty English grammarians of the 18th century who tried to reanalyse English using Latin grammar. Why? They thought that Latin was the most nearly perfect language they do. Innumerable bogus rules have been injected into the heads of the weak-mined. Such rules include the rule to never split infinitives, as well as the one that prepositions are not words to end sentences with. These bogosities have no place in English.
Look at this sentence: ``He learned to quickly read.'' If you make it ``He learned quickly to read,'' you've altered the meaning, and if you make it ``He learned to read quickly,'' you've introduced an infelicitous ambuiguity. Did he learn quickly, or read quickly?
Consider, please, the following:
The confused folks who decry interposing an adverb between the particle to and the following verb will have an impossibly difficult time finding a better home for really in the previous sentence. Not one of these means the same thing as the forbidden phrase means, and at least one isn't even grammatical:- Really, I don't want to understand you.
- I really don't want to understand you.
- I don't really want to understand you.
- I don't want really to understand you.
- *I don't want to understand really you.
- I don't want to understand you, really.
- I don't want to understand you.
In the sentence above, the verb in the infinitive is, in fact, only understand, without its to component. Why do I say this? Because copious examples of verbs in the infinitive without that to are readily demonstrable.- I helped her to break the ice.
- I helped her break the ice.
- I saw her break the ice.
- I made her break the ice.
- I let her break the ice.
See? With many verbs, you don't even have to have a to in the infinitive. In his book The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker writes: Here's a longer quote from Fowler (1965):This all shows that you should boldy split infinitives as the sense demands. Or, if you prefer ``ought to'' over ``should'', that you ought to boldly split infinitives. :-)
The sheer quantity of music produced by JS Bach is incredible. Just look at the BWVs compared with, say, the Köchels for a sense of the volume. Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart, and Chopin all had copies of the WTC. Chopin especially praised it as a daily font of inspiration. Many would have picked Mozart. I don't think so. Mozart is trendy and overhyped. Yes, he did very pretty stuff. Sometimes he did great works. But truly, Mozart is accorded more glory in our superstar-filled age than he would to me appear to legimately merit.
Sometimes I hear in Mozart the echoes of a greater work that came before him. On glory and reflected glory, do but compare the Kyries between the Bach Bm Mass and the Mozart Requiem. Do you hear the resonances? Now, study the harmonic work, the counterpoint. What doubt is there as to who was the master? I recommend the Joshua Rifkin recording of the Bm.
Go listen to the Bach suites for unaccompanied cello, or the sonatas and partitas for unaccompanied violin. Listen to the haunting pain in the Sarabande in the 2nd cello suite. Listen to the joy and light in the 6th one. Listen to the phantom instruments that aren't there in the fugues for solo violin, and 'ware the divine terror of regarding a musical intelligence that could piece together so awe-inspiring a contrapuntal work on what is fundamentally a single-threaded instrument. Now find string works by Mozart. Oh, they're nice enough, but majesty?
For the keyboard, listen to Bach's St Anne fugue for organ, or the many shorter works, like the Dm (Dorian) prelude and fugue. Or just play through the 48. Now, what do we have from Mozart and the kyeboard? Plenty of stately classical music, of course. But greatness? Hm. Yes, I suppose so. The Dm piano concerto is fine enough, I'll grant you that. And some of the piano sonatas are, again, pretty. But still you feel yourself more often in the presence of a child prodigy than of a measured master. What keyboard work of Mozart comes close to the opera magna for organ from Bach? Perhaps it exists, but I don't know it. I wish I did.
At this time of the year, the Bach Christmas works are especially noticeable. The quiet chorales and glorious choruses fill us rapture and inspiration. Who here this season has not heard the simple but compelling melodies of Jesu bleibet meine Freude ("Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring") or Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott ("A Mighty Fortress is Our God")? Don't get lost on mechanics and subtleties of counterpunctual intricacies. Melody--plain, simple, and warming melody--is at the very heart of Bach, the foundation for everything else. In his vocal works, melody is right there waiting for you to hum along to.
Please don't mistake me. I love Mozart. I really do. I doubt a week goes by without playing something of his. I love Beethoven, too. And Chopin. And Schubert. And Liszt and Mendelssohn and Schumann. And fifty other delightful composers who never get the time of day, much to our impoverishment.
But no day finishes without Bach in my life, somewhere. Sometimes he is in my fingers. Sometimes on the CD player. Sometimes he finds his way into my whistle, or shower singing. Sometimes I sit in meetings and let my fingers trace through inventions and fugues on the conference table. And best of all, on those long flights across the ocean, I sometimes close my eyes and quietly let the the Bm Mass or St Matt's unfold in silent sonority and sublime splendor in my mind's eye. After all, who really needs piped-in airplane music when you can at will summon up Bach?
If you are not yet accquanted with it, do yourself a favor: go out today and get the Canadian Brass's recording of the Art of the Fugue. It is a warm and comforting work, perfect for sitting by the fireplace on a cold and wintry night with family and friends. You will be happy you did this.
On this day--of all the possible days that the year is long--on this very day apart from all others, one might have held out a scintilla of hope for a tiny bit more charity, caring, and compassion than is otherwise customary. But one would then have been forgetting the nature of our medium, the particular allure of faceless lack of accountability, and the bilous hate, hurt, and harm that daily spew from Slashdot. Though the morrow bring ample opportunity for once again being the poster children for Man's inhumanity to Man, why put off till tomorrow what could be mercilessly inflicted today?
Peace to you and yours.
#!/bin/sh
tr a-zA-Z n-za-mN-ZA-M
or simply
$ perl -pe y/a-zA-Z/n-za-mN-ZA-M/
works as well.
Usually simple make program suffices, or better yet, just make. Imagine mk were aliased to make. Now, learn about completion. So you often need to type no more than
to get build that program, and probably less than this.And with reasonable programmable completion, you can just hit the tab after the command, and it will tell you valid arguments. For example
Don't knock what you don't understand.Hm... what about Tivoli? Have they managed a port to any Linux yet?
Are you just trolling, or are you that dumb? Read the original poster's problem. It's a library version issue.
Ubjrire, gur Freinagf bs Fgnyyzna jvyy cebonoyl fzbxr hf bhg. :-(
Explain, very slowly how it is not about money, and how it hurts. You need to prove damages now, counsellor. We await your response. Or we'll throw you out of court.
Your product, X, is still free, still yours, still open, still accessible. What happens with commercial product XY *does*not*matter* to you. It *does*not*hurt* you.
Are you really this blind?
I'm going to make it as easy as I can. Software product X is free. It is used to make software product XY, which is then sold commercially under a typical fee-for-licence arrangement. This makes XY nonfree. But the X program is still free. Now, and in the future. Forever. That's why it's forever free.