I don't know about Chinese, but Russian has fairly large number of loan words. Most of them did not originate from English, though. They have words form Latin, Greek, French and Germen, mostly. At least some of the examples that you quote as loan words in Korean and Japanese, would work probably even better in Russian, though. Computer would be either "compjuter" or "vychislitjelnaja machina", in the first case it is a complete loan word, in the second case at least the second word is a loaner.
That's why I was suggesting that comments are added, that would, hopefully, explain these things.
Anyway, in a movie, you will see somebody typing "extract snortrules.tgz", without comments it will not tell you anything that the history file doesn't.
A movie could, however, show you command line completion and command substitution tricks that will not show up in the history file.
Replying to myself: when thinking about it some more, I realized there are two extremely important aspects of CLI use that will not show up in the history file: completion and substitution. The history file will only show the commands that got executed, not how they were entered.
It depends what you are trying to do. If you want to do things like manipulate the filesystem or directly interact with the OS, for example start bunch pr processes, string them together in some way, like create a pipe, etc, you are much better of using a proper shell. If you need to actually generate and manipulate significant amount of data, you want to use perl, lisp, python, slang, octave or whatever fits the type of data you have best.
This also has nothing to do with CLI. You can write script in any of these languages, and most of them can be used from a command line.
That may be nice if you want to dual boot. I just want to run Linux, I don't want to have to install Windows on my computer just so I can get it boot into Linux.
I see what you mean. It depends whether by "5 of 10" you mean 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10, or whether you mean "5 of the total of 10". It seems silly to me that the meaning should completely change depending on whether the first number is a fraction. As a mathematician, I see 5 as being no less a fraction than 1/2.
What would 5/1 of 10 mean? Or 10/2 of 10? Or 5.1 of 10?
Maybe there is a difference between British and American English, but as far as I can tell, every US introductory algebra textbook tells you that "of" translates into product.
The problem I have with this is that if you just way "seven of what number", it pretty clearly means 7x. If I way "7 of how many pounds is 21 pounds?" most people will translate it as 7x = 21 and come up with three pounds.
The only indication that the phrase "of what number" should be moved after the "11%" at the fact that the "11%" have to be of something, you can't just have 11% by itself.
I think the reason this phrasing is awkward is that it is ambiguous. If you say "1/2 of 10", you most likely mean 1/2 * 10 = 5. In the same way, I would interpret "7 of 14" as 7 * 14 = 98.
If I say "7 is 11% of what number?", the question is IMHO pretty much clear. "11% of what number" means ".11 of what number" which means.11x, so you get 7 =.11x.
Saying "7 of what number is 11%" seams like 7x = 11%, except that does not make sense, since when you talk about percents, you have to have some sort of total, and there isn't one.
There must be some difference between UK and US English, then. Because in US, the phrase "7 of what number" would translate into 7x. Just like "1/2 of what number" would be x/2.
So the whole question: "7 of what number is 11%" would, purely formally, translate to 7x =.11. It really makes no sense, though. 11% of what?
We were not saying there were too harsh and unjust. We were saying that they were completely stupid and unjust. We are still here, and we are still saying it.
Since, presumably, you know whether you plagiarised...
You would be surprised how many students really don't understand what plagiarism means. You can repeat it to them over and over, give them examples etc, but many of them still don't get it, until they get caught.
It's not really Linux that has become this bloated mess. It is what they call "modern" desktop environments.
I used to run a fairly minimal setup, with fvwm2, xdm for login manager and rxvt for terminal emulator. I had that same setup on wide array of computers, from an old 486 with 512MB of memory up to a powerful SparcStation, and it ran reasonably fast on all of them. Over many years I developed a configuration that I liked, so it was very easy to use for me.
Several years ago I got a dual core laptop with 4GB of memory at work. Since it was a work laptop, I had to use SUSE Linux, as that was at that time officially supported by our IT staff. I had no experience with SUSE, before I always used Debian, so I just installed the default distro with Gnome, and I was surprised how slow that was. Later I got fed up with SUSE, and was allowed to switch to Ubuntu, which turned out to be even slower. I got fed up with that too, installed Debian, which I know pretty well, and started stripping everything I don't need.
I am now back to my original setup with fvwm2. I use slim for login manager, replaced rxvt by urxvt so I can display Chinese characters in the terminal and can have nicer fonts. I now throw in few things that I never used before, such as stalonetray for system tray, and gkrellm for system monitoring and volume control. I manually purged everything that says gnome or kde that I don't actually use (very little is left). I now have a nice fast system again. The thing that slows me down now is firefox. I tried Chrome, which is faster, but last time I checked, its vi keybinding extensions are nowhere near as capable as vimperator or pentadactyl for firefox.
One thing that drives me nuts though is how the desktop environments took over lot of things that really belong to the core system, and changed the way lot of core functionality is now configured. Lot of things, like networking, mounting of drives, etc, that really should have nothing to do with desktop environments, are now configured in some sort of weird gnomish way, which, in addition, completely changed at least 5 times during the last 4 years, and when you try to find out how to do it, you get at least 10 totally conflicting guides and advices. Most of all classical howtos are hopelessly outdated, and were replaced by number of mutually contradictory posts on Ubuntu forums. The result is that figuring out how to configure something without using some sort of default annoying Windows like clicky Gnome or KDE thingy is a huge pain in the ass.
Why would you get the ore down to Earth? I imagine that by the time we are actually able to pull something like that off, we will also be able to manufacture stuff in space. Right now, we are spending fortune getting stuff up there. Why not use resources that are already up there and actually make at least some of the stuff in space.
as an extension language? Emacs uses Lisp, GIMP uses some dialect or Scheme, but AFAIK it is not Guile, I know that there is a window manager that uses Guile, but I am not sure if it is officially a GNU software. Is there anything else?
I actually think this is pretty natural. If I see (loop (print (eval (read)))) I see a loop. What does it do? It prints. What does it print? It prints the results of some evaluation. What does it evaluate? The stuff it reads.
As for creating something like that, you just go from right to the left, or, better, from inside out.
I need to read something: (read) What do I do with it? Evaluate it: (eval (read)) What do I want to do with the result? Print it (print (eval (read))) Finally, I insert it into a loop: (loop (print (eval (read))))
Maybe it is because I am a mathematician and am used to thinking in terms of functions and functional notation, but this seems completely natural to me.
Or their crime was complaining about the long lines in the grocery store. Or having a "nice" apartment that their neighbor wanted. Or just happening to be at a wrong place when a KGB official needed to have his quota fulfilled. Or having the wrong nationality or speaking the wrong language. Or fighting against nazism on the wrong front. Or having a distant relative who escaped to the west. And comparing the conditions in US prison system (arguably rather horrible, I agree with that) with concentration camps like those in the GULAG system is just offensive to all the victims of GULAG. You sound just like a some sort of holocaust denier.
I am not saying that there are no miscarriages of justice in the US, or that everything is all rosy here. Lot of crap does happen in here, but just the fact that we can talk about it here, complain about it, and fight it, shows the difference between a democratic or semi-democratic country like the US and a totalitarian regime like the communist countries of eastern Europe.
It seems that that particular species of yeast does not appear in Europe. Only its hybrids do. So while it is possible that the yeast first traveled to Argentina, and then became extinct in Europe, it seems more likely that it originated at the place where it still can be found.
On the other hand, when you are watching a movie that is supposed to take place in a very distant future, and one of the characters comes to a bar and orders Budweiser, that's just plain depressing. Centuries from now, we will have galactic travel and all that, and people will still drink that stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about Chinese, but Russian has fairly large number of loan words. Most of them did not originate from English, though. They have words form Latin, Greek, French and Germen, mostly. At least some of the examples that you quote as loan words in Korean and Japanese, would work probably even better in Russian, though. Computer would be either "compjuter" or "vychislitjelnaja machina", in the first case it is a complete loan word, in the second case at least the second word is a loaner.
That's why I was suggesting that comments are added, that would, hopefully, explain these things.
Anyway, in a movie, you will see somebody typing "extract snortrules.tgz", without comments it will not tell you anything that the history file doesn't.
A movie could, however, show you command line completion and command substitution tricks that will not show up in the history file.
Replying to myself: when thinking about it some more, I realized there are two extremely important aspects of CLI use that will not show up in the history file: completion and substitution. The history file will only show the commands that got executed, not how they were entered.
Somebody please mod this up. Having bunch of, possibly commented, history files, would be much better than having this information as a movie.
It depends what you are trying to do. If you want to do things like manipulate the filesystem or directly interact with the OS, for example start bunch pr processes, string them together in some way, like create a pipe, etc, you are much better of using a proper shell. If you need to actually generate and manipulate significant amount of data, you want to use perl, lisp, python, slang, octave or whatever fits the type of data you have best.
This also has nothing to do with CLI. You can write script in any of these languages, and most of them can be used from a command line.
That said, maybe Dell might try that in the name of security, but that is an end-product seller decision. There will always OTHER makers.
True. Of course, my employer buys all their machines from Dell.
I don't think I will be able to convince the purchasing department at my work to buy bunch of bits and pieces and let me build my own laptop.
That may be nice if you want to dual boot. I just want to run Linux, I don't want to have to install Windows on my computer just so I can get it boot into Linux.
That's a really convincing argument! Thank you.
I see what you mean. It depends whether by "5 of 10" you mean
10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10, or whether you mean "5 of the total of 10". It seems silly to me that the meaning should completely change depending on whether the first number is a fraction. As a mathematician, I see 5 as being no less a fraction than 1/2.
What would 5/1 of 10 mean? Or 10/2 of 10? Or 5.1 of 10?
seven of is always a quotient, not a product
Maybe there is a difference between British and American English, but as far as I can tell, every US introductory algebra textbook tells you that "of" translates into product.
1/2 of 10 would translate into 1/2 * 10, or 5.
7 of 10 would translate into 70.
The problem I have with this is that if you just way "seven of what number", it pretty clearly means 7x. If I way "7 of how many pounds is 21 pounds?" most people will translate it as 7x = 21 and come up with three pounds.
The only indication that the phrase "of what number" should be moved after the "11%" at the fact that the "11%" have to be of something, you can't just have 11% by itself.
I think the reason this phrasing is awkward is that it is ambiguous. If you say "1/2 of 10", you most likely mean 1/2 * 10 = 5. In the same way, I would interpret "7 of 14" as 7 * 14 = 98.
If I say "7 is 11% of what number?", the question is IMHO pretty much clear. "11% of what number" means ".11 of what number" which means .11x, so you get 7 = .11x.
Saying "7 of what number is 11%" seams like 7x = 11%, except that does not make sense, since when you talk about percents, you have to have some sort of total, and there isn't one.
There must be some difference between UK and US English, then. Because in US, the phrase "7 of what number" would translate into 7x. Just like "1/2 of what number" would be x/2.
So the whole question: "7 of what number is 11%" would, purely formally, translate to 7x = .11. It really makes no sense, though. 11% of what?
We were not saying there were too harsh and unjust. We were saying that they were completely stupid and unjust. We are still here, and we are still saying it.
Since, presumably, you know whether you plagiarised...
You would be surprised how many students really don't understand what plagiarism means. You can repeat it to them over and over, give them examples etc, but many of them still don't get it, until they get caught.
It's not really Linux that has become this bloated mess. It is what they call "modern" desktop environments.
I used to run a fairly minimal setup, with fvwm2, xdm for login manager and rxvt for terminal emulator. I had that same setup on wide array of computers, from an old 486 with 512MB of memory up to a powerful SparcStation, and it ran reasonably fast on all of them. Over many years I developed a configuration that I liked, so it was very easy to use for me.
Several years ago I got a dual core laptop with 4GB of memory at work. Since it was a work laptop, I had to use SUSE Linux, as that was at that time officially supported by our IT staff. I had no experience with SUSE, before I always used Debian, so I just installed the default distro with Gnome, and I was surprised how slow that was. Later I got fed up with SUSE, and was allowed to switch to Ubuntu, which turned out to be even slower. I got fed up with that too, installed Debian, which I know pretty well, and started stripping everything I don't need.
I am now back to my original setup with fvwm2. I use slim for login manager, replaced rxvt by urxvt so I can display Chinese characters in the terminal and can have nicer fonts. I now throw in few things that I never used before, such as stalonetray for system tray, and gkrellm for system monitoring and volume control. I manually purged everything that says gnome or kde that I don't actually use (very little is left). I now have a nice fast system again. The thing that slows me down now is firefox. I tried Chrome, which is faster, but last time I checked, its vi keybinding extensions are nowhere near as capable as vimperator or pentadactyl for firefox.
One thing that drives me nuts though is how the desktop environments took over lot of things that really belong to the core system, and changed the way lot of core functionality is now configured. Lot of things, like networking, mounting of drives, etc, that really should have nothing to do with desktop environments, are now configured in some sort of weird gnomish way, which, in addition, completely changed at least 5 times during the last 4 years, and when you try to find out how to do it, you get at least 10 totally conflicting guides and advices. Most of all classical howtos are hopelessly outdated, and were replaced by number of mutually contradictory posts on Ubuntu forums. The result is that figuring out how to configure something without using some sort of default annoying Windows like clicky Gnome or KDE thingy is a huge pain in the ass.
{ Interpreter.eval(StdIn.read).print }.loop
Shudder. I will take Lisp over that any time.
Why would you get the ore down to Earth? I imagine that by the time we are actually able to pull something like that off, we will also be able to manufacture stuff in space. Right now, we are spending fortune getting stuff up there. Why not use resources that are already up there and actually make at least some of the stuff in space.
as an extension language? Emacs uses Lisp, GIMP uses some dialect or Scheme, but AFAIK it is not Guile, I know that there is a window manager that uses Guile, but I am not sure if it is officially a GNU software. Is there anything else?
I actually think this is pretty natural. If I see (loop (print (eval (read)))) I see a loop. What does it do? It prints. What does it print? It prints the results of some evaluation. What does it evaluate? The stuff it reads.
As for creating something like that, you just go from right to the left, or, better, from inside out.
I need to read something: (read)
What do I do with it? Evaluate it: (eval (read))
What do I want to do with the result? Print it (print (eval (read)))
Finally, I insert it into a loop: (loop (print (eval (read))))
Maybe it is because I am a mathematician and am used to thinking in terms of functions and functional notation, but this seems completely natural to me.
Or their crime was complaining about the long lines in the grocery store. Or having a "nice" apartment that their neighbor wanted. Or just happening to be at a wrong place when a KGB official needed to have his quota fulfilled. Or having the wrong nationality or speaking the wrong language. Or fighting against nazism on the wrong front. Or having a distant relative who escaped to the west. And comparing the conditions in US prison system (arguably rather horrible, I agree with that) with concentration camps like those in the GULAG system is just offensive to all the victims of GULAG. You sound just like a some sort of holocaust denier.
I am not saying that there are no miscarriages of justice in the US, or that everything is all rosy here. Lot of crap does happen in here, but just the fact that we can talk about it here, complain about it, and fight it, shows the difference between a democratic or semi-democratic country like the US and a totalitarian regime like the communist countries of eastern Europe.
It seems that that particular species of yeast does not appear in Europe. Only its hybrids do. So while it is possible that the yeast first traveled to Argentina, and then became extinct in Europe, it seems more likely that it originated at the place where it still can be found.
That would freak me out!
On the other hand, when you are watching a movie that is supposed to take place in a very distant future, and one of the characters comes to a bar and orders Budweiser, that's just plain depressing. Centuries from now, we will have galactic travel and all that, and people will still drink that stuff?