sorry for the misunderstanding!
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I'm very sorry, I did misunderstand you! I must apologize for my my rudeness, especially that last bit. I didn't mean to snap, I think it may have been early in the morning or something:0)
I think I know the people who you were talking about! I have to use windows sometimes, mostly for games, so I use Emacs for windows or another neat editor called crimson editor , which provides syntax highlighting, tabbed interface and other nice things.
Do drivers count? I am going to assume they don't.
On windows 2k pro (yuk, I know) it's
Winzip
Zonealarm
ACG Antivirus free
Adaware 6
Winzip
Firefox
Thunderbird
Winamp 5
WinMX
Rise of Nations
It's true, Baroque music is indeed more mathematical than later, especially romantic, music. Although, my pianist flatmate says that strictly speaking, Mozart is known as a 'Classical' composer rather than as a Baroque one... JSB is Baroque. Unfortunately I get confused very easily between using terms like Baroque to describe a composer's style and using them to describe the period they were around in!
I'm not going to bother to reply to a lot of that, as it is clearly US-centric flamebait. However, I would like to suggest that you stop telling people to use language the way you think they should, and start listening to the way they use it instead. Then you may actually learn something.
And as for the 'u' in favour, I agree that it is completely redundant. However, once you start trying to fiddle with spelling systems, especially trying to make them more phonetically consistent, yu end up on this sliperi slop and yor English becums unredable!
> People who come from Windows don't want to use an editor at all. And if they need to anyway, then I don't think joe will disappoint them.
Actually, I came across from the Dark Side(TM) and I actually do find editors quite handy at times, for, well, editing things! I like XEmacs myself, but can handle VI(M) if I must.
Perhaps you should think a bit more next time you are about to generalize about ex-Windows folk, they might not be as stupid as they seem.
Even as a relatively clueless neophyte I also find that piping a few tools together and learning a spot of ed very useful. Overreliance on editors can be a problem in some ways. Especially if it's EMACS! Not that there is anything wrong with EMACS of course, but simply that it does too much and makes things a bit too easy for the user at times.
This point has been brought up before. Some non-American English speakers describe a group of individuals in terms of the members of the group, plural, rather than as one individual entity. Don't assume everyone speaks US English!
If Mr Gates of the Borg isn't a Grand Poobah I don't know who is. Don't forget about Cardinal Ballmer and the rest of the cult.
And don't start me on Microsoft announcements! I suppose the main problem is that there is only so much mileage in "Longhorn will be unimaginably great" and "Longhorn has *ahem* been delayed again"...
well, I do all that with consensual living humans of the opposite sex, and even I was able guess from context that 'sarge' refers to the next, upcoming Debian release. Or you could try looking here?
Sorry, sorry, Britney was a very poor choice of analogy. I should have chosen someone with actual musical talent, like you did! I didn't realise that Beethoven was an early adopter of the musical profession, that's very interesting!
However, I'm afraid I still don't quite understand how it is that Mozart is supposed to have this magic quality and no other music works... what about Bach? If it's structure and innovation that is required, surely JSB has it in spades. Needless to say I'm not trying to find fault with you here, rather the researchers who always seem to use the same old Mozart.
It is true that Mozart was very innovative for his time though. Revolutionary composers are generally the most famous, as you point out.
I'm a Buddhist and an atheist at the same time, in fact many Buddhists are. Buddhism is what you want it to be... from a purely philosophical point of view (my end of the stick) to ritual-filled Tibetan Buddhism. Nevertheless, the core ideas are the same!
of course it means nothing to non-believers. It shouldn't really mean anything to believers anyway. Wow, a boat. Now there's proof that god exists! QED!
And don't tell people to keep their beliefs to themselves either, that's what we call religious oppression. I will talk down whoever I want to talk down. I am sure that you would have no problems talking down things that you find strange, like Tibetan Animistic beliefs or voodoo, yet these are just as valid (or invalid!) as Christian beliefs. Don't pretend that because you are Christian you are a) special or b) always right.
>He also prepared other fake wood by frying a piece of California pine on his kitchen stove in a mix of wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour and teriyaki sauces
No, stating that something is both true and pedantic is not in fact redundant, and it doesn't mean that I don't care. I use pedantic in its general sense of 'bothering about details which the speaker assumes most people would consider unimportant'. That is not to say that I consider them unimportant per se, but that I think many people do. And from a usage-based linguistic viewpoint, that is more important. I guess drawing that distinction is probably in itself pedantic. I believe this post should now be modded -1, meta-redundant...
Not everyone has access to the web, all the time either. What I meant to say is that most people don't have access to an etymological dictionary 24/7. Also, they really don't care on the whole.
You're right in saying that years are still the default units for anniversaries though, at least at this point. I think the general definition that a lot of speakers keep in their heads for 'anniversary' would be 'recurring date commemorating some event', which does imply yearly dates. But it doesn't have to; linguists call this a 'defeasible implication', which means that it can be cancelled by a conflicting modifier, as in "6-month anniversary" and the like. But by default, it does imply years.
Thanks for an interesting linguistic discussion... always good to talk with someone who also thinks about these things!
wow, another 'Stralian. Thought I might be the only one around here...
I actually buy quite a bit of stuff online, mosly from amazon and a few places in the UK. I actually find that many things are in fact cheaper even after you have factored in the postage costs. Especially if you buy a few things. The postage times vary between 10 and 21 days, in my experience.
As for online music though, I just don't see the point. Buy CD, fire up LAME, relax!:) It's not like there is much new music of interest anyway.
Sorry, but usage rules! That's language users for you, always messing it up! We should do away with them altogether and just leave language as a weird, abstract artifact that isn't to be touched, like a museum piece!
True, but pedantic. Not everyone has an etymological dictionary with them all the time, and I suspect that most people wouldn't happen to know the roots as well as you do. Usage is a critical mass thing - once a certain expression or meaning becomes popular enough it becomes domninant...
So you're basically saying that it's not a mistake to type 'fairwell' because the two words which have arbitrarily been shoved together are both proper English words? By that principle, we can gain useful new compounds like 'noodlefission' or 'givepurple' at will! What a useful idea that could be.
I'm not sure that it is relevant which period the composer came from. I am simply trying to point out that Mozart is very boring and cutesy.
However now that I think about it your logic is a bit funny; you claim that there is "no math" in the music of the romantic composers I cited. True, there is a less rigid structure, with more room for variation and creativity, but that doesn't make it unstructured...
And Mozart was like Britney only in that he was unbelievably popular for his day... he certainly was a lot more talented than Britney (and every other pop "musician" for that matter!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm very sorry, I did misunderstand you! I must apologize for my my rudeness, especially that last bit. I didn't mean to snap, I think it may have been early in the morning or something :0)
I think I know the people who you were talking about! I have to use windows sometimes, mostly for games, so I use Emacs for windows or another neat editor called crimson editor , which provides syntax highlighting, tabbed interface and other nice things.
Sorry again for the misunderstanding!
Do drivers count? I am going to assume they don't. On windows 2k pro (yuk, I know) it's Winzip Zonealarm ACG Antivirus free Adaware 6 Winzip Firefox Thunderbird Winamp 5 WinMX Rise of Nations
It's true, Baroque music is indeed more mathematical than later, especially romantic, music. Although, my pianist flatmate says that strictly speaking, Mozart is known as a 'Classical' composer rather than as a Baroque one... JSB is Baroque. Unfortunately I get confused very easily between using terms like Baroque to describe a composer's style and using them to describe the period they were around in!
"Nucular, it's pronounced nucular!"
I'm not going to bother to reply to a lot of that, as it is clearly US-centric flamebait. However, I would like to suggest that you stop telling people to use language the way you think they should, and start listening to the way they use it instead. Then you may actually learn something.
And as for the 'u' in favour, I agree that it is completely redundant. However, once you start trying to fiddle with spelling systems, especially trying to make them more phonetically consistent, yu end up on this sliperi slop and yor English becums unredable!
> People who come from Windows don't want to use an editor at all. And if they need to anyway, then I don't think joe will disappoint them.
Actually, I came across from the Dark Side(TM) and I actually do find editors quite handy at times, for, well, editing things! I like XEmacs myself, but can handle VI(M) if I must.
Perhaps you should think a bit more next time you are about to generalize about ex-Windows folk, they might not be as stupid as they seem.
Even as a relatively clueless neophyte I also find that piping a few tools together and learning a spot of ed very useful. Overreliance on editors can be a problem in some ways. Especially if it's EMACS! Not that there is anything wrong with EMACS of course, but simply that it does too much and makes things a bit too easy for the user at times.
Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery...
This point has been brought up before. Some non-American English speakers describe a group of individuals in terms of the members of the group, plural, rather than as one individual entity. Don't assume everyone speaks US English!
Hello there, are you a perl script? Or just a person on some reaaaaally good drugs?
If Mr Gates of the Borg isn't a Grand Poobah I don't know who is. Don't forget about Cardinal Ballmer and the rest of the cult.
And don't start me on Microsoft announcements! I suppose the main problem is that there is only so much mileage in "Longhorn will be unimaginably great" and "Longhorn has *ahem* been delayed again"...
well, I do all that with consensual living humans of the opposite sex, and even I was able guess from context that 'sarge' refers to the next, upcoming Debian release. Or you could try looking here?
Sorry, sorry, Britney was a very poor choice of analogy. I should have chosen someone with actual musical talent, like you did! I didn't realise that Beethoven was an early adopter of the musical profession, that's very interesting!
However, I'm afraid I still don't quite understand how it is that Mozart is supposed to have this magic quality and no other music works... what about Bach? If it's structure and innovation that is required, surely JSB has it in spades. Needless to say I'm not trying to find fault with you here, rather the researchers who always seem to use the same old Mozart.
It is true that Mozart was very innovative for his time though. Revolutionary composers are generally the most famous, as you point out.
thanks for the information!
Is is a 'clean' animal or an 'unclean' animal I wonder?
Inevitable quote, sorry...
"What do you want to give him a balm for? It might bite him!"
I'm a Buddhist and an atheist at the same time, in fact many Buddhists are. Buddhism is what you want it to be... from a purely philosophical point of view (my end of the stick) to ritual-filled Tibetan Buddhism. Nevertheless, the core ideas are the same!
damn right, funniest thing I've read all day!
of course it means nothing to non-believers. It shouldn't really mean anything to believers anyway. Wow, a boat. Now there's proof that god exists! QED!
And don't tell people to keep their beliefs to themselves either, that's what we call religious oppression. I will talk down whoever I want to talk down. I am sure that you would have no problems talking down things that you find strange, like Tibetan Animistic beliefs or voodoo, yet these are just as valid (or invalid!) as Christian beliefs. Don't pretend that because you are Christian you are a) special or b) always right.
Bah, religion. It's all a waste of time!
>He also prepared other fake wood by frying a piece of California pine on his kitchen stove in a mix of wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour and teriyaki sauces
I think my mum used to make that!
No, stating that something is both true and pedantic is not in fact redundant, and it doesn't mean that I don't care. I use pedantic in its general sense of 'bothering about details which the speaker assumes most people would consider unimportant'. That is not to say that I consider them unimportant per se, but that I think many people do. And from a usage-based linguistic viewpoint, that is more important. I guess drawing that distinction is probably in itself pedantic. I believe this post should now be modded -1, meta-redundant...
Not everyone has access to the web, all the time either. What I meant to say is that most people don't have access to an etymological dictionary 24/7. Also, they really don't care on the whole.
You're right in saying that years are still the default units for anniversaries though, at least at this point. I think the general definition that a lot of speakers keep in their heads for 'anniversary' would be 'recurring date commemorating some event', which does imply yearly dates. But it doesn't have to; linguists call this a 'defeasible implication', which means that it can be cancelled by a conflicting modifier, as in "6-month anniversary" and the like. But by default, it does imply years.
Thanks for an interesting linguistic discussion... always good to talk with someone who also thinks about these things!
wow, another 'Stralian. Thought I might be the only one around here...
I actually buy quite a bit of stuff online, mosly from amazon and a few places in the UK. I actually find that many things are in fact cheaper even after you have factored in the postage costs. Especially if you buy a few things. The postage times vary between 10 and 21 days, in my experience.
As for online music though, I just don't see the point. Buy CD, fire up LAME, relax! :) It's not like there is much new music of interest anyway.
Sorry, but usage rules! That's language users for you, always messing it up! We should do away with them altogether and just leave language as a weird, abstract artifact that isn't to be touched, like a museum piece!
True, but pedantic. Not everyone has an etymological dictionary with them all the time, and I suspect that most people wouldn't happen to know the roots as well as you do. Usage is a critical mass thing - once a certain expression or meaning becomes popular enough it becomes domninant...
So you're basically saying that it's not a mistake to type 'fairwell' because the two words which have arbitrarily been shoved together are both proper English words? By that principle, we can gain useful new compounds like 'noodlefission' or 'givepurple' at will! What a useful idea that could be.
I'm not sure that it is relevant which period the composer came from. I am simply trying to point out that Mozart is very boring and cutesy.
However now that I think about it your logic is a bit funny; you claim that there is "no math" in the music of the romantic composers I cited. True, there is a less rigid structure, with more room for variation and creativity, but that doesn't make it unstructured...
And Mozart was like Britney only in that he was unbelievably popular for his day... he certainly was a lot more talented than Britney (and every other pop "musician" for that matter!
>There's not one thing that 2000 Pro can do that XP Pro can't, and XP Pro can do a hell of a lot more.
Like crash. And run a buggy, slow network stack. And generally be a pain in the arse to enlightened computer users anywhere.
Let's face it, Windows is just for games!