I'm proud to be the owner of a rare 2004 +5 mod on an "All Your Base" riff.
(Note: This is not a flame/troll) I would like to be able to say that you're pathetic for being proud of such a thing. I would like to be able to say that... but I can't. Because if I had a post like that, I'd be proud of it too.:-)
The grandparent also didn't say "couldn't be expressed", but "has no word". Given enough verbiage, you can (probably) express any word in one language in any other language, but that's not what you want to do in conversation.
The approprately clunky sounding phrase to express the thought related in your second sentence is "concatenative assemblage".
The only thing that's wrong about only analyzing how we read English is trying to generalize those results too far to how everyone everywhere reads.
Note however, that English is actually rather widely spoken in the world. Also, there are many other left-to-right alphabet based languages out there and we can be semi-safe in saying that these results would apply to those languages as well.
OTOH, there are also right-to-left languages and pictographic languages that don't use an alphabet.
But the focus here is on how people *read*, not on how languages are structured. But that makes things even more interesting because, in many cultures where a pictographic language is common, they also (these days) have an alphabetic version of that same language. It's difficult to get by in the computer age without it. Of course, it's possible to get special keyboards, or keyboard extentions with many special characters added, but it's cumbersome, so having an alphabetic version as a backup is necessary.
Anyway--point there being: I wonder how a person being exposed to these two rather different types of language (alphabetic vs. pictographic) would affect how they read. -------
And, so yeah, I agree with you that it was rather narrow of them. But I think their results are valid--just somewhat narrow in scope.
(If the above post contained lots of not sequitors or made no sense, it's because I'm tired.)
My own pointless DOS shell gripe
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1
The thing that's always pissed me off about that ol' orginal DOS COMMAND.COM is the use of `/' as a switch character. Why, oh why did he/they do this? Why!? Just imagine how much more happy the Universe could be if they'd used `-' for switches and, thusly, later uesd `/' for directories. The world would be a better place.
Re:Time for X11R7 or even X12
on
The Power of X
·
· Score: 1
but again they fell into the trap of creating something with so much misguided "flexibility" that it's almost impossible to find any apps which actually implement the ICCC in full, let alone cooperate in any meaningful way.
But isn't this also true of TCP/IP and all the related protocols that run on top of it? I mean, I've `chatted' with several different SMTP servers via telnet and ftp servers via a good ol' CLI ftp client and, ya know, it's the darndest thing--different implementations of the same service don't all do things the same way. And some are more broken than others...
And yet, somehow the Internet just keeps on tickin'.
Actually, if you take a step back, you can see this same sort of semi-broken-ness in various Western political systems on both the local, national, and international levels. I agree it would be better if the system were all perfect and stuff. But I don't think it will ever be. And most people seem content to accept it in its semi-broken state as long as it works good enough for what they require*, and as long as it remains flexible.
Naturaly, there are always those that aren't happy with the current state of affairs and gripe about it*. But most of those gripers don't actually do anything to try to fix it.
Do you?
* (I gotta agree with you on the copy-paste issue though. Uncertain copy-paste is bad news. Maybe we can form a Concerned Users For Better Copying And Pasting initiative or something.:-) )
No he's just kibitzzing you--there's more than one definition of the word "hero" ya see. One person was using one definition while this other poster chooses to use the literary definition.
Just send them a link to a friggin' map, that's what I'd do. Maybe you could pinpoint your exact location on the map with a little star labled "I'm right here, dummy".
We can't prove "1=1". It's an axiom. In general, in all math, we have it as an axiom that a given mathematical object is equal to itself. In an environment where it's not, math is probably all broke and we can't use it. (Although note that it's possible for a logical system to be only partly broken, and still be usable. An example is any computer program that's fairly stable but crashes on rare occasions or on certain invalid inputs.) Any proofs that show 1 = 2 are proving there's a contradiction *somewhere* but they *don't* show you where the contradiction *is*. If you want to decide that 1 = 2, that's fine, but I think you'll find it difficult to balance your checkbook that way. Do you work for Enron?
Now let's prove 1 = 0.9999...
Please note: 1/3 is "1 divided by 3". "1 divided by 3", expressed as a decimal fraction is: 0.3333...
Since 1/3 and 0.3333... are merely alternate representations of "1 divided by 3" we are justified in claiming that they're equal, thusly:
1/3 = 0.3333...
Now let us multiply both sides by 3. The lhs (left hand side) poses no real problem and we get 3*(1/3) = 1 without much fuss.
The rhs is where you'll probably be crying fowl. I'm no great mathematician, but I'll do my best.
Let's express 0.333... as an infinite summation. It would look like: 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003 +...
The next part depends on how much math you have in your brain. If you've had enough experience, then you'll know the distributive property will work just fine here. In other words:
3 * (0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003 +...)
is, in fact, valid, and it really does equal
0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +...
which, of course, equals:
0.9999...
So, to summmarize, we've got
3*(1/3) = 3*(0.3333...) 1 = 0.9999...
There's also some other, more Calculusish way to show the infinite sum (9/10^n) for n=1 to infinity converges to 1 but I can't even remotely remember what it is right now.
Suppose: 1. you trust some website to be secure with the credit card info you send to them. 2. disgruntled employee dumps list of customers' info into plaintext file upon firing, then copies and pastes it all over the web.
Also, I think some of those pages are old, stale lists of previously compromised cards compiled by the people that did the compromising.
Uh... I have nothing to contribute, but I can't resist the opportunity to post here anyway.:-)
Yeah, I got some 503 errors trying to access slashdot about 20 min ago. It was especially weird for me because I haven't been to slashdot or tried to access it in any way for over a month. And the first time I do, what do I get? A slashdotted slashdot.
Yeah, let's get rid of dihydrogen monoxide while we're at it too. You know that stuff is *everywhere*!? I bet there's a *whole bunch* of it in your body *right now*!!
The real problem here isn't that people didn't know what "suffrage" meant or that people didn't know dihydrogen monoxide meant H2O. No one should be expected to carry around every little definition and factoid in their heads all the time. No, the lesson is that people should be *a lot* less knee-jerk when it comes to committing themselves to causes. But, of course, we already knew that didn't we? Didn't we? Oh, wait this is *SlashDot*. oops.
Btw, I'm not trying to post anything bad *to* you, I'm just sounding off in a general way and your post happened to be the one mine is getting attached to. Nothing personal.
Reality: If security holes aren't reported publicly, many clandestine groups will search for the same sorts of vulnerabilities, but now only in secret. True the information gathered will now be more fragmented (there couldn't be one single, large group or it would become public too easy.) It would be a bit like the current music-sharing situation vs. the Napster of the past.
Still, once the info spreads to enough people, they'll start makin' their root kits and those'll spread all over.
Only now, the white hats won't know about it until after it blows up. Yes, I know it happens this way *sometimes* now, but in this dytopia scenerio world, it would happen *all* the time.
Note: the above was written hastily wilthout much reflection or editing. If it's totally stupid or full of errors, I'm sorry.
Well it is core, yeah but it doesn't involve computers too much. It's mostly a people protocol.
At Burger King (I used to work there), either an order taker or an expiditer notices that there aren't enough fries in the hopper to fill the number of orders on queue. S/he asks/yells "{Could I get,We need} some fries down." A "cook" (food assembler) that's not busy fills a fry basket from the fry basket filling machine (really). If the fry basket filling machine has an empty hopper, the food assembler must refill the hopper first. This may or may not require going to the walk-in freezer depending on whether or not there are any bags of fries already out. (This works a bit like a page fault or a handled "buffer empty" exception in that you don't find out if the hopper's empty until you need the fries.)
Do you think I should submit this as a new RFC? No, probably not.
Incidentally, that song was played 109 times in one week by Nashville station WQZQ-FM."
I guess that might work for/on some people, but if I'm listening to a station for a length of time and they keep playing the same damn song over and over (like once an hour or more frequently), I change the station in anger. If that station does that frequently, I'll mentally black list it. So, the only time this would work on me is if I really really liked the song and that's not likely. I mean, if the label has to pay someone just to get a DJ to play it, how good can it really be?
Slashdot Mirror
(Note: This is not a flame/troll) I would like to be able to say that you're pathetic for being proud of such a thing. I would like to be able to say that... but I can't. Because if I had a post like that, I'd be proud of it too. :-)
The approprately clunky sounding phrase to express the thought related in your second sentence is "concatenative assemblage".
The only thing that's wrong about only analyzing how we read English is trying to generalize those results too far to how everyone everywhere reads.
Note however, that English is actually rather widely spoken in the world. Also, there are many other left-to-right alphabet based languages out there and we can be semi-safe in saying that these results would apply to those languages as well.
OTOH, there are also right-to-left languages and pictographic languages that don't use an alphabet.
But the focus here is on how people *read*, not on how languages are structured. But that makes things even more interesting because, in many cultures where a pictographic language is common, they also (these days) have an alphabetic version of that same language. It's difficult to get by in the computer age without it. Of course, it's possible to get special keyboards, or keyboard extentions with many special characters added, but it's cumbersome, so having an alphabetic version as a backup is necessary.
Anyway--point there being: I wonder how a person being exposed to these two rather different types of language (alphabetic vs. pictographic) would affect how they read.
-------
And, so yeah, I agree with you that it was rather narrow of them. But I think their results are valid--just somewhat narrow in scope.
(If the above post contained lots of not sequitors or made no sense, it's because I'm tired.)
The thing that's always pissed me off about that ol' orginal DOS COMMAND.COM is the use of `/' as a switch character. Why, oh why did he/they do this? Why!? Just imagine how much more happy the Universe could be if they'd used `-' for switches and, thusly, later uesd `/' for directories. The world would be a better place.
But isn't this also true of TCP/IP and all the related protocols that run on top of it? I mean, I've `chatted' with several different SMTP servers via telnet and ftp servers via a good ol' CLI ftp client and, ya know, it's the darndest thing--different implementations of the same service don't all do things the same way. And some are more broken than others...
And yet, somehow the Internet just keeps on tickin'.
Actually, if you take a step back, you can see this same sort of semi-broken-ness in various Western political systems on both the local, national, and international levels. I agree it would be better if the system were all perfect and stuff. But I don't think it will ever be. And most people seem content to accept it in its semi-broken state as long as it works good enough for what they require*, and as long as it remains flexible.
Naturaly, there are always those that aren't happy with the current state of affairs and gripe about it*. But most of those gripers don't actually do anything to try to fix it.
Do you?
* (I gotta agree with you on the copy-paste issue though. Uncertain copy-paste is bad news. Maybe we can form a Concerned Users For Better Copying And Pasting initiative or something. :-) )
No he's just kibitzzing you--there's more than one definition of the word "hero" ya see. One person was using one definition while this other poster chooses to use the literary definition.
And the world moves on...
Yeah, but I *liked* the version with the voice-over better. So, does that make me an empty-headed loser or something?
And what about Fight Club? That movie couldn't exist without voice-over.
I agree.
I could say a whole lot more, but... I better not.
I disagree with your notion of "reasonable" because it's tied to money.
Hey, I just heard Saruman has a new opening for henchman, maybe you should apply.
Just send them a link to a friggin' map, that's what I'd do. Maybe you could pinpoint your exact location on the map with a little star labled "I'm right here, dummy".
Use acronymfinder.
LOL. Damn, and I just killed my mod priveliges by posting in this thread a moment ago (before this). Oh well.
pseudomod: +1 Funny
Is this a Cannibal: the Musical reference with a black cat and a voice over?
We can't prove "1=1". It's an axiom. In general, in all math, we have it as an axiom that a given mathematical object is equal to itself. In an environment where it's not, math is probably all broke and we can't use it. (Although note that it's possible for a logical system to be only partly broken, and still be usable. An example is any computer program that's fairly stable but crashes on rare occasions or on certain invalid inputs.) Any proofs that show 1 = 2 are proving there's a contradiction *somewhere* but they *don't* show you where the contradiction *is*. If you want to decide that 1 = 2, that's fine, but I think you'll find it difficult to balance your checkbook that way. Do you work for Enron?
...
...)
...
Now let's prove 1 = 0.9999...
Please note:
1/3 is "1 divided by 3".
"1 divided by 3", expressed as a decimal fraction is: 0.3333...
Since 1/3 and 0.3333... are merely alternate representations of "1 divided by 3" we are justified in claiming that they're equal, thusly:
1/3 = 0.3333...
Now let us multiply both sides by 3. The lhs (left hand side) poses no real problem and we get
3*(1/3) = 1
without much fuss.
The rhs is where you'll probably be crying fowl. I'm no great mathematician, but I'll do my best.
Let's express 0.333... as an infinite summation. It would look like:
0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003 +
The next part depends on how much math you have in your brain. If you've had enough experience, then you'll know the distributive property will work just fine here. In other words:
3 * (0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003 +
is, in fact, valid, and it really does equal
0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 +
which, of course, equals:
0.9999...
So, to summmarize, we've got
3*(1/3) = 3*(0.3333...)
1 = 0.9999...
There's also some other, more Calculusish way to show the infinite sum (9/10^n) for n=1 to infinity converges to 1 but I can't even remotely remember what it is right now.
Ah, amper, pound, semi, (£)
I sing thy praises!
Furry cows, furry cows all around,
amper, pound, semi (£)! Amper, pound, semi (£).
Leave us not forget other importants like
amper, amper, semi (&)*,
amper, lt, semi (<), and
amper, gt, semi (>).
Escape chars, you make this rockin' world go 'round!
* (Interestingly, here on slashdot, you have to use a literal `&' to get an ampersand. How nuts is that!?)
Actually, the word "overload" is kind of overloaded on subtley different definitions too.
It doesn't always happen that way.
Suppose:
1. you trust some website to be secure with the credit card info you send to them.
2. disgruntled employee dumps list of customers' info into plaintext file upon firing, then copies and pastes it all over the web.
Also, I think some of those pages are old, stale lists of previously compromised cards compiled by the people that did the compromising.
But everyone knows the users are always the biggest security hole. .... Wait, am I gonna get turned in just for saying that?
(movie line) "You gonna classify prime numbers now?"
Uh... I have nothing to contribute, but I can't resist the opportunity to post here anyway. :-)
Yeah, I got some 503 errors trying to access slashdot about 20 min ago. It was especially weird for me because I haven't been to slashdot or tried to access it in any way for over a month. And the first time I do, what do I get? A slashdotted slashdot.
Yeah, let's get rid of dihydrogen monoxide while we're at it too. You know that stuff is *everywhere*!? I bet there's a *whole bunch* of it in your body *right now*!!
The real problem here isn't that people didn't know what "suffrage" meant or that people didn't know dihydrogen monoxide meant H2O. No one should be expected to carry around every little definition and factoid in their heads all the time. No, the lesson is that people should be *a lot* less knee-jerk when it comes to committing themselves to causes. But, of course, we already knew that didn't we? Didn't we? Oh, wait this is *SlashDot*. oops.
Btw, I'm not trying to post anything bad *to* you, I'm just sounding off in a general way and your post happened to be the one mine is getting attached to. Nothing personal.
No, it's just you getting more cynical. Doesn't mean you're wrong o'course. ;-)
Reality: If security holes aren't reported publicly, many clandestine groups will search for the same sorts of vulnerabilities, but now only in secret. True the information gathered will now be more fragmented (there couldn't be one single, large group or it would become public too easy.) It would be a bit like the current music-sharing situation vs. the Napster of the past.
Still, once the info spreads to enough people, they'll start makin' their root kits and those'll spread all over.
Only now, the white hats won't know about it until after it blows up. Yes, I know it happens this way *sometimes* now, but in this dytopia scenerio world, it would happen *all* the time.
Note: the above was written hastily wilthout much reflection or editing. If it's totally stupid or full of errors, I'm sorry.
Well it is core, yeah but it doesn't involve computers too much. It's mostly a people protocol.
At Burger King (I used to work there), either an order taker or an expiditer notices that there aren't enough fries in the hopper to fill the number of orders on queue. S/he asks/yells "{Could I get,We need} some fries down." A "cook" (food assembler) that's not busy fills a fry basket from the fry basket filling machine (really). If the fry basket filling machine has an empty hopper, the food assembler must refill the hopper first. This may or may not require going to the walk-in freezer depending on whether or not there are any bags of fries already out. (This works a bit like a page fault or a handled "buffer empty" exception in that you don't find out if the hopper's empty until you need the fries.)
Do you think I should submit this as a new RFC? No, probably not.
I guess that might work for/on some people, but if I'm listening to a station for a length of time and they keep playing the same damn song over and over (like once an hour or more frequently), I change the station in anger. If that station does that frequently, I'll mentally black list it. So, the only time this would work on me is if I really really liked the song and that's not likely. I mean, if the label has to pay someone just to get a DJ to play it, how good can it really be?
59 65 73 2C 20 79 6F 75 20 64 6F 2E