It appears to be the one by Bach from the Anna Magdalena notebook -- d4 g,8 a b c | d4 g, g | e' c8 d e fis | g4 g, g etc -- and the numbers indicate a pitch change measured in semitones, but not indicating rhythm, harmony, or counterpoint.
Some further research suggests it may originate from a BBS, probably in 1994. The earliest Usenet posting of it shown on Google Groups is from July 1994. I find the joke even more pleasing now that I know it pre-dates Windows 95 by at least a month!
[Data] "The alien ship has just opened its forward hatches and released thousands of humanoid shaped objects."
[Picard] "Magnify forward viewer on the alien craft"
[Riker] "Good God captain! Those are humans floating straight toward
the Borg ship with no life support suits! How can they survive the
tortures of deep space ?!"
[Data] "I don't believe that those are humans sir, if you will look
closer I believe you will see that they are carrying something
recognized by twenty-first century man as doe skin leather briefcases,
and wearing Armani suits"
[Riker and Picard together horrified] "Lawyers !!"
[Geordi] "It can't be. All the Lawyers were rounded up and sent
hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening."
[Data] "True, but appearently some must have survived."
[Riker] "They have surrounded the Borg ship and are covering it with
all types of papers."
[Data] "I believe that is known in ancient venacular as 'red tape' it
often proves fatal."
[Riker] "They're tearing the Borg to pieces !"
[Picard] "Turn off the monitors. I can't stand to watch, not even the
Borg deserve that."
Dredged up here via Google (no idea of the original source).
I notice that the tags on Amazon feature a new addition to the English language -- the new verb "to spore", as in "prepare to be spored". There it appears to mean "to have your reputation shredded by customers infuriated at your shitty treatment of them". Personally I feel it also needs to have a transitive sense, viz. "to cheat your customers by treating them as pieces of shit who don't deserve to get anything for their money".
Either way, I'm in favour of keeping this new verb.
It certainly does not appear in any licence associated with Chrome. It is not only completely fictional (note that the article does not actually link or provide any reference to an actual EULA), it is active shilling. For reference, here is a list of some articles written by Ina Fried for CNET:
Which EULA would that be? The one linked in the article? Oh wait, the article doesn't actually link to any EULA.
Chrome's "EULA" may be found here. It consists principally of this sentence:
The Chromium software and sample code developed by Google is licensed under the BSD license.
I therefore conclude that TFA is a figment of the imagination of its author.
I would like to assume that the author of TFA is deluded rather than a shill; unfortunately, the list of Ina Fried's articles for CNET tends to suggest otherwise.
Gee, it's not like there's cracks out there or anything. Can we please leave the dead horse alone? It's already been completely pulped, bones crushed, etc. It's soup now. Let it go. Stop splashing it.
If it were indeed dead, pulped, and crushed, I'm sure everyone would be happy to let it go. Unfortunately it's still alive and well.
At this time I'm having better luck with the download link at http://www.google.com/chrome. The small (<500 kB) installer is downloading the rest of the app as I type.
I don't know what the equivalent book for transmission of religious texts would be, but for secular texts I recommend Scribes and scholars: a guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature by Reynolds and Wilson. Getting a little out of date in some respects but still a remarkably fun read. (Surprisingly fun, if you're not normally into that kind of thing.)
In the room with me as I type this are about 40,000 pages of imaginative fiction, and that's the fraction of what I've read that I liked enough to keep through many moves.
Rather than rabidly leaping to the defence of games, as some sibling posters have done, I shall merely point out that you need more books. (Or maybe just more bookshelves, to allow a greater book density. You can do better than 100-200 books per room!)
For something that's actually intended to be an archive, perhaps. But this is expressly designed to be merely a curiosity, not an archive. So why bother going to the tremendous effort of sending it to a different planet?
The information that interests the archaeologists is, more often than not, the information that no one is particularly interested in preserving. Things like records of lawsuits, records of amounts of produce, textbooks used for education... that kind of thing. Sure, mythological documents are interesting too, but they're likely to be preserved in multiple copies anyway.
Hence, Petrushka's Made-up-on-the-spot Rule One: The documents that a society most wants to preserve are exactly those documents that archaeologists will be the least interested in. Because they know that stuff already. (Sure, there are exceptions for truly ancient civilisations where literally nothing else survives except for official documents, but...)
I reckon it's the only thing that can conceivably work, short of a blanket name suppression for all accused criminals forever. It may work, it may not. We'll see.
In its favour, the point is not to keep their names a secret, but to prevent the names from appearing on major news sites and news aggregators that will be permanently searchable by potential employers et al for the rest of eternity. In the event of a "not guilty" verdict, I don't imagine that there will be quite as much prejudice against the accused from names appearing on random blogs as there would be if they appeared on national newspapers' websites.
It's the attitude the media (press) has. We see court cases all the time, profiling the defendant. If they get convicted, they put even more coverage on - but if they don't, they just drop the story, it never gets advertised that the person was innocent.
To be fair, in NZ news there has been one notable exception to this principle of "charged once = guilty forever" -- though the re-trial hasn't taken place yet.
Not wanting to spoil a party, and you're mostly right, but even so, it merits pointing out that Eratosthenes was in fact Egyptian, according to contemporary national borders, and most definitely not Greek in any sense other than first language, and even that's a maybe. I guess he was what Americans might call a "Greek-Egyptian". Or the other way round, I'm not sure.
I feel lucky, having read your post and the sibling posts, that I noticed when the Linux version of the 901 hit shop catalogues in NZ last week (thank you pricespy.co.nz). However, it's kind of conspicuous that any shop that has announced they have any in stock is out of stock the following day. Even the WinXP models seem to sell very quickly. I would like to think that the same thing has been happening in NL and Oz; it may even be true. But Asus' heavy emphasis on the WinXP line is certainly not just bad luck, I think: it's entirely intentional.
The article did have a few "think of the poor" phrases that seemed a little obtuse (in comparison to the rest of the article, which was impeccable), as justice meted for violation of copyright laws should be, ideally, blind -- listening to what's right vs. wrong instead of who is right vs. wrong.
Personally I think Ray made a good case for this (see page 2 in particular). The judge's job, he argues, is to make sure that the trial is equitable. As he points out, there's an awful lot of ex parte stuff going on, and most times the defendant actually appears it's pro se or else the defendant's representation is only there because they have to be; given that, the only way to make sure that the trial is equitable is for the court to rest a finger lightly on the scales. I hope the article's intended readers find that half as persuasive as I do.
Actually, I'd say the fact that it effectively makes parallel importing a practical impossibility, if not outright bans it, is also pretty worrisome -- just not at quite such a personal level. (I know parallel importing is already illegal in some countries, but I've never heard a good argument as to why it should be.)
Echh, I should have known better than to communicate with an AC. Mods -- if there are any mods still on this thread -- please mod us both into oblivion.
Uhmm, you do realize that Iceland is a teenie, tiny little dot of an island
Er... an island that is considerably larger than Ireland, or Pennsylvania, or Hungary, or more than twice as large as New York state, is a "teenie, tiny little dot"? I think you need to recalibrate your sense of perspective. I mean, sure the Atlantic is big, but there's quite a lot of grades between "fucking humongous" and "teenie tiny".
Try the 3-D conversion of "Portal: the Flash Version". Still nowhere near as hard as an older puzzle game, but it's a lot harder than the vanilla game.
That's probably the most incisive and insightful observation I've read today. Thank you.
That would be why no one plays or wants Scott Adams adventures any more -- because those games do quite literally require you to try using every object on every other object in the game. People do still pull out the Hitch-Hiker's Guide game every now and then, not because they don't mind the insane requirement to explore the whole puzzle space, but precisely because the game makes fun of that approach to puzzle games.
Even Monkey Island is very dodgy in this respect. (How long did it take you to work out what to do with the rubber chicken in MI1? or that in MI2 to get the mirror you have to "use" the box of parrot chow on the hook on the wall?) Admittedly the Monkey Island games mitigated that by providing a humourous payoff not only on the successes, but some of the failed attempts; and Full Throttle and Grim Fandango did that even better (e.g. when you try using the battery powered bunnies on the fan belt at the end of Full Throttle. Pointless, but great fun).
This same point is also why I threw up my hands in disgust at Still Life halfway through -- the lockpicking puzzle is like a brick wall -- because I don't have a year to spend trying every possible combination of moves.
Smarter? Are you kidding? Portal was far easier than any old puzzle or adventure game.
One hour.
Given that it was a trainer disguised as a whole game with a complete storyline, that's not altogeter surprising -- though you would have missed most of the story presentation at that speed, so it's no wonder you hated it. (Anyway, given that the current speed run record is ca. 25 minutes, I strongly suspect your "one hour" is, shall we be polite, an exaggeration.)
However, did you notice that there are community-created maps -- Or were you too busy slagging it off? Maybe you've tried the 3-D conversion of "Portal: the Flash Version"? (I bet that'll take you only one hour as well.)
Slashdot Mirror
It appears to be the one by Bach from the Anna Magdalena notebook -- d4 g,8 a b c | d4 g, g | e' c8 d e fis | g4 g, g etc -- and the numbers indicate a pitch change measured in semitones, but not indicating rhythm, harmony, or counterpoint.
Some further research suggests it may originate from a BBS, probably in 1994. The earliest Usenet posting of it shown on Google Groups is from July 1994. I find the joke even more pleasing now that I know it pre-dates Windows 95 by at least a month!
[Data] "The alien ship has just opened its forward hatches and released thousands of humanoid shaped objects."
[Picard] "Magnify forward viewer on the alien craft"
[Riker] "Good God captain! Those are humans floating straight toward the Borg ship with no life support suits! How can they survive the tortures of deep space ?!"
[Data] "I don't believe that those are humans sir, if you will look closer I believe you will see that they are carrying something recognized by twenty-first century man as doe skin leather briefcases, and wearing Armani suits"
[Riker and Picard together horrified] "Lawyers !!"
[Geordi] "It can't be. All the Lawyers were rounded up and sent hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening."
[Data] "True, but appearently some must have survived."
[Riker] "They have surrounded the Borg ship and are covering it with all types of papers."
[Data] "I believe that is known in ancient venacular as 'red tape' it often proves fatal."
[Riker] "They're tearing the Borg to pieces !"
[Picard] "Turn off the monitors. I can't stand to watch, not even the Borg deserve that."
Dredged up here via Google (no idea of the original source).
I notice that the tags on Amazon feature a new addition to the English language -- the new verb "to spore", as in "prepare to be spored". There it appears to mean "to have your reputation shredded by customers infuriated at your shitty treatment of them". Personally I feel it also needs to have a transitive sense, viz. "to cheat your customers by treating them as pieces of shit who don't deserve to get anything for their money".
Either way, I'm in favour of keeping this new verb.
It certainly does not appear in any licence associated with Chrome. It is not only completely fictional (note that the article does not actually link or provide any reference to an actual EULA), it is active shilling. For reference, here is a list of some articles written by Ina Fried for CNET:
There are a few other non-Microsoft-shilling articles, but precious few.
Which EULA would that be? The one linked in the article? Oh wait, the article doesn't actually link to any EULA.
Chrome's "EULA" may be found here. It consists principally of this sentence:
The Chromium software and sample code developed by Google is licensed under the BSD license.
I therefore conclude that TFA is a figment of the imagination of its author.
I would like to assume that the author of TFA is deluded rather than a shill; unfortunately, the list of Ina Fried's articles for CNET tends to suggest otherwise.
Gee, it's not like there's cracks out there or anything. Can we please leave the dead horse alone? It's already been completely pulped, bones crushed, etc. It's soup now. Let it go. Stop splashing it.
If it were indeed dead, pulped, and crushed, I'm sure everyone would be happy to let it go. Unfortunately it's still alive and well.
Even if he is not important (in your eyes, at least), his money is.
May also want to uncheck "Options -> Under the hood -> Network -> Use DNS pre-fetching to improve page load performance".
Typing this in Chrome right now. Yeesh, I'd forgotten how many ads there are on the WWW. And how can I turn off the bloody spell-checker?!
At this time I'm having better luck with the download link at http://www.google.com/chrome. The small (<500 kB) installer is downloading the rest of the app as I type.
Perhaps you should read up on textual criticism.
I don't know what the equivalent book for transmission of religious texts would be, but for secular texts I recommend Scribes and scholars: a guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature by Reynolds and Wilson. Getting a little out of date in some respects but still a remarkably fun read. (Surprisingly fun, if you're not normally into that kind of thing.)
In the room with me as I type this are about 40,000 pages of imaginative fiction, and that's the fraction of what I've read that I liked enough to keep through many moves.
Rather than rabidly leaping to the defence of games, as some sibling posters have done, I shall merely point out that you need more books. (Or maybe just more bookshelves, to allow a greater book density. You can do better than 100-200 books per room!)
For something that's actually intended to be an archive, perhaps. But this is expressly designed to be merely a curiosity, not an archive. So why bother going to the tremendous effort of sending it to a different planet?
The information that interests the archaeologists is, more often than not, the information that no one is particularly interested in preserving. Things like records of lawsuits, records of amounts of produce, textbooks used for education ... that kind of thing. Sure, mythological documents are interesting too, but they're likely to be preserved in multiple copies anyway.
Hence, Petrushka's Made-up-on-the-spot Rule One: The documents that a society most wants to preserve are exactly those documents that archaeologists will be the least interested in. Because they know that stuff already. (Sure, there are exceptions for truly ancient civilisations where literally nothing else survives except for official documents, but ...)
I reckon it's the only thing that can conceivably work, short of a blanket name suppression for all accused criminals forever. It may work, it may not. We'll see.
In its favour, the point is not to keep their names a secret, but to prevent the names from appearing on major news sites and news aggregators that will be permanently searchable by potential employers et al for the rest of eternity. In the event of a "not guilty" verdict, I don't imagine that there will be quite as much prejudice against the accused from names appearing on random blogs as there would be if they appeared on national newspapers' websites.
It's the attitude the media (press) has. We see court cases all the time, profiling the defendant. If they get convicted, they put even more coverage on - but if they don't, they just drop the story, it never gets advertised that the person was innocent.
To be fair, in NZ news there has been one notable exception to this principle of "charged once = guilty forever" -- though the re-trial hasn't taken place yet.
Not wanting to spoil a party, and you're mostly right, but even so, it merits pointing out that Eratosthenes was in fact Egyptian, according to contemporary national borders, and most definitely not Greek in any sense other than first language, and even that's a maybe. I guess he was what Americans might call a "Greek-Egyptian". Or the other way round, I'm not sure.
I feel lucky, having read your post and the sibling posts, that I noticed when the Linux version of the 901 hit shop catalogues in NZ last week (thank you pricespy.co.nz). However, it's kind of conspicuous that any shop that has announced they have any in stock is out of stock the following day. Even the WinXP models seem to sell very quickly. I would like to think that the same thing has been happening in NL and Oz; it may even be true. But Asus' heavy emphasis on the WinXP line is certainly not just bad luck, I think: it's entirely intentional.
The article did have a few "think of the poor" phrases that seemed a little obtuse (in comparison to the rest of the article, which was impeccable), as justice meted for violation of copyright laws should be, ideally, blind -- listening to what's right vs. wrong instead of who is right vs. wrong.
Personally I think Ray made a good case for this (see page 2 in particular). The judge's job, he argues, is to make sure that the trial is equitable. As he points out, there's an awful lot of ex parte stuff going on, and most times the defendant actually appears it's pro se or else the defendant's representation is only there because they have to be; given that, the only way to make sure that the trial is equitable is for the court to rest a finger lightly on the scales. I hope the article's intended readers find that half as persuasive as I do.
Actually, I'd say the fact that it effectively makes parallel importing a practical impossibility, if not outright bans it, is also pretty worrisome -- just not at quite such a personal level. (I know parallel importing is already illegal in some countries, but I've never heard a good argument as to why it should be.)
Echh, I should have known better than to communicate with an AC. Mods -- if there are any mods still on this thread -- please mod us both into oblivion.
Uhmm, you do realize that Iceland is a teenie, tiny little dot of an island
Er ... an island that is considerably larger than Ireland, or Pennsylvania, or Hungary, or more than twice as large as New York state, is a "teenie, tiny little dot"? I think you need to recalibrate your sense of perspective. I mean, sure the Atlantic is big, but there's quite a lot of grades between "fucking humongous" and "teenie tiny".
Try the 3-D conversion of "Portal: the Flash Version". Still nowhere near as hard as an older puzzle game, but it's a lot harder than the vanilla game.
That's probably the most incisive and insightful observation I've read today. Thank you.
That would be why no one plays or wants Scott Adams adventures any more -- because those games do quite literally require you to try using every object on every other object in the game. People do still pull out the Hitch-Hiker's Guide game every now and then, not because they don't mind the insane requirement to explore the whole puzzle space, but precisely because the game makes fun of that approach to puzzle games.
Even Monkey Island is very dodgy in this respect. (How long did it take you to work out what to do with the rubber chicken in MI1? or that in MI2 to get the mirror you have to "use" the box of parrot chow on the hook on the wall?) Admittedly the Monkey Island games mitigated that by providing a humourous payoff not only on the successes, but some of the failed attempts; and Full Throttle and Grim Fandango did that even better (e.g. when you try using the battery powered bunnies on the fan belt at the end of Full Throttle. Pointless, but great fun).
This same point is also why I threw up my hands in disgust at Still Life halfway through -- the lockpicking puzzle is like a brick wall -- because I don't have a year to spend trying every possible combination of moves.
Smarter? Are you kidding? Portal was far easier than any old puzzle or adventure game.
One hour.
Given that it was a trainer disguised as a whole game with a complete storyline, that's not altogeter surprising -- though you would have missed most of the story presentation at that speed, so it's no wonder you hated it. (Anyway, given that the current speed run record is ca. 25 minutes, I strongly suspect your "one hour" is, shall we be polite, an exaggeration.)
However, did you notice that there are community-created maps -- Or were you too busy slagging it off? Maybe you've tried the 3-D conversion of "Portal: the Flash Version"? (I bet that'll take you only one hour as well.)
The Ivy League is just a brand,
It's not even that; it's a sports league, nothing to do with academic content or quality.