Screens
Mike Causer
the stuff I need. I'd spec'd a machine for her and their price to me
was £250 plus the dreaded VAT. She'd been in on her own and they
suggested £400 +VAT for what she needed. Hmmm. Hence the trip today
so that the actual purchase was at the prices they quoted me. They do
a good job of building, and all components I specified are good name,
not bottom of their range. And I'll save her the M$ tax by installing
Ubuntu FOC.
But. But we came to a monitor. My friend writes. Writes letters,
articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't
buy anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"! Is that
what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
Mike
--
Mike Causer
Lawns 'R' Us
> But. But we came to a monitor. My friend writes. Writes letters,
> articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
> wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't
> buy anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"! Is that
> what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
Two sheets of paper, side by side. One for references, one for the
writing. Granted, I don't know how your friend does her writing, but
this seems to me to make a modicum of sense ...
Peter H. Coffin
> But. But we came to a monitor. My friend writes. Writes letters,
> articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
> wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't
> buy anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"! Is that
> what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
xrandr?
--
71. If I decide to test a lieutenant's loyalty and see if he/she should be
made a trusted lieutenant, I will have a crack squad of marksmen standing
by in case the answer is no.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Jim
> But. But we came to a monitor. My friend writes. Writes letters,
> articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
> wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't
> buy anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"! Is that
> what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
Many of them rotate.
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Mike Causer
Yeees. But as far as she is concerned M$-Word is the tool of "choice".
Just about to be converted to OpenOffice of course, The conversion to
OO may push the bounds of friendship, but not as much as converting her
to what she really needs -- Vim.
Mike
--
Mike Causer
Shmuel Metz
at 10:26 PM, Mike Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> said:
>But. But we came to a monitor. My friend writes. Writes letters,
>articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
>wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't buy
>anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"!
I can't speak for the UK, but the orifice despot seems to be dominated by
displays 1080[1] pixels deep. Don't they sell 1080p TV's in England?
>Is that what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
Judging by seeing nothing on the shelves deeper than 1080, the inventory
people at the chains must think so.
[1] I have a 1920x1200 display, but I didn't get it at a chain store.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz
at 06:43 AM, j...@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) said:
>Many of them rotate.
The monitors or the movies?
Peter Corlett
[...]
> I can't speak for the UK, but the orifice despot seems to be dominated by
> displays 1080[1] pixels deep. Don't they sell 1080p TV's in England?
Yes, although retailers are more determined to offload 720p "HD Ready" sets
instead. I had to actively seek out a 1080p unit from a specialist retailer,
when then did it for the same price as I'd have paid for a 720p elsewhere.
Robert Sneddon
Causer <m.r.c...@goglemail.com> writes
>But. But we came to a monitor. My friend writes. Writes letters,
>articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
>wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't
>buy anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"! Is that
>what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
Pretty much, yes. Did you really expect any other sort of answer?
Right now 1920 x 1200 format is the affordable high-end TFT resolution
on the market with its boob-tube-ready little brother 1920 x 1080 if
you're willing to accept less pixels. You can get them in various
flavours of diagonal from 23" to 28" with the sweet spot being 24".
There is the lustworthy 30" 2560x1600 badge-engineered Philips panel
display from Apple/Dell/HP but that would set her back over a kilobuck
plus. It also requires a decent graphics card as it has to feed that
screen estate with a dual-link DVI connection.
If you're willing to poke around in dusty attics and shell out even
more cash, look for a S/H IBM T221 or the badge-engineered Viewsonic
variant. It's only 22" diagonal but has a resolution of 3840 x 2400. The
contrast is crap, as is the brightness, viewing angle, refresh rate etc.
and it needs a thousand-buck 4-channel video card to feed it but man
look at the pixel density on that bitch.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Graham Reed
> Many of them rotate.
And for the ones that don't, if their built-in stand uses a 100mm x
100mm VESA mount, a few moments with a screwdriver and they're
taller-than-wide.
Any square mount should do, actually; the plastic pretty bits might
not fit back on in the rotated position, but they're behind the screen
usually.
Or it's time to spring for a desk-mount arm.
--
"I thought we'd be dead by step two, so this is going great!"
-- Verne, in "Over the Hedge"
Lawns 'R' Us
> There is the lustworthy 30" 2560x1600 badge-engineered Philips panel
> display from Apple/Dell/HP but that would set her back over a kilobuck
> plus. It also requires a decent graphics card as it has to feed that
> screen estate with a dual-link DVI connection.
No. That is not lustworthy. http://tinyurl.com/yf4bap2 is lustworthy.
(Ok, at a typical price of over $AU6700, it damn well better be, but
man, I'd love one...)
Lionel
*drools*
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Causer
Graham Reed <gr...@pobox.com> wrote:
> And for the ones that don't, if their built-in stand uses a 100mm x
> 100mm VESA mount, a few moments with a screwdriver and they're
> taller-than-wide.
Mmmmm, yes. Must investigate the depths of KDE and Gnome; I'm sure
I've seen some Useful Settings in there....
Mike
--
Mike Causer
Robert Sneddon
<slrnhek5hk...@invalid.hostname.does.not.exist.666.au>, Lawns 'R'
Us <nob...@nowhere.example.com> writes
>On 2009-10-29, Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> There is the lustworthy 30" 2560x1600 badge-engineered Philips panel
>> display from Apple/Dell/HP
>
>(Ok, at a typical price of over $AU6700, it damn well better be, but
>man, I'd love one...)
It's the Philips 30" glass panel with a hardware colour calibrator
attached plus the Eizo name. Heck it doesn't even have the new LED
backlighting system that gets the Adobe-match gamut over the 100% hump
like the newer Apple monitors do.
Alan J Rosenthal
>as far as she is concerned M$-Word is the tool of "choice".
Yes, I think that this was said in an article by George Orwell.
The war department is the Ministry of Peace, and Microsoft is the Ministry
of Choice.
Niklas Karlsson
>
> Must investigate the depths of KDE and Gnome; I'm sure
> I've seen some Useful Settings in there....
IFRTA 'the deaths of...' but of course, it was merely a lack of coffee
leading to an unusually optimistic reading (for once).
Niklas
--
Microsoft's software "Wizards" show that their marketing department
is envisioning Tolkien but their coders are more into Pratchett.
-- Anthony de Boer, asr
Shmuel Metz
at 04:22 PM, Graham Reed <gr...@pobox.com> said:
>And for the ones that don't, if their built-in stand uses a 100mm x 100mm
>VESA mount, a few moments with a screwdriver and they're
>taller-than-wide.
Some monitors used to have drivers that noticed the rotation and
automagically changed between landscape and portrait.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>Some monitors used to have drivers that noticed the rotation and
>automagically changed between landscape and portrait.
I had a Radius Pivot in 1994, on a Power Macintosh 7100. About four
or five years ago someone tried to tell me of a wonderful "new"
Windows feature which allowed you to arrange multiple monitors with
different resolutions and even orientations into a single contiguous
desktop. I laughed.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
Alan J Rosenthal
>I had a Radius Pivot in 1994, on a Power Macintosh 7100. About four
>or five years ago someone tried to tell me of a wonderful "new"
>Windows feature which allowed you to arrange multiple monitors with
>different resolutions and even orientations into a single contiguous
>desktop.
Remember all the hoopla about how Windows 95 supported file names longer
than 8 characters?
Dylan Smith
> articles, books; and does a bit of email. WTF does she need a
> wide-screen monitor? She needs a deep-screen monitor, but you can't
> buy anything other than 1600x900 except on "special order"! Is that
> what computers are for now -- watching wide-screen movies?
It's quite simple, I think -- marketing.
A 21 inch 4x3 aspect ratio monitor needs a larger LCD panel than a 21 inch
16x9 aspect ratio. So you can quote a bigger diagonal inches number for
a screen that's actually smaller than the traditional 4x3 model.
It's really no different from using decimal gigabytes for discs instead
of binary ones.
Graham Reed
> If you're willing to poke around in dusty attics and shell out even
> more cash, look for a S/H IBM T221 or the badge-engineered Viewsonic
> variant.
To get a good 21" 4:3 screen for my Mom, I had to use a full-fledged
business-oriented VAR (PQJ) instead of the consumer places. It was
16:9 and 16:10 only at any consumer place.
Got her the newer version of the one I have for the non-lapdogs. It's
a beautiful panel for everyday computer stuff; I wouldn't recommend it
for photo stuff though. It even does alright for video and games.
And yes, it was rather more spendy than the stuff from the consumer
places. But so much of that was crap I wouldn't buy anyways, it's not
really a valid price comparison.
I had to get it delivered to the office, which is really annoying,
because it's so much better a screen than Ork provides.
--
^F^R^E^A^K
Graham Reed
> Remember all the hoopla about how Windows 95 supported file names longer
> than 8 characters?
Or when the PC crowd came out with "Wave Table" sound synthesis?
I had to say, "so, wait, if that's the new way, what HAVE you guys
been doing instead?"
And then I understood why MIDI files were so popular on Windows 3.1.
--
^F^R^E^A^K
Shmuel Metz
at 01:47 PM, Dylan Smith <dy...@alioth.net> said:
>It's really no different from using decimal gigabytes for discs instead
>of binary ones.
G is not Gi, despite decades of misuse. Likewise, M is not KKi
(2**10*10*3), despite misuse.
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>G is not Gi, despite decades of misuse. Likewise, M is not KKi
>(2**10*10*3), despite misuse.
I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries of
prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article <4aeb1bf6$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>G is not Gi, despite decades of misuse. Likewise, M is not KKi
>>(2**10*10*3), despite misuse.
Doesn't M traditionally innacurately refer to KiKi?
> I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries of
> prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise.
Except that this isn't language; this is precise technical data (and
also ASR), and there is no room for inaccuracies and ambiguosity.
--
TimC
Jun 26 14:08:17 kernel: troll-o-meter (pid 15134) killed: memory exhausted
Garrett Wollman
TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>On 2009-10-30, Garrett Wollman (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> In article <4aeb1bf6$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>G is not Gi, despite decades of misuse. Likewise, M is not KKi
>>>(2**10*10*3), despite misuse.
>
>Doesn't M traditionally innacurately refer to KiKi?
>
>> I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries of
>> prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise.
>
>Except that this isn't language;
Nonsense.
Shmuel Metz
at 09:41 PM, TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au>
said:
>Doesn't M traditionally innacurately refer to KiKi?
One might hope that if M is misused at all it would only be misused to
refer to Ki*Ki. One would be disappointed. Weren't you around long enough
to have encountered that particular (M=1024000) abortion?
Shmuel Metz
at 09:43 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries of
>prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise.
War is peace.
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> at 09:43 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>>I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries of
>>prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise.
>
>War is peace.
Excuse me? You're not making any sense.
Joe Zeff
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:41:52 +0000 (UTC), Garrett Wollman
> <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> : In article <4aed9689$10$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>, : Shmuel
> (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: : >In
> <hcfmm4$nlo$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, on 10/30/2009 : > at 09:43 PM,
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said: : >
> : >>I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries
> of : >>prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise. : >
> : >War is peace.
> :
> : Excuse me? You're not making any sense.
>
> Freedom is Slavery.
>
Shit is Shinola.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
As I said it before, all mushrooms are edible, some
of them only once.
John F. Eldredge
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:41:52 +0000 (UTC), Garrett Wollman
> <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
> : In article <4aed9689$10$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>, : Shmuel
> (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: : >In
> <hcfmm4$nlo$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, on 10/30/2009 : > at 09:43 PM,
> wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said: : >
> : >>I call bullshit. Language doesn't work that way, despite centuries
> of : >>prescriptivists wishing it were otherwise. : >
> : >War is peace.
> :
> : Excuse me? You're not making any sense.
>
> Freedom is Slavery.
>
> Gaz
And, to complete the quotations, "Ignorance is Strength".
"War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", and "Ignorance is Strength" were
the three mottos of the totalitarian government in Orwell's novel _1984_.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Garrett Wollman
John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>"War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", and "Ignorance is Strength" were
>the three mottos of the totalitarian government in Orwell's novel _1984_.
Also completely irrelevant to the notion that the meaning of words in
the English language is defined by the whole community of people who
speak English, not by bureaucrats in Geneva.
Maarten Wiltink
news:hclgtl$2rt7$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
>> "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", and "Ignorance is Strength"
>> were the three mottos of the totalitarian government in Orwell's
>> novel _1984_.
Is there anyone (here) who doesn't know that?
> Also completely irrelevant to the notion that the meaning of words
> in the English language is defined by the whole community of people
> who speak English, not by bureaucrats in Geneva.
The bureaucrats in Geneva are irrelevant to the meaning or words in
the English language. The bureaucrats in London and Washington are
irrelevant; bureaucrats everywhere can't change it and I'm not sure
that's a bad thing.
Marketeers are imitated for the meaning of words today, and *that*
annoys me. We'll end up with words that have no meaning whatsoever.
The marketeers have two down, one to go. Some day, over oil or water,
they'll convince us[0] that continued consumerism is worth killing
other people over.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
[0] Or probably 'them'.
SteveD
<maa...@kittensandcats.net> wrote:
>Marketeers are imitated for the meaning of words today, and *that*
>annoys me. We'll end up with words that have no meaning whatsoever.
>The marketeers have two down, one to go. Some day, over oil or water,
>they'll convince us[0] that continued consumerism is worth killing
>other people over.
Jennifer Government?
Maarten Wiltink
news:k2dte59iia2qm3arq...@4ax.com...
Didn't read it[0]. I'll suggest the lovely miss M.F. Baldwin instead -
not that there seems to be much difference between the two worlds.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
[0] Bought it, though; as a present. He seemed to consider it rather
mediocre.
Gene Sullivan
> "SteveD" <use...@vo.id.au> wrote in message
> news:k2dte59iia2qm3arq...@4ax.com...
> Didn't read it[0]. I'll suggest the lovely miss M.F. Baldwin instead -
> not that there seems to be much difference between the two worlds.
> [0] Bought it, though; as a present. He seemed to consider it rather
> mediocre.
I enjoyed it, though some effort was required on my part to maintain
willing suspension of disbelief. It was a good concept, but I liked
it better when it was called "Snow Crash".
My biggest problem with it was that the world presented in the book
simply felt too small to contain the story. It felt a little like I
was reading an allegorical screenplay.
--
Gene Sullivan :: curio...@gmail.com :: http://curiousgene.com
I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box
when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
-Terry Pratchett in afp
Brian Kantor
>Nonsense.
That too.
Alan J Rosenthal
>Marketeers are imitated for the meaning of words today, and *that*
>Some day, over oil or water,
>they'll convince us[0] that continued consumerism is worth killing
>other people over.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
"Unrestrained growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
Kevin Goebel
>annoys me. We'll end up with words that have no meaning whatsoever.
>The marketeers have two down, one to go. Some day, over oil or water,
>they'll convince us[0] that continued consumerism is worth killing
>other people over.
>Tebrgwrf,
>Maarten Wiltink
>[0] Or probably 'them'.
At least that's the excuse some of us will offer at our trials...
Kevin Goebel
Brian Kantor
>At least that's the excuse some of us will offer at our trials...
By then, trials will be obsolete - mere suspicion will be sufficient
to procure more organ donors.
- Brian
Just zis Guy, you know?
>By then, trials will be obsolete - mere suspicion will be sufficient
>to procure more organ donors.
You've been reading too much Larry Niven.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
Shmuel Metz
at 04:41 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>Excuse me?
Google for 1984.
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> at 04:41 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>>Excuse me?
>
>Google for 1984.
You still have failed to make the remotest connection between the
novel and the way language actually works in reality. Are you just
spouting quotations for the hell of it or do you actually have
something meaningful to say?
Shmuel Metz
at 10:23 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>You still have failed to make the remotest connection between the novel
>and the way language actually works in reality.
The connection is obvious. Language is a tool, and breaking the language
breaks our ability to communicate.
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> at 10:23 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>>You still have failed to make the remotest connection between the novel
>>and the way language actually works in reality.
>
>The connection is obvious. Language is a tool, and breaking the language
>breaks our ability to communicate.
OK, it's pretty clear to me that one of us just doesn't get it, and
I'm willing to bet that it is you rather than I.
Just to make myself totally clear, I'll repeat the point that I made
upthread:
The meaning of expressions in a human language is defined by
how the humans in that language community use them, period,
end of story.
Jasper Janssen
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>In <125698552...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au>, on 10/31/2009
> at 09:41 PM, TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au>
>said:
>
>>Doesn't M traditionally innacurately refer to KiKi?
>
>One might hope that if M is misused at all it would only be misused to
>refer to Ki*Ki. One would be disappointed. Weren't you around long enough
>to have encountered that particular (M=1024000) abortion?
It happens (and especially happened), but to call it common would be a
gross overstatement.
Jasper
Maarten Wiltink
[...]
> The meaning of expressions in a human language is defined by
> how the humans in that language community use them, period,
> end of story.
Every time you say that, God kills a standards body.
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
David Cameron Staples
Every time *he* says it, or can we all have a go?
What if we record him saying it and put it on a loop?
Shmuel Metz
at 05:13 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>Just to make myself totally clear, I'll repeat the point that I made
>upthread:
Repeating a claim does not make it true.
Shmuel Metz
at 11:57 AM, David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> said:
>What if we record him saying it and put it on a loop?
ObDiskWorld There is another theory that that has already happened.
Peter H. Coffin
> "Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
> news:hcv14k$4rl$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> [...]
>> The meaning of expressions in a human language is defined by
>> how the humans in that language community use them, period,
>> end of story.
>
> Every time you say that, God kills a standards body.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
--
26. No matter how attractive certain members of the rebellion are, there is
probably someone just as attractive who is not desperate to kill me.
Therefore, I will think twice before ordering a prisoner sent to my
bedchamber. --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Maarten Wiltink
news:slrnhf8a9j....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:47:45 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> "Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
>> news:hcv14k$4rl$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
>>> The meaning of expressions in a human language is defined by
>>> how the humans in that language community use them, period,
>>> end of story.
>>
>> Every time you say that, God kills a standards body.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
No I didn't. I said it with a completely straight face.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> at 05:13 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>>Just to make myself totally clear, I'll repeat the point that I made
>>upthread:
>
>Repeating a claim does not make it true.
Your ignorance of linguistics does not make it false.
Joe Zeff
> In <4af40f0f$0$5423$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, on 11/06/2009
> at 11:57 AM, David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> said:
>
>>What if we record him saying it and put it on a loop?
>
> ObDiskWorld There is another theory that that has already happened.
ITYM ObHHGTTG. ICBW.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
I think that's because the Geneva convention prohibits
doing such things.
Shmuel Metz
at 05:03 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>Your ignorance of linguistics does not make it false.
ROTF.LMAO! There is a difference between not knowing something and not
believing it. The claptrap that you're parroting is decades old; I'm fully
aware that it is the politically correct party line, and have been since
before you were in diapers. If you don't understand why I alluded to Mr.
Blair than you're dumber than a rock.
BTW, I'd like to conduct a brief experiment to see whether you really
believe that malarky. Are a cc and an ml the same? If not, why not?
Shmuel Metz
at 06:16 PM, Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> said:
>ITYM ObHHGTTG. ICBW.
In the event, you're not wrong; it was, as you note, the HHGTTG. My
apologies to Mr. Adams (z"l).
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>ROTF.LMAO! There is a difference between not knowing something and not
>believing it. The claptrap that you're parroting is decades old;
There is clearly no point in attempting any further conversation with
you, since you don't know a damn thing about how language works.
Plonk.
Lionel
> "Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
> news:hcv14k$4rl$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> [...]
>> The meaning of expressions in a human language is defined by
>> how the humans in that language community use them, period,
>> end of story.
>
> Every time you say that, God kills a standards body.
If only...
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Jasper Janssen
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <4af493ba$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>ROTF.LMAO! There is a difference between not knowing something and not
>>believing it. The claptrap that you're parroting is decades old;
>
>There is clearly no point in attempting any further conversation with
>you, since you don't know a damn thing about how language works.
>Plonk.
He has a point. The "purely descriptive" camp, when taken to extremes as
you're doing here, ends up with words meaning nothing, rather than
something, and communication becoming impossible.
The argument is always over who defines what a word means, and usually the
options are the Academie Francaise or the people of Britain (to name the
two most famous examples on either end). Your statement appears to be that
you personally define what you mean by any word you personally use. This,
however, makes any statement you make semantically meaningless, since
nobody knows you haven't redefined "I" to mean "teapot".
Jasper
Garrett Wollman
Jasper Janssen <jasper....@gmail.com> wrote:
>He has a point. The "purely descriptive" camp, when taken to extremes as
>you're doing here, ends up with words meaning nothing, rather than
>something, and communication becoming impossible.
Nonsense. Words mean what the users of the language take them to
mean, at a given time and in a given place and register. That is what
makes communication *possible* in the first place. Words do not have
Platonic essences. Language changes: all people, in different times
and situations, use old lexemes to mean different things (polysemy),
invent new lexemes to mean the same thing as some other word
(synonymy) or something entirely new, take bits out, tack bits on, and
in general adjust their vocabulary to meet the semantic and stylistic
needs of the moment -- and their ability to communicate depends solely
on whether their vocabulary is compatible with that of their audience,
not on some official _imprimatur_ from Geneva or anywhere else.
Steve VanDevender
> In <hcqah4$1hob$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, on 11/03/2009
> at 10:23 PM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>>You still have failed to make the remotest connection between the novel
>>and the way language actually works in reality.
>
> The connection is obvious. Language is a tool, and breaking the language
> breaks our ability to communicate.
A delightful allegorical counterargument to this notion is in the
chapter "Loyal to the Group of Seventeen's Story -- The Just Man" in
Gene Wolfe's _The Citadel of the Autarch_. To quote the most incisive
part of Severian's summary:
I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for expression.
The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only with their masters'
voice, but they had made of it a new tongue, and I had no doubt,
after hearing the Ascian, that by it he could express whatever
thought he wished.
--
Steve VanDevender "I ride the big iron" http://hexadecimal.uoregon.edu/
ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu PGP keyprint 4AD7AF61F0B9DE87 522902969C0A7EE8
Little things break, circuitry burns / Time flies while my little world turns
Every day comes, every day goes / 100 years and nobody shows -- Happy Rhodes
Steve VanDevender
> He has a point. The "purely descriptive" camp, when taken to extremes as
> you're doing here, ends up with words meaning nothing, rather than
> something, and communication becoming impossible.
The "purely descriptive camp" tells you what the people who are actually
using words think they mean, rather than what some authority thinks they
mean. Descriptivism in no way asserts that words mean nothing; it is,
in fact, the attempt to figure out what words really mean, rather than
taking on faith someone else's assertions about what they mean.
Steve VanDevender
> Are a cc and an ml the same? If not, why not?
The current definition of the liter is a cubic decimeter, so "cc" and
"ml" refer to exactly the same amount of volume by different names.
From 1901 to 1964, however, the liter was defined as the volume of a
kilogram of water at 4 degrees C and was not exactly a cubic decimeter
nor were the cc and ml the same amount of volume, but fortunately that
awkward definition is obsolete.
Richard Gadsden
I will bet that M=1024000 has been printed more often than any other
meaning, given the sheer number of "1.44M" floppys that were manufactured.
--
Richard Gadsden ric...@gadsden.name
"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to
the death your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Richard Gadsden
I think a more accurate characterisation is "When I use a word, it means
what the people I intended to communicate with are likely to understand
it as meaning."
Maarten Wiltink
news:ZbWdndkleeYpmmXX...@giganews.com...
> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>> "Garrett Wollman" <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote in message
>> news:hcv14k$4rl$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
>>> The meaning of expressions in a human language is defined by
>>> how the humans in that language community use them, period,
>>> end of story.
>>
>> Every time you say that, God kills a standards body.
>>
>> "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."
>
> I think a more accurate characterisation is "When I use a word, it
> means what the people I intended to communicate with are likely to
> understand it as meaning."
That may be what Garrett wants, and it may be what the standards
bodies want [to enforce], but it's not what Humpty Dumpty is reported
to have said.
God[0], I hate having to explain a joke.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
[0] I reserve the right to mean whatever I want by that word.
Shmuel Metz
at 02:42 AM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>Nonsense. Words mean what the users of the language take them to mean,
Then cc and ml mean the same thing. Lots of luck when you need precision
measurements.
Niklas Karlsson
> [...]
> Gene Wolfe's _The Citadel of the Autarch_. To quote the most incisive
> part of Severian's summary:
>
> I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for expression.
> The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only with their masters'
> voice, but they had made of it a new tongue, and I had no doubt,
> after hearing the Ascian, that by it he could express whatever
> thought he wished.
I suspect the people of Unicodia could express it better, though.
Niklas
--
> I still haven't found the right problem to learn perl over...
Your essential mistake here is that you seek such a program. This is
self-defeating Zen. When the time is right, the right program will quietly make
_itself_ known to you. -- Christian Bauernfeind and Tanuki in asr
Richard Gadsden
> at 02:42 AM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>> Nonsense. Words mean what the users of the language take them to mean,
>
> Then cc and ml mean the same thing. Lots of luck when you need precision
> measurements.
You need to ask "which users?". In casual use, yeah; in precision use,
well actually, yes again because the ml got redefined to be a cc in
1964.
If you've taken a precision measurement, then the person reading your
measurement will know that it's a precision measurement from the
context, assuming you're not a bad writer, and so will treat any units
as having their precise definitions; if it's a recipe, you won't ask
someone to add 342.6521cc of water; you'll say about 350cc; if they put
in 350ml using the pre-1964 definition, then you won't care.
User != luser
John Burnham
> In <hd5b70$28pe$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, on 11/08/2009
> at 02:42 AM, wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) said:
>
>>Nonsense. Words mean what the users of the language take them to mean,
>
> Then cc and ml mean the same thing. Lots of luck when you need precision
> measurements.
Errm *cough* from the OED:
Millitre | Milliliter:
One-thousandth of a litre (approx. 0.0338 fluid ounce, 0.0610 cubic inch). Symbol ml.
Originally, and also since 1964, identically equal to a cubic centimetre:
see the note at LITRE n.2 a.
Ya wanna argue with the OED ?
J
Shmuel Metz
at 06:58 PM, Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu> said:
>Severian's summary
Keep in mind his profession ;-)
Maarten Wiltink
news:7lqjqtF...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-11-09, Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>> Gene Wolfe's _The Citadel of the Autarch_. To quote the most incisive
>> part of Severian's summary:
>>
>> I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for expression.
>> The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only with their masters'
>> voice, but they had made of it a new tongue, and I had no doubt,
>> after hearing the Ascian, that by it he could express whatever
>> thought he wished.
>
> I suspect the people of Unicodia could express it better, though.
Not better. They just didn't need as much steganography. (Provided by
juvenile apprentices to the art of lawful expression, the so-called
'code-pages'.)
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Paul
> On 2009-11-09, Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu>
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Gene Wolfe's _The Citadel of the Autarch_. To quote the most
>> incisive part of Severian's summary:
>>
>> I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for
>> expression. The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only
>> with their masters' voice, but they had made of it a new
>> tongue, and I had no doubt, after hearing the Ascian, that by
>> it he could express whatever thought he wished.
>
> I suspect the people of Unicodia could express it better, though.
Where does that leave the people of Ebcdicia?
--
Paul the Legacy Server
Full Recovery reached May 30, 2008
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant
Maarten Wiltink
news:Xns9CBE78C...@188.40.43.213...
> Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote in
> news:7lqjqtF...@mid.individual.net:
>> On 2009-11-09, Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Gene Wolfe's _The Citadel of the Autarch_. To quote the most
>>> incisive part of Severian's summary:
>>>
>>> I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for
>>> expression. The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only
>>> with their masters' voice, but they had made of it a new
>>> tongue, and I had no doubt, after hearing the Ascian, that by
>>> it he could express whatever thought he wished.
>>
>> I suspect the people of Unicodia could express it better, though.
>
> Where does that leave the people of Ebcdicia?
On a different map.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Joe Zeff
> Ya wanna argue with the OED ?
Why not? Why should I think that the Ohio Employment Department knows
anything about how units of measure are defined?
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Things are always darkest just before they turn on the lights.
David DeLaney
>"Paul" <pssa...@comcast.net.INVALID> wrote in message
>>>> Gene Wolfe's _The Citadel of the Autarch_. To quote the most
>>>> incisive part of Severian's summary:
>>>>
>>>> I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for
>>>> expression. The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only
>>>> with their masters' voice, but they had made of it a new
>>>> tongue, and I had no doubt, after hearing the Ascian, that by
>>>> it he could express whatever thought he wished.
>>>
>>> I suspect the people of Unicodia could express it better, though.
>>
>> Where does that leave the people of Ebcdicia?
>
>On a different map.
we have always been at war
Dave "the sequel to 1984 is going to be 2012, right?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Seth
Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>Jasper Janssen <jasper....@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> He has a point. The "purely descriptive" camp, when taken to extremes as
>> you're doing here, ends up with words meaning nothing, rather than
>> something, and communication becoming impossible.
>
>The "purely descriptive camp" tells you what the people who are actually
>using words think they mean, rather than what some authority thinks they
>mean. Descriptivism in no way asserts that words mean nothing; it is,
>in fact, the attempt to figure out what words really mean, rather than
>taking on faith someone else's assertions about what they mean.
The problem is, the purely descriptive camp seems to believe that any
user of a word is just as good as any other. I prefer to follow the
usage by educated intelligent people rather than those who can't spell
"its" and tell the difference between "affect" and "effect".
Seth
Shmuel Metz
at 04:52 PM, Paul <pssa...@comcast.net.INVALID> said:
>Where does that leave the people of Ebcdicia?
Like certain members of Congress, turning over a new code page.
Steve VanDevender
And why shouldn't one user of a word be just as good as any other?
Language has been around far longer than the notion of "educated
intelligent people", and people seem to have been good at communicating
and had consistent meanings of the words they used long before there was
writing or formal education.
Note that I'm also sympathetic to aspects of the prescriptivist
viewpoint. Standardization of spoken and written language has made
language not just a tool for immediate communication but a way of
communicating over great periods of time. When it's relatively easy to
read things written hundreds of years ago that have few radical
differences in spelling and meaning, a great deal more history and
culture remains accessible to more people.
Maarten Wiltink
news:hdau8a$1kfq$1...@isis.novusordo.net...
[...]
> Note that I'm also sympathetic to aspects of the prescriptivist
> viewpoint. Standardization of spoken and written language has made
> language not just a tool for immediate communication but a way of
> communicating over great periods of time. When it's relatively easy
> to read things written hundreds of years ago that have few radical
> differences in spelling and meaning, a great deal more history and
> culture remains accessible to more people.
I want to agree. Some wonderful writers lived (or rather, wrote) in
the turn of the previous century, and some of my favourite books are
from that time.
Then doubt creeps in. Why do I enjoy those books so much? Part of it
is the very differentness of the language and society. The society
may be fictional; then it doesn't matter so much. But other books are
set in the 'real world' as it was then. I'm a nostalgic at heart; I
like living in the future but my affection is for the past.
It may be more accessible. But I cannot shake off the feeling that it
would come at the price of there _being_ _less_ history and culture,
in a sense, if the language is artificially kept static.
Perhaps I should refresh my faith in humanity by reading that story
with the people of Ascia.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Peter Corlett
Because language is used to communicate. Words need to be used in a way that
is mutually understood by everybody involved. If a word is misused in such a
way that the meaning is opaque or ambiguous, this can hardly be considered
good.
This is not to say that language needs to be preserved in aspic. I don't
mind meaning drift or neologisms. I do object to a perfectly good word that
means something unique being misused in such a way that it is now useless.
See, for example, "literally" being used merely as a superlative. So now we
have no word to tell if something actually happened, or the speaker is just
massively exaggerating for effect. The meaning has been made less clear,
which is not an improvement.
Zebee Johnstone
Maarten Wiltink <maa...@kittensandcats.net> wrote:
> Then doubt creeps in. Why do I enjoy those books so much? Part of it
> is the very differentness of the language and society. The society
> may be fictional; then it doesn't matter so much. But other books are
> set in the 'real world' as it was then. I'm a nostalgic at heart; I
> like living in the future but my affection is for the past.
>
> It may be more accessible. But I cannot shake off the feeling that it
> would come at the price of there _being_ _less_ history and culture,
> in a sense, if the language is artificially kept static.
I don't think there's a lot of problem with older stuff even though
language changes.
It's only a very few words in English that have changed so much
that the meaning can't be inferred from context. I can think of
"indifferent" as one, and "prevented" which used to me "done before
it" not "stopped it happening".
Once you get *really* old such as Chaucer then it gets difficult
but if you are only talking a couple of hundred then it's not a
problem in English. (No idea about other languages although 16thC
Italian is apparently quite a bit different to modern Italian in
the grammar and idioms according to those translating fencing
manuals, although some of that might be the specialist nature of
describing physical actions.)
Swift is easy enough to read for example, writing in the early
18thC. Trollope and Dickens, no problem. Style may be hard work
(cue The Little Professor on the dire prose of religious novels)
but language isn't.
Words can get completely lost. In Ffoulkes's "The Armourer and his
Craft" there is a transcription of a 14thC statute dealing with
standards for selling armour and while the grammar's easy enough
there are words which are specialised and we no longer know for
sure what they meant.
I don't think changing language is going to stop people understanding
older works until it changes a lot.
Zebee
John Burnham
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:43:58 +0000, John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Ya wanna argue with the OED ?
>
> Why not? Why should I think that the Ohio Employment Department knows
> anything about how units of measure are defined?
Nah, I'm talking about the Oxford English Dictionary, published by the
Oxford University Press (which is older than your country).
J
Richard Gadsden
> See, for example, "literally" being used merely as a superlative. So now we
> have no word to tell if something actually happened, or the speaker is just
> massively exaggerating for effect. The meaning has been made less clear,
> which is not an improvement.
ITYM "intensifier". "Superlative" has a perfectly good meaning already,
it doesn't need another one.
Peter Corlett
> Peter Corlett wrote:
>> See, for example, "literally" being used merely as a superlative. So now we
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> have no word to tell if something actually happened, or the speaker is just
>> massively exaggerating for effect. The meaning has been made less clear,
>> which is not an improvement.
> ITYM "intensifier". "Superlative" has a perfectly good meaning already, it
> doesn't need another one.
Ha, quite. Thanks for the correction.
c...@nospam.netunix.com
>
> Because language is used to communicate. Words need to be used in a way that
> is mutually understood by everybody involved. If a word is misused in such a
> way that the meaning is opaque or ambiguous, this can hardly be considered
> good.
You have triggered my pet peeve response.
Top of the list is the hijacking of the innoculous word "gay" by a
minority interest group who have totally changed its meaning.
--
From the quill of Chris Newport g4jci.
Maarten Wiltink
news:hdbsse$9ql$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Peter Corlett <ab...@mooli.org.uk> wrote:
Do you mean the very latest group, or the one before that? I can only
suggest that you get over it, because you're not going to stop them.
And we are now at a stage where 'gay' can be used to mean (at least)
three very different things[0], but someone who has not been living
under a rock for the last thirty years will have no problem spotting
which one is meant.
The alternative is to appear like that man from some Greek island,
demonstrating in front of the tourist office all alone, proclaiming
'I am a Lesbian!'
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
[0] Okay, two of them are actually related and outwardly quite similar.
But distinct enough that if someone called me 'gay' I might either
confirm it with a cheerful grin, introduce my decidedly female spouse
to them, or ignore them completely and go off in search of more
intelligent company.
Joe Zeff
> It's only a very few words in English that have changed so much that the
> meaning can't be inferred from context. I can think of "indifferent" as
> one, and "prevented" which used to me "done before it" not "stopped it
> happening".
"Condescending" is another. Originally, AIUI, it meant that a somebody
and "descended" from their higher social status to talk with a member of
a "lower class" as though they were equals, and was meant as a
compliment. Now, of course, it means the exact opposite. I'd call it a
shame, except for the fact that today, there's almost no need for a word
with the original meaning.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Physics is the mess that results when
you pollute mathematics with reality.
Joe Zeff
Whoosh!
Judging from the above, your sarcasm detector either need to be repaired
or turned on.
--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Trouble doesn't approach me, I'm the trouble that is approached.
Bernard Peek
Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> writes
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:23:11 +0000, John Burnham wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:54:29 +0000, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:43:58 +0000, John Burnham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ya wanna argue with the OED ?
>>>
>>> Why not? Why should I think that the Ohio Employment Department knows
>>> anything about how units of measure are defined?
>>
>> Nah, I'm talking about the Oxford English Dictionary, published by the
>> Oxford University Press (which is older than your country).
>> J
>
>Whoosh!
>
>Judging from the above, your sarcasm detector either need to be repaired
>or turned on.
You know we Brit's don't understand irony.
>
--
Bernard Peek
mikea
> In article <hd5b70$28pe$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> Language changes: all people, in different times and situations, use
>> old lexemes to mean different things (polysemy),
>
> In recent times, the word "gay" has shifted through the following
> meanings:
>
> * Joyous (my parent's generation)
> * Homosexual (my generation)
> * Pass?? (the current youth)
>
> Once upon a time, "nice" meant "foolish".
That's nice to know.
--
[Once in a lifetime opportunity] is simply a veiled reference to the
staff contract termination procedure, which involves a sunny wall,
a single cigarette and some middling to average marksmen...
-- Dan Holdsworth
Kenneth Brody
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:05:34 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> It's only a very few words in English that have changed so much that the
>> meaning can't be inferred from context. I can think of "indifferent" as
>> one, and "prevented" which used to me "done before it" not "stopped it
>> happening".
>
> "Condescending" is another. Originally, AIUI, it meant that a somebody
> and "descended" from their higher social status to talk with a member of
> a "lower class" as though they were equals, and was meant as a
> compliment. Now, of course, it means the exact opposite. I'd call it a
> shame, except for the fact that today, there's almost no need for a word
> with the original meaning.
What happens when a company unilaterally changes the meaning of a technical
term to suit its own FUD needs?
Take, for example, Microsoft's use of the word "deprecated". Compile a
program in Microsoft Visual C that uses such standard functions as
"strcpy()", "strcat()", or "open()", and you'll get warnings that those
functions have been deprecated, and that you should use the (Microsoft-only)
"secure" versions.
Anyone programming for more than a short time knows that "deprecated" means
"this function won't be around much longer, and we're only supporting it for
a transitional period, so you better start using the new version". However,
buried deep in Microsoft's documentation is this small note:
It should be noted that in this context, "deprecated" just means that
a function's use is not recommended; it does not indicate that the
function is scheduled to be removed from the CRT.
--
Kenneth Brody