IJET zen'yasai photos
ksan...@comcast.net
It's the day after the end of a terrific IJET-18, and here are the first of the photos. I'm traveling at the moment (sitting in a cafe in the charming little city of Wells), so there's a limit to how many pictures I can upload in one day.
Yesterday, I slept too late to catch all of Charles Aschmann's "Translators' Toolbox" presentation, but from what I saw, it was extremely useful. Robin Thompson had a lot of interesting things to say about the history of romaji. Arline Lyons gave an insider's view of life in a large translation agency. After lunch, Ben Jones talked about maintaining quality when sharing work. This was followed by Simon Prentis' witty and erudite verbal essay on the nature of language. The last session I attended was Charles Aschmann's introduction to the freeware translation memory system OmegaT.
After IJET was officially over, I joined a group that had dinner at an Indian restaurant near Bath Abbey. Our group then merged with the official(?) pub crawl group. We missed the first pub but went to what was billed as "the smallest pub in Bath." It sure seemed that way when we were all crowded in! We then proceeded off the beaten path to a real neighborhood pub that had been built in 1760. Local ales were available at both establishments, but that's where I bowed out.
At least I have the photos from the zen'yasai uploaded.
If you recall being photographed at the zen'yasai and your picture does not appear here, it's probably because the snap turned out badly--you had your eyes closed or had an unusually goofy expression on your face. To save you public embarrassment, I deleted or cropped the photo. But don't worry. You'll undoubtedly turn up in later batches.
I tried my best to label the pictures accurately, but if I have your name or the name of one of your friends wrong, please add a comment.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=one_set72157600077313204
Camerally yours,
Karen Sandness
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 25 juin 07, at 22:33, ksan...@comcast.net wrote:
> The last session I attended was Charles Aschmann's introduction to
> the freeware translation memory system OmegaT.
I wished I could have called your attention on this one in different
ways but I am glad you attended. And I'd like to sincerely thank
Charles for taking the time to do this presentation.
Not intending to be picky, but OmegaT is not "freeware". OmegaT is
"free software".
Freeware is basically software that can be run without having users
paying a user licence. Such software is free as in "free beer". And
it is not guaranteed to remain free.
Free software (also called libre software and sometimes confused with
open source software, although the two categories considerably
overlap) is a totally different beast.
Free software must respect the 4 basic freedoms of the user:
0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Free software does not mean free as in "free beer" but free as in
"free speech". And as you see, free software although sometimes sold
for money guarantees that potential users can always get a useable
copy "for free".
People who want to know more about OmegaT and who could not attend
Charles' presentation will be welcome to join the following 1h "mini
seminars":
June 30th:
Hokkaido / Sapporo / Hokkaido Daigaku
http://www.ospn.jp/osc2007-do/
July 7th:
(home ground) Kagawa / Takamatsu / Sunport eTopia
(no web yet)
July 20th-21st
Kyoto / Kyoto Computer Gakuin
http://www.ospn.jp/osc2007-kansai/
Cheers,
Jean-Christophe Helary
Alan Siegrist
> At least I have the photos from the zen'yasai uploaded.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=one_set72157600077313204
To view the pictures, the correct URL (thanks to a tip on JAT list) appears
to be:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kitka97205/
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
AlanFS...@Comcast.net
S Zaveloff
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=one_set72157600077313204
>
Can someone tell me how I can view these? When I click on the URL, it
takes me to a page where I have to establish an account and then, once
I've done that, to a page where it wants me to upload photos. I see
no way to get to the pictures.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven H. Zaveloff gua...@gmail.com
P.O. Box 200203 Tel: (512)219-7142
Austin, Texas 78720-0203 Fax: (512)233-2770
http://home.earthlink.net/~zaveloff/
Not by harming life does one become noble.
One is termed noble for being gentle to all living things.
-Dhammapada
Marc Adler
> Free software must respect the 4 basic freedoms of the user:
>
> 0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> 1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> 2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
> 3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
> to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
I posted a question about counting from zero last year*, and voila,
here's an example. People provided examples of why it makes sense in
programming, and hazarded some ideas why someone might want to use
Article 0 in a contract for definitions.
However, I still can't figure out the advantages of this type of
counting outside programming (in contracts, there's nothing wrong with
using Article 1 for definitions), other than, in this case, confusing
people as to how many freedoms there are (don't let Cheney find out,
he'd love that idea ;) ).
You (Jean-Christophe) start by saying there are four basic freedoms, but
then only count to three. To be consistent in your zero-origin
numbering, shouldn't you state that there are "three basic freedoms"
(i.e., zero, one, two, and three)?
One reason I'm particularly interested in this is because at my 5-yr-old
daughter's school they are teaching the kids to count from zero. This is
done by holding up a fist, saying "zero," then putting up one finger,
saying "one," and so on. However, when my daughter gets to "six,"
instead of starting to count from the first finger of her other hand,
she holds up just the fist, and says "six." She's being 100% logical,
since she was taught to start counting (from zero) with her other hand
in a fist position. This seems like a confusing way to teach a kid
counting, but maybe it's the new math.
Doesn't make any sense to me, though, hence the question.
--
Marc Adler
Austin, TX
Tom Donahue
> One reason I'm particularly interested in this is because at my 5-yr-old
> daughter's school they are teaching the kids to count from zero. This is
> done by holding up a fist, saying "zero," then putting up one finger,
> saying "one," and so on. However, when my daughter gets to "six,"
> instead of starting to count from the first finger of her other hand,
> she holds up just the fist, and says "six." She's being 100% logical,
> since she was taught to start counting (from zero) with her other hand
> in a fist position.
I like that, she's doing the right thing. But instead of saying "six",
they should teach her to hold up one finger on the first hand and
say "ten". That would be heximal (base 6) counting, which has
all kinds of advantages for kids, especially that you can
count from 0 to 55 on the fingers of both hands without bothering
with the digits 6, 7, 8, 9.
It's also perfect for basketball jersey numbers, since the referees
can signal player 20 with 2 fingers and a fist.
www.shacktoms.com/base-six/base-six.htm
--
Tom Donahue
S Zaveloff
>
> I like that, she's doing the right thing. But instead of saying "six",
> they should teach her to hold up one finger on the first hand and
> say "ten". That would be heximal (base 6) counting, which has
> all kinds of advantages for kids, especially that you can
> count from 0 to 55 on the fingers of both hands without bothering
> with the digits 6, 7, 8, 9.
>
> It's also perfect for basketball jersey numbers, since the referees
> can signal player 20 with 2 fingers and a fist.
> www.shacktoms.com/base-six/base-six.htm
>
Which reminds me of the line I saw somewhere that, "There are 10 kinds
of people, those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
Marc Adler
> I like that, she's doing the right thing. But instead of saying "six",
> they should teach her to hold up one finger on the first hand and
> say "ten". That would be heximal (base 6) counting, which has
> all kinds of advantages for kids, especially that you can
> count from 0 to 55 on the fingers of both hands without bothering
> with the digits 6, 7, 8, 9.
My God you're right! Now, instead of telling my daughter's teacher that
zero isn't a number, and it's stupid and confusing to try to teach it to
5-yr-olds, I'll suggest the above. In fact, I'll insist, and threaten to
sue.
> It's also perfect for basketball jersey numbers, since the referees
> can signal player 20 with 2 fingers and a fist.
> www.shacktoms.com/base-six/base-six.htm
You can do that in regular counting, though. 2 fingers = 2, fist = 0.
At least, that's what they're teaching my daughter!!!
Marc Adler
> Which reminds me of the line I saw somewhere that, "There are 10 kinds
> of people, those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
That reminds me of...
Q: How many programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: RTFM!
James Sparks
>>It's also perfect for basketball jersey numbers, since the referees
>>can signal player 20 with 2 fingers and a fist.
>
Actually, the system used for basketball is decimal, not heximal. I
understand that Tom's statement above is tongue-in-cheek, but what is
actually being digitally (!) indicated by a basketball referee is a
decimal number. They just happen to exclude some numbers so the refs
can use both hands at the same time to indicate the jersey number. It's
not really true to say that the list of legal basketball jersey numbers
(0 (or 00), 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55;
1 and 2 are used to indicate the number of free throws to the scorer) is
a heximal list, even though it happens to coincide with heximal numbers
that are equivalent to 0 and 3 to 35 in decimal.
If heximal aficionados prefer to view basketball jersey numbers that
way, that's OK with me, but I wonder how the numbers would be
pronounced. How would the announcer refer to player 15? "Number
fifteen" won't work in heximal, will it? I mean, fif+teen means five +
ten (which doesn't exist in heximal), not five + six. "Fifseen"?
Betting that some heximal otaku has already come up with an answer to this,
James Sparks
PS: I have always liked the hexadecimal system (base 16) myself, since
it allows you to divide 10 (16 decimal) in half all the way to one (in
decimal: 16, 8, 4, 2, 1). Plus, think how fast I could type if I had
eight fingers on each hand!
Alan Siegrist
James Sparks writes:
> If heximal aficionados prefer to view basketball jersey numbers that
> way, that's OK with me, but I wonder how the numbers would be
> pronounced. How would the announcer refer to player 15? "Number
> fifteen" won't work in heximal, will it? I mean, fif+teen means five +
> ten (which doesn't exist in heximal), not five + six. "Fifseen"?
Good question. Whenever I have dealt with non-decimal numbers, I have always pronounced them using the names of the digits. Thus, if I had to pronounce the number 106 I have pronounced it “one zero in base six” or “one zero heximal” and 102 is “one zero binary” in order to avoid confusion with 1010 which is our common ordinary “ten” in the decimal system.
However, if all of the participants in the conversation agree that all numbers are heximal, there is no reason why 106 could not be pronounced “ten” and 206 could be “twenty.” Similarly, 1006 could be called “one hundred” although it of course is not equal to 10010.
So if we just assume that the numbers are all heximal, they can be named exactly the same way as decimal numbers are named.
The pronunciation of hexadecimal numbers is a bit more problematic, because we have the letters A, B, C, D, E and F. If one tried to pronounce the number A016 by this scheme, it would be “A-ty” and that would sound a lot like “eighty.” Then, “B-ty” would sound like the actor Warren.
Darren Cook
> open source software, although the two categories considerably
> overlap) is a totally different beast.
>
Yes, very easily confused with "open source software" as the latter also
requires the same 4 freedoms. According to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ the difference is the underlying
philosophy, the "why". The end result is typically the same (*).
Looking at http://www.gnu.org/home.ja.html and
http://www.opensource.jp/osd/osd-japanese.html it seems フリーソフトウェ
ア一 and オープンソース are the correct Japanese terms. So it should be
easy to keep the different nuance in translations.
Darren
[1]:
*: Except that the GPL license advocated by the "free software" camp
ironically takes away a very important freedom by forcing developers to
release all their other code instead of giving them a choice; when that
code cannot be released they are forced to re-invent the wheel to
replace the GPL virus library. The more liberal MIT/BSD licenses common
in the "open source" camp are more pragmatic. Did you spot my personal
opinion? :-)
Mika Jz
http://www.shacktoms.com/base-six/base-six.htm
fiff, fif, えっと, fif-heen?
Fingers Bendingly Yours,
Mika Jarmusz
Salem, Oregon USA
<quote>
Naming the numbers
It is very tempting to simply call 15 "fifteen", simply understanding it
to be base six. As an alternative, the word "hex" could be used for
six, and the t's in the names for numbers changed to h's. Where the
h's are hard to pronounce, we just drop them. So, for example,
"twenty" becomes "twenny".
Alan Siegrist
> Free software (also called libre software
Not to be picky, but since you started it, shouldn't this latter name be
more properly "software libre" on the model of Cuba Libre?
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 26 juin 07, at 08:40, Alan Siegrist wrote:
>
> Jean-Christophe Helary writes:
>
>> Free software (also called libre software
>
> Not to be picky, but since you started it, shouldn't this latter
> name be
> more properly "software libre" on the model of Cuba Libre?
Maybe they did not think of that model when they choose the name. But
had you checked google first you'd have found that this one was
pretty easy.
Jean-Christophe
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 26 juin 07, at 05:11, Marc Adler wrote:
> Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
>
>> Free software must respect the 4 basic freedoms of the user:
>>
>> 0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> 1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
>> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
>> this.
>> 2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>> (freedom 2).
>> 3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
>> to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
>> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>
> You (Jean-Christophe) start by saying there are four basic
> freedoms, but
> then only count to three. To be consistent in your zero-origin
> numbering, shouldn't you state that there are "three basic freedoms"
> (i.e., zero, one, two, and three)?
Marc,
I agree that it looks funny, but that is how the FSF decided to put it.
My understanding is that a 0th item is the most basic of all and
serves as base for the rest.
> One reason I'm particularly interested in this is because at my 5-
> yr-old
> daughter's school they are teaching the kids to count from zero.
> This is
> done by holding up a fist, saying "zero," then putting up one finger,
> saying "one," and so on. However, when my daughter gets to "six,"
> instead of starting to count from the first finger of her other hand,
> she holds up just the fist, and says "six." She's being 100% logical,
> since she was taught to start counting (from zero) with her other hand
> in a fist position. This seems like a confusing way to teach a kid
> counting, but maybe it's the new math.
What about you tell her to start with both fists closed ?
JC
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 26 juin 07, at 08:23, Darren Cook wrote:
>
>> Free software (also called libre software and sometimes confused with
>> open source software, although the two categories considerably
>> overlap) is a totally different beast.
>>
>> Free software must respect the 4 basic freedoms of the user: ...
>
> Yes, very easily confused with "open source software" as the latter
> also
> requires the same 4 freedoms. According to
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ the difference is the underlying
> philosophy, the "why". The end result is typically the same (*).
The Open Source Initiative requires different things:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
> *: Except that the GPL license advocated by the "free software" camp
> ironically takes away a very important freedom by forcing
> developers to
> release all their other code instead of giving them a choice; when
> that
> code cannot be released they are forced to re-invent the wheel to
> replace the GPL virus library. The more liberal MIT/BSD licenses
> common
> in the "open source" camp are more pragmatic. Did you spot my personal
> opinion? :-)
I rather spotted your confused understanding.
The GPL is far from being the only free software license.
The GPL does not force developers to release "all their other (?) code".
You can GPL code for some uses and have closed licenses for other
uses. A very good example is the Qt framework from TrollTech that is
used to create multiplatform applications. If the application is open
source then Qt comes under the GPL, if the application is proprietary
then Qt is licensed under proprietary terms.
There are plenty of licenses that are GPL compatible and such
licenses have at least one thing in common: they do not give the
right to close code that one does not own. It is like not allowing
your neighbor to take something in your house, paint it in blue (or
not) and put it in his own safe... That's very common sensical to me.
Code that one owns can be both open and closed at the same time
depending on the end use. That is called dual licensing and that is
very common.
Jean-Christophe Helary
R Freeman
> you can count from 0 to 55 on the fingers of
> both hands without bothering with the digits 6, 7, 8, 9.
>
With chisenbop you can count to 99 with the fingers of both hands
http://www.cs.iupui.edu/~aharris/chis/chis.html
I have been counting on my fingers like this (for basic arithmetic) for as
long as I can remember (I was shown sometime in primary school I supose).
Cheers,
Robert