dieresis
in [Design]
|
Prev: [Way OT] dieresis
Next: SPDIF to AES/EBU
From: D Yuniskis on 9 Mar 2010 12:24 Hi Boudewijn, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > Op Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:02:08 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis > <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >>> Op Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:29:33 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >>> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: >>>> David Brown wrote: >>>>> D Yuniskis wrote: >>>>>> David Brown wrote: >>>>>>> <rant> >>>> [...] >>>>> Of course, there is the other point that languages change over >>>>> time. While many people would agree that "na�ve" should be spelt >>>>> "na�ve", very few people would write co�perate - it has gone out of >>>>> fashion long ago. >>>> >>>> Sure. Soon, OMG will have a formal dictionary entry, people will >>>> spell "God" (proper) with a lowercase G, etc. >>> Not being a monotheist, I find it offensive to think that some god >>> would somehow deserve a capital letter while others do not. I do >>> recognize >> >> There is no claim that it is any *particular* god. Most >> dictionaries qualify the "G" definition to be "In monotheistic >> religions..." so they cover their bases. > > The point was that somehow monotheistic religions seem to deserve the > great G, while the others are left with a mere g. Well, when it comes to religion, most folks assume *they* are right! :> I recall puzzling over this as a young child: "If 'we' are right, then what about my (close) friends who believe otherwise?" Amusing how easily people gloss over these details when introducing religion to kids! I was always taught that lower case g was a "concept" -- like *an* internet -- whereas uppercase was a (proper noun) specific case -- like The Internet. I no longer suffer from these problems. :> >>> that not all gods were created equal, but that doesn't mean that >>> anyone has the right to define in language that some god (or some >>> group of allegedly exclusive gods) comes before others.
From: D Yuniskis on 9 Mar 2010 12:28 D Yuniskis wrote: > I no longer suffer from these problems. :> Grrrr.... a *better* comment would have been: "But I'm feeling MUCH better, now!" (channeling John Astin)
From: Mel on 9 Mar 2010 13:12 D Yuniskis wrote: > Though I am still puzzled by "Aluminium" (I originally thought > this to be a friend's mispronunciation of "Aluminum" -- but it is > apparently how the Brits say and spell it!) Lithum? Beryllum? Sodum? Potassum? Mel.
From: JosephKK on 9 Mar 2010 23:48 On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:21:37 -0800, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:37:06 -0800, JosephKK wrote: > >> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:44:32 -0800, Fred Abse >> <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:14:05 -0800, JosephKK wrote: >>> >>>> hat Distro/edition do you use? >>>> I am transitioning from opensuse 10.3 to opensuse 11.1. There is a lot >>>> of X changes under the hood. >> >> The Suse 11.1 kernel is 2.6.27.45... > > >2.6 kernels are a much different animal to 2.4 Not that practical to >"upgrade" from the one to the other. > I will not argue with you here. I have found that it is a case of build a new system, tweak it to suit (get all my apps running right), then migrate the data. My previous production system running suse 10.3 still runs on the same box. Scant opportunity for significant data loss, as there is another copy (full partition). > >>> >>>It isn't really a distro. it started out as bits of RedHat 6, with >>>additions, back in 2000. Since then it's had many changes of libraries, >>>and about 12 kernel changes and rebuilds total. >>> >>>Started with a 2.2 kernel, now 2.4.19, which supports everything I need. >>> >>>Unrecognizable as a distro. There's bits of Debian and Slackware in >>>there,too. >>> >>>Most of it was compiled from source on the target machine. >> >> So it is the Fred Abse version (not distributed). > > >If you like. >The whole beauty of Linux for me is that you can get it to do things the >way you want, rather than the way someone else thinks you should. > >One reason I did it this way was to get some deeper insight into how >things actually work > > >>>Now on its third set of hardware, and maybe fifth HDD. Aren't dd and GNU >>>parted wonderful? Originally it was spread across two smallish HDDs. I use parted as needed. Not so skillful with dd yet. "cp -R *" and the like serve me pretty well. >>> >>>Once I get something working the way I want it, I see no reason to >>>change. No major changes for a couple of years. >>> >>>Only reason I'd ever change X version would be if I wanted support for >>>dual head, which for me means never. >> >> Oh. Which X are you running? > >X11R6 from about 1999 > >> >> I tried dual head for a while but quit when widescreens started getting >> reasonable in price. Currently using a 24" 1920x1200(a)60Hz. > >Just 19" CRT here. I don't like LCD much. Want a spare? Viewsonic V95. Also an A75f 17". Both do 1280x1024(a)60Hz beautifully.
From: Przemek Klosowski on 10 Mar 2010 22:39
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:58:07 -0700, D Yuniskis wrote: > But, then I started thinking about it more. In particular, the fact > that I *only* use it in this word! And, have *never* used it in other > places where it "should" be used. > > (of course, no one *still* uses it at all, so this is a moot point) Pardon me, New Yorker always adds dieresis (pre:existing, co:operate, etc). I assume it's the New Yorker style guide, because the authors who also publish elsewhere do not show this in their other work (e.g. Malcolm Gladwell). |