 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, finding a word and not knowing what it means is one thing. But
finding a thing and not knowing what the word for it is... hell, how do
you even figure that out?? [I mean, unless you know some human beings
anyway.]
For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What the
heck do you *call* that?
Similarly, check out
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, finding a word and not knowing what it means is one thing. But
> finding a thing and not knowing what the word for it is... hell, how do
> you even figure that out?? [I mean, unless you know some human beings
> anyway.]
>
> For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
> wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What the
> heck do you *call* that?
>
> Similarly, check out
>
> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>
> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerchief
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, finding a word and not knowing what it means is one thing. But
> finding a thing and not knowing what the word for it is... hell, how do
> you even figure that out?? [I mean, unless you know some human beings
> anyway.]
BTW, is there anything you do know besides advanced mathematics and Haskell?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:21:49 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
>wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What the
>heck do you *call* that?
That could be a "choker"
>Similarly, check out
>
>http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>
>What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
I would call it a headscarf but it is a cartoon and does not need to
follow the laws of physics :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>
Shirt? Jeans? Belt? Glasses? Headscarf ;-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, finding a word and not knowing what it means is one thing. But
> finding a thing and not knowing what the word for it is... hell, how do
> you even figure that out?? [I mean, unless you know some human beings
> anyway.]
That is exactly what is behind all the vitriol that is spilled on the web
between idiot-n00bs and unhelpful-knowitall jerks. The n00b cannot RTFM if he
or she is not fully conversant in the precise **terminology** of what the
program can do. The knowitall answers grudgingly because he knows that the
answer is in TFM, and makes some kind of comment about their own martyrdom and
"you got what you paid for" if it is freeware that is being discussed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> BTW, is there anything you do know besides advanced mathematics and
> Haskell?
Sure - chemistry, electronics, physics, music theory, quotations from
The Matrix, a few other things...
I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of
clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
Tell me, is there anything *you* know about other than trying to upset me?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of
> clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
>
Did I say that ...? No. Perhaps ignorant of things other than a narrow
set of interests. You have repeatedly demonstrated this. Some of which
you have admitted is willful.
I thought what she was wearing on her head was actually quite common,
but maybe it's just in the U.S. that it's common.
> Tell me, is there anything *you* know about other than trying to upset me?
Plenty. Some obscure, some very common, but not always common sense. Of
course I don't know everything as evidenced by my constant searching and
digging to find the name of a plant I've just photographed. Just try to
identify a plant. In botanical and horticultural books, they have ID
keys, but you literally have to have the knowledge of a botanist to
figure it out. Sometimes (if I'm lucky, I can narrow it down to a
family) but if the family is, say Fabaceae, I'm lost. It's huge and
contains hundereds of species, all vary greatly, though they have one
thing in common, they're legumes and their fruit is usually pretty easy
to identify.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Well, finding a word and not knowing what it means is one thing. But
> > finding a thing and not knowing what the word for it is... hell, how do
> > you even figure that out?? [I mean, unless you know some human beings
> > anyway.]
> BTW, is there anything you do know besides advanced mathematics and Haskell?
I really wouldn't want to offend him, but I just have the impression that
he makes these posts just for the attention he gets (even if he doesn't
understand that consciously).
I know this because I have been somewhat like that in the past (and,
I hate to admit it, still sometimes am). I may have encounter something
which I knew I could very easily find with google or whatever, but
nevertheless I felt an uncontrollable urge to ask about it at some chat
or forum, just to get people to answer. Sometimes (too often, in fact) it
was something stupid and I only made myself look fool, lazy, annoying,
childish or all of those.
I hate to say it (because it's a bit offensive, and at the same time it's
an admission of my own deficiencies), but this is more or less related to
the same psychological phenomenon small children have when they constantly
seek attention ("mom, look what I found", "mom, look what I can do", "mom,
look, look, look"). Most people grow out of it with time, but some people
(like me) may require quite a lot more time than most. The format in which
the phenomenon is actuated may change with time, but the underlying urges
are the same.
It may not be the nicest thing to say this about someone, but sometimes
you need some slaps before you can grow out of these things. I know this
because I have experienced it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of
> clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
I don't think he was insinuating that. I believe he was not really
talking about *this* thread in particular, but about your posting
history in general, and that it was more a rhetorical question.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of
>> clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
>
> I don't think he was insinuating that. I believe he was not really
> talking about *this* thread in particular, but about your posting
> history in general, and that it was more a rhetorical question.
I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a little
uncalled for to me.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> BTW, is there anything you do know besides advanced mathematics and Haskell?
>
> I really wouldn't want to offend him, but I just have the impression that
> he makes these posts just for the attention he gets.
In this particular case, I was merely curios about the two items in
question. I wasn't actually expecting to get quite this many replies...
> I may have encounter something
> which I knew I could very easily find with google or whatever, but
> nevertheless I felt an uncontrollable urge to ask about it at some chat
> or forum, just to get people to answer.
Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
[Altough that was actually be pretty damn neat.]
I just figured a human being somewhere would probably know the answer to
this one easily, and wouldn't mind answering my question. I'm almost
sorry I asked now...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>>
> Shirt? Jeans? Belt? Glasses? Headscarf ;-)
Yeah, I thought at least *one* person would come up with this answer. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>>>
>> Shirt? Jeans? Belt? Glasses? Headscarf ;-)
>
> Yeah, I thought at least *one* person would come up with this answer. :-P
>
What did you expect from me? :-D
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, I thought at least *one* person would come up with this answer. :-P
>>
> What did you expect from me? :-D
Maybe Warp is right... I kinda knew somebody would say this, and yet I
didn't rephrease the question. Hmm. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a little
> uncalled for to me.
As I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with *this* thread in
particular. It's just that your entire posting history may reveal a
certain trend.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:24:48 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of
>>> clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
>>
>> I don't think he was insinuating that. I believe he was not really
>> talking about *this* thread in particular, but about your posting
>> history in general, and that it was more a rhetorical question.
>
>I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a little
>uncalled for to me.
You're being treated as if you were Invisible :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >> BTW, is there anything you do know besides advanced mathematics and Haskell?
> >
> > I really wouldn't want to offend him, but I just have the impression that
> > he makes these posts just for the attention he gets.
> In this particular case, I was merely curios about the two items in
> question. I wasn't actually expecting to get quite this many replies...
I wasn't talking about this thread in particular, but more in general.
> > I may have encounter something
> > which I knew I could very easily find with google or whatever, but
> > nevertheless I felt an uncontrollable urge to ask about it at some chat
> > or forum, just to get people to answer.
> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
> [Altough that was actually be pretty damn neat.]
I would say to that: Learn to use google.
If you are, for example, looking for the name of something which people
wear on their head, try googling for something like "headgear". The first
hit was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headgear
Browsing the list of headgear in that page, the most promising one seems
to be "hair covers", which includes "kerchief", which is probably what you
were looking for.
I know it's "easier" to just ask in a forum, and at the same time you
get to "communicate" with people, and asking a few times is just ok.
It's just that if you ask too many (usually simple) questions too often
you'll start giving a negative impression of yourself.
You may argue that it was a completely valid and simple question,
but arguing that is missing the point. I'm not commenting on this question
in particular.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:25:21 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>In this particular case, I was merely curios about the two items in
>question. I wasn't actually expecting to get quite this many replies...
>
[Snip]
>I just figured a human being somewhere would probably know the answer to
>this one easily, and wouldn't mind answering my question. I'm almost
>sorry I asked now...
I would not expect many men under 30 to know what a choker was and the
headscarf could have a proper name. So I think that this is a suitable
place to ask. Although as Warp is pointing out, you do have a history
of asking things that can easily be googled. But I've not seen a
"GIYF" thrown at you for a while. So I think Mike's comment was a bit
harsh.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I would not expect many men under 30 to know what a choker was and the
> headscarf could have a proper name. So I think that this is a suitable
> place to ask. Although as Warp is pointing out, you do have a history
> of asking things that can easily be googled. But I've not seen a
> "GIYF" thrown at you for a while. So I think Mike's comment was a bit
> harsh.
Wasn't meaning to be harsh ... it's just that ... well ... hmmm.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with *this* thread in
> particular. It's just that your entire posting history may reveal a
> certain trend.
So why am I getting flamed for posting this?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:35:11 -0500, Mike Raiford
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>Wasn't meaning to be harsh ... it's just that ... well ... hmmm.
I didn't think you were but I thing it sounded a bit heartfelt :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In this particular case, I was merely curios about the two items in
>> question. I wasn't actually expecting to get quite this many replies...
>
> I wasn't talking about this thread in particular, but more in general.
OK. Well in this particular case, I was merely curios.
>> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
>> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
>> [Altough that was actually be pretty damn neat.]
>
> I would say to that: Learn to use google.
>
> If you are, for example, looking for the name of something which people
> wear on their head, try googling for something like "headgear". The first
> hit was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headgear
> Browsing the list of headgear in that page, the most promising one seems
> to be "hair covers", which includes "kerchief", which is probably what you
> were looking for.
OK, that's pretty impressive. I'm really quite surprised that actually
worked...
> I know it's "easier" to just ask in a forum, and at the same time you
> get to "communicate" with people, and asking a few times is just ok.
> It's just that if you ask too many (usually simple) questions too often
> you'll start giving a negative impression of yourself.
I guess so. Personally I think I've toned that down recently, but this
isn't yet "registering" in the general consciousness of this forum.
Or maybe I'm just deluding myself? You never can quite be sure...
> You may argue that it was a completely valid and simple question,
> but arguing that is missing the point. I'm not commenting on this question
> in particular.
OK, fair enough.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:25:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> I just figured a human being somewhere would probably know the answer to
> this one easily, and wouldn't mind answering my question.
FWIW, that's how I find out the names of things I don't know the names
of....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > As I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with *this* thread in
> > particular. It's just that your entire posting history may reveal a
> > certain trend.
> So why am I getting flamed for posting this?
You are not.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I guess so. Personally I think I've toned that down recently, but this
> isn't yet "registering" in the general consciousness of this forum.
People have LONG memory. Believe me. I know.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Wasn't meaning to be harsh ... it's just that ... well ... hmmm.
... people just don't have a sense of humor, sheesh?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:02 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:21:49 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>
>> For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
>> wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What
the
>> heck do you *call* that?
>
> That could be a "choker"
Seconded
>> Similarly, check out
>>
>> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>>
>> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>
> I would call it a headscarf but it is a cartoon and does not need to
> follow the laws of physics :)
Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
go
for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another case
of
two languages forever separate?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:02 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:21:49 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For example, I saw a film the other day. One of the people in it was
>>> wearing what appeared to be a small silk strap around her neck. What the
>>> heck do you *call* that?
>>
>> That could be a "choker"
>
> Seconded
>
>>> Similarly, check out
>>>
>>> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>>>
>>> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>>
>> I would call it a headscarf but it is a cartoon and does not need to
>> follow the laws of physics :)
>
> Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
> go for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another
> case of two languages forever separate?
>
I'm always amused by the piture conjured up by the (american) words "He
was formally dressed in vest and suspenders" :-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> I didn't realise that not knowing the name of an obscure item of
>>> clothing qualifies somebody as an idiot.
>>
>> I don't think he was insinuating that. I believe he was not really
>> talking about *this* thread in particular, but about your posting
>> history in general, and that it was more a rhetorical question.
>
> I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a little
> uncalled for to me.
FWIW, I thought it read as a bit condescending also. Maybe "what *are*
you interested in?" would have been a better way to phrase it than
"don't you know *anything*?" :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
IBM has a system like that, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> People have LONG memory. Believe me. I know.
"If you think people don't remember what you say, try telling the same
joke you told last month."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> That is exactly what is behind all the vitriol that is spilled on the web
> between idiot-n00bs and unhelpful-knowitall jerks.
FWIW, it's often a good idea to phrase the question as "I can't find it
in the manual. Where's the right thing to read to find it?" :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>
> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
>
To be honest, I'd answered shirt and jeans. I didn't even realize she's
wearing something on her head.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> "If you think people don't remember what you say, try telling the same
> joke you told last month."
Mmm, I'll have to remember that one...
...OUCH! The irony just hit me. Seriously.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> ... people just don't have a sense of humor, sheesh?-)
Maybe we should add a new NNTP error code?
673 Error In Humour Implementation
Or something...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
>> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
>
> IBM has a system like that, tho.
OK, now *that* is something I could enjoy having a discussion about! :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> BTW, is there anything you do know besides advanced mathematics and
> Haskell?
OK, this is scary...
Today Mike mentions Haskell on the POV-Ray forum. AND ON THE SAME DAY,
somebody [not me!] meantions POV-Ray on the Haskell forum. Go figure...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> ... people just don't have a sense of humor, sheesh?-)
>
> Maybe we should add a new NNTP error code?
>
> 673 Error In Humour Implementation
SCFTHI. Smiley-Captions For The Humor Impaired.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well, finding a word and not knowing what it means is one thing. But
> finding a thing and not knowing what the word for it is... hell, how do
> you even figure that out?? [I mean, unless you know some human beings
> anyway.]
>
>
Moderately related, do you know 'the (deeper) meaning of liff' by
douglas adams and john lloyd?
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deeper-Meaning-Liff-Douglas-Adams/dp/0330322206)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=795
>
> What on earth do you call the item Faye's wearing?
A doo-rag...
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:59:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> I asked a perfectly simple question, and I get this... It seems a
>> little uncalled for to me.
>
> FWIW, I thought it read as a bit condescending also. Maybe "what *are*
> you interested in?" would have been a better way to phrase it than
> "don't you know *anything*?" :-)
Same here....I do get the feeling that some here consider it something of
a sport to pick on Andy....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:22:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> People have LONG memory. Believe me. I know.
>
> "If you think people don't remember what you say, try telling the same
> joke you told last month."
Didn't you say that last month? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:25:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> ... people just don't have a sense of humor, sheesh?-)
>
> Maybe we should add a new NNTP error code?
>
> 673 Error In Humour Implementation
673 is an eDirectory error, it means ... wow, I have to look it up (I
used to know them all from memory; 672 I could tell you, but not 673....)
Ah here it is..."Replica not on". That means that the replica - either
while being added or deleted - has not completed the partition operation,
and the state is not "On" - it's either "Dead", "Dying", or one of the
other intermediate replica states ("Add state 0", "Add state 1", etc.).
If there's a communications error, particularly in communicating with the
master replica, that would cause this type of error to occur when
performing an operation that requires the replica be in an "On" state.
So we could possibly tie this back to someone not having a sense of
humour from the standpoint of "what we have here is a failure to
communicate".
I guess this error would work after all. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Well, as I alluded to, it's not like you can put a picture of a
>>> headscarf into Google and do a search to find out what it's called.
>>
>> IBM has a system like that, tho.
>
> OK, now *that* is something I could enjoy having a discussion about! :-D
>
Couldn't you code an image identifier in Haskell?
--
----
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc go
>for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another case of
>two languages forever separate?
In the USA kerchiefs were mass produced with a typical western print
pattern (in white), mostly in two variations, red and blue thin cotton
cloth.
Typical women's head-scarves are usually made of much finer materials.
A number of years back kerchiefs came into style among inner-city
gang members as way to mark their membership in a gang, and soon
after most schools banned wearing kerchiefs as being "gang colors".
Since then I haven't seen many for sale. The cartoon lacks the print
that would identify the scarf as a kerchief. Also jewish tradition has
women wear head-scarves, so it might be a subtle visual clue that she
is somehow "serious". I would tend to think that the choice of
wording between "head-scarf" and "kerchief" is probably more of
an age thing than a language thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:43:12 +0100, Doctor John
<doc### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:33:02 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>> Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
>> go for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another
>> case of two languages forever separate?
>>
> I'm always amused by the piture conjured up by the (american) words "He
> was formally dressed in vest and suspenders" :-)
Heh well he might have been going to a late night double feature picture
show.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Maybe we should add a new NNTP error code?
>>
>> 673 Error In Humour Implementation
>
> 673 is an eDirectory error, it means ... wow, I have to look it up (I
> used to know them all from memory; 672 I could tell you, but not 673....)
Damn. I assumed that such a high number would be unassigned...
Oh, wait. They assign at the 2nd digit too, right?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:25:12 +0100, Tim Attwood
<tim### [at] comcastnet> did spake, saying:
>> Interesting (to me) that Mike goes for Kerchief whereas you and the Doc
>> go
>> for Headscarf, which would also have been my first answer; another case
>> of
>> two languages forever separate?
>
> In the USA kerchiefs were mass produced with a typical western print
> pattern (in white), mostly in two variations, red and blue thin cotton
> cloth.
> Typical women's head-scarves are usually made of much finer materials.
> A number of years back kerchiefs came into style among inner-city
> gang members as way to mark their membership in a gang, and soon
> after most schools banned wearing kerchiefs as being "gang colors".
Oh yeah the Bloods and Crips thing I suppose.
> Since then I haven't seen many for sale. The cartoon lacks the print
> that would identify the scarf as a kerchief. Also jewish tradition has
> women wear head-scarves, so it might be a subtle visual clue that she
> is somehow "serious".
It might be that kerchiefs are larger handkerchiefs i.e. square whereas
headscarfs are more rectangular?
> I would tend to think that the choice of
> wording between "head-scarf" and "kerchief" is probably more of
> an age thing than a language thing.
Oh gee thanks for that :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Couldn't you code an image identifier in Haskell?
Sure - because using a specific programming language makes it trivial to
overcome a fundamentally hard AI problem. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
