 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-4-2012 19:50, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/04/2012 04:22 PM, Warp wrote:
>> (Seriously, though, I hope you published this book also in a more
>> permanent location than just here, where it will disappear in a couple
>> of weeks...)
>
> I do enjoy writing.
pity you did decide not to go into research.
BTW settlers is the reason I stopped playing games on the computer.
Two reasons: it took too much time and at some point when trying to get
some sleep I was still seeing these guys walking around on the inside of
my eyelids.
Positive point: I used to play it also with my brother.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You never know. You might become famous.
Ha! Yeah. :-P
But I'm /already/ the POV-Ray mascot. Isn't that famous? :-P And of
course, /now/ I'm fat-32. :-S
>> It's hardly the /first/ - that would be The Great Big Enormous Turnip, a
>> preschool educational title that mum bought for our Sinclaire ZX
>> Spectrum. ;-)
>
> When you were two years old?
Well, slightly older than that, but yeah.
>>> Bugger me if it did not remind me of how
>>> useless I am at games and didn't even get out of Arthur Dent's bedroom
>>> before I got bored.
>>
>> Haha! You know it's true. ;-)
>>
> Don't I just.
> It is a big disappointment to me. Minesweeper is my limit.
Minesweeper is actually surprisingly hard. I suck at that...
>> (I presume you meant "interested"...)
>
> I did but an interesting party would be better. ;-)
I agree.
> (.) (.) #-)
Apart from the final close-bracket, this is a valid Haskell expression.
Isn't that wonderful? (Of course, it doesn't actually type-check, since
the type of (.)(.) is (a1 -> b -> c) -> a1 -> (a -> b) -> a -> c,
whereas the type of #- is Int# -> Int# -> Int#.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I do enjoy writing.
>
> pity you did decide not to go into research.
Are you kidding me? I *suck* at research! :-S
> BTW settlers is the reason I stopped playing games on the computer.
> Two reasons: it took too much time
Well, it /does/ take a hell of a long time, yes.
> and at some point when trying to get
> some sleep I was still seeing these guys walking around on the inside of
> my eyelids.
Haha! Try spending a week skiing. After a while, you say in bed trying
to sleep, and you swear you can feel skis on the ends of your legs,
pulling them this way and that as they run over the crisp snow... mmm...
Alternatively, try playing HalfLife 2. Ravenholm gave me nightmares.
(Gotta love the way it's the level you're going to spend the longest
time playing, because it's so ridiculously hard that you'll never get
past it...)
> Positive point: I used to play it also with my brother.
Yeah, me and my dad are both addicts. It's one of the very few computer
games he actually plays. The other one is freecell. You know, the shitty
one that comes with Windows? Yeah, that. He's got an Access database
tracking which game IDs he's solved and everything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-4-2012 22:19, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> I do enjoy writing.
>>
>> pity you did decide not to go into research.
>
> Are you kidding me? I *suck* at research! :-S
That is not a problem. Let somebody else do the work and you write it
down, that is a win win combination.
I wish it wouldn't but nowadays writing papers is much more important
that doing good research.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/04/2012 9:14 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> It is a big disappointment to me. Minesweeper is my limit.
>
> Minesweeper is actually surprisingly hard. I suck at that...
>
Different strokes for different folks.
>>> (I presume you meant "interested"...)
>>
>> I did but an interesting party would be better. ;-)
>
> I agree.
>
>> (.) (.) #-)
>
> Apart from the final close-bracket, this is a valid Haskell expression.
> Isn't that wonderful? (Of course, it doesn't actually type-check, since
> the type of (.)(.) is (a1 -> b -> c) -> a1 -> (a -> b) -> a -> c,
> whereas the type of #- is Int# -> Int# -> Int#.)
I knew that, of course. </lie>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:41:50 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I might do. Of course, there it has even /less/ chance of ever being
> read...
It's not just about it being read, it's about having writing samples
available should you decide to look for work in writing. Well-written
writing samples are always good to have for a portfolio.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:08:56 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> OK, I lied. The /real/ problem is that I talk like a mentally retarded
>>> person... >_<
>>
>> No you don't. You may feel that but you sound normal.
>> Make a script and practice so you don't stumble.
>
> I watched a video of a gathering I attended once. Everybody else is
> "talk talk talk talk". And then I'm starting there, "taaaalking
> reeeeaaaally slooooowlyyyyy". It was infuriating to listen to. Everybody
> else managed to utter a dozen sentences in the time it took me to say
> one. Jesus, no wonder everybody I meet thinks I'm a moron!
Everybody thinks they sound weird unless they've spent time watching and/
or listening to recordings of themselves. It has to do with the way your
voice resonates in your own bones when you talk.
I think I talk at a fairly normal speed, but most people think I tend to
talk way too fast.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:19:14 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> pity you did decide not to go into research.
>
> Are you kidding me? I *suck* at research! :-S
Arguably, things that you're actually interested in you research really
well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/04/2012 9:08 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> OK, I lied. The /real/ problem is that I talk like a mentally retarded
>>> person... >_<
>>
>> No you don't. You may feel that but you sound normal.
>> Make a script and practice so you don't stumble.
>
> I watched a video of a gathering I attended once. Everybody else is
> "talk talk talk talk". And then I'm starting there, "taaaalking
> reeeeaaaally slooooowlyyyyy". It was infuriating to listen to. Everybody
> else managed to utter a dozen sentences in the time it took me to say
> one. Jesus, no wonder everybody I meet thinks I'm a moron!
Well, if you remember we have met. And you seemed almost normal to me. :-P
I don't think that I've ever met anyone who does not hate the sound of
their own recorded voice.
Trust me it is not as bad as you think.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I might do. Of course, there it has even /less/ chance of ever being
>> read...
>
> It's not just about it being read, it's about having writing samples
> available should you decide to look for work in writing. Well-written
> writing samples are always good to have for a portfolio.
Well, yes, there's always that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
