Re: .sit on FAT
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:34:50 +0100
[snip fab on-thread informative content] While on the subject, does anyone know what happened to Raymond Lau - ISTR the child prodigy who wrote the original Stuffit? Did he succumb to drink and drugs, and now drives a cab? Or is he running a Silicon Valley megacorp? And what of Yves Lempereur, writer of BinHex 4.0 - the original (and still the only reliable) '.hqx' application? I always pictured him as a craggy, sweater-wearing type with a pipe, starring in French movies. You'll probably tell me he's a bronzed Californian body-builder. Any disillusions welcome.
Re: OS X - Is it worth it?
Mon, 11 Mar 2002 02:04:18 +0000
D.M. Procida wrote: > Over to you, guys. Don't let me down now. Fuck you, Daniele, you don't know shit. (how did I do?) This place is tame compared to the rambling petty arguments in csm.advocacy (which is why I'm here rather than there).
Re: More Motoring Perils - was; France- and previously was:Flash MX
26 Apr 2002 07:20:10 GMT
Rowland McDonnell wrote: [snip] > Volvos are generally considered big cars with famously arrogant and > careless drivers. > Guilty as charged, I am famous, arrogant and I carelessly disagreed with Simon Dobbs. [snip]
Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:47:33 +0000 (UTC)
In <0001HW.BB268632000AF5F70FD50E80@news.dial.pipex.com> GD wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:53:24 +0100, Michael Haslam wrote > (in message <3F00BF62.email@example.com>): > >> Yesterday morning, in Westminster Abbey, the retired Bishop of >> Bristol after confirming 10 choristers began his sermon with a >> reference to his new 17" flatscreen Apple iMac. > > Okay, I'll bite. > > What on earth did he say? "Deus ex machina!"
Roger Merriman wrote: > D.M. Procida wrote: > > > Peter Ceresole wrote: > > > > > Solved, as John Bradury said, by snipping away the grill that covers > > > the fan. It's only soft aluminium and once it's gone, nothing touches > > > or fouls. With tin snips, a five minute job at most. > > > > I did it with my teeth once. > um i'm probably going to regret this but why? Because I am the consummate Mac professional, with every part of my body and soul fitted supremely well to the task of Apple Macintosh care and maintenence. Also, I have superbly polarised teeth.
Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:51:35 +0000
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, (Richard P. Grant) wrote: >> But he's not a cunt; he has neither the depth nor the warmth. > >That's going to have to be sigquoted, mate. Sadly, not really original- although I suppose that's true of most jokes. I heard it first from my dad, who was quoting, maybe apocryphally, a French bishop from the '30s. Someone had said of a man: 'Cet homme est un con.' The bishop replied; 'Mais non. Il n'en a ni la profondeur, ni la chaleur humaine.' In French! Damn, we're good!
Jim at The Culture
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:33:02 +0000
Flavio Matani wrote: > > - pre-X - pretzel-Y > > > looks like some obscure mathematical formula, rather than a reference to > a keyboard shortcut involving the command key and the 'y' key in the > days of the classic Mac OS before Mac OS X.... (hee hee) Knowing RPG it probably is a mathematical formula. It's also probably a disgusting one, quite possibly involving cheese and a small tangerine.
Richard P. Grant
12 May 2004 11:29:11 GMT
Peter Ceresole wrote: > David Kennedy wrote: > >> but I never, to the best of my >> recollection, ever saw a smiling postman in London - except when he'd >> just dropped a package marked frgile > > Our local chap is a lovely young fellow, always smiling and cheerful, > and the letters seem to be arriving at the right addresses... > > Our previous-but-five postman retired almost a decade ago. Salt of the > earth type- I still meet him in the high street shopping, and we still > exchange greetings and smiles. But Peter, everybody knows that you live in a different world to the rest of us. The women on your planet are clever, yet demure, long-legged and incredibly sexy. The cats don't crap in the garden, the dogs are house-trained and kind to children, the sky is always blue, the birds never eat the young cherries from the tree, you never have network problems, the men are handsome, chivalrous and have many wonderful stories of frontier technology to share, ID cards are compulsory but no one ever, ever asks to see them; the drivers are courteous and the cyclists skilled; network problems just do not exist. All educated people (which, let's face it, is everybody) use Macs, dolphins eat from your hand and the ever-smiling postman brings you and your exquisite wife and beautiful, charming, intelligent daugthers letters and postcards (never bills or unsolicited mail) that were posted yesterday from no matter where in the world from family and dear friends, and what's more the post always arrives before the time you'd have to set out to work if you had to work which you don't because you're retired. I hate you.
Wed, 12 May 2004 18:04:32 +0100
Okay, Well I'm in Manchester and Manchester is real. Car crime is on the up, there is horse, cat and dog shit everywhere. The postman delivers thousands of junk mails a week, but I never see him because he only works afternoons. Birds drink my milk ... birds ... no songbirds - only buzzards, crows and carpet-crapping squadrons of destructive housemartins. Plus we had to sack the window cleaner for wanking in the back garden. Brilliant.
Wed, 19 May 2004 11:28:27 BST
In article <1ge168s.exjq7119hy9eaNemail@example.com>, Jon B wrote: > >> >> In ten years time you'll look back and be amazed at the quaint idea that >> a terabyte drive is not suitable for everyday use. >> > along with the idea you could actually fit a Microsoft Application on it > Nah, Microsoft won't be around in ten years time. <looks around in a cagey way> Trust me on this. Jim
Tue, 18 May 2004 08:55:47 BST
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Richard P. Grant wrote: > PeterD wrote: >> Richard P. Grant wrote: >> >>> Old farts, like youandme, just wither and die. >> >> No no! All the fight's gone out of you old bean. >> Rage, rage against the dying of the light! > > no . . . I'm merely coming to appreciate the benefits of Ceresoleworld. > "Now available in easy to swallow capsules!" Jim
Wed, 19 May 2004 11:23:06 +0100
In article <email@example.com>, Richard P. Grant wrote: > leeg wrote: > >>> instruction is fetched from such a page. In this way, proper operating > > ^^^^^^ > >>> systems such as VMS can be more immune to stack smasher attacks. > > ^^^ > > > > Firstly, that does not compute. > ^^! > > Elliott is our resident VMS bigot. We tolerate him because he does have > a finer side. It's fuckin *seabird* flavour..
Sat, 22 May 2004 10:09:55 +0100
In article <BCD4CEC6.6EF7Afirstname.lastname@example.org>, Bonge Boo! wrote: > So it took Apple less than 3 days to release a patch, when they had 3 months > to do it on the quiet. They've destroyed an enormous amount of "media > goodwill" towards OS X, given plenty of ammo to the naysayers (me) and > generally handled it very very ineptly. On behalf of real "mac users", I'd just like to point out that you're spouting shite you miserable git. Regards
Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:53:41 +0000
in article 1grk63l.1bwqh5j1noyi4fNemail@example.com, Bella Jones at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote on 2/6/05 10:51 AM: > Jim wrote: > >> Richard P. Grant wrote: >> >>> Simon Dobbs wrote: >>>> This is simply a forum for opinion and advice- what people write- it >>>> isn't 'real' you know- it isn't important. >>> >>> I will not argue with you, because that is getting muddy and - hey! - >>> increasing noise. It's obvious you don't get what is wrong with you. >>> >>> But for the sake of those who do get it, I offer something that was >>> written about a different problem, but applies just as well here: >>> >>> "I've been >>> through pain and joy with this network, I've seen communities form and >>> wither and reform, I've met friends and lost friends here, I've learned >>> things and discovered things and created things. I've seen people make a >>> home here when they didn't have any other, not on a newsgroup, not with a >>> bunch of electrons, but with people that they've met and communities that >>> they've found and support that they've received from people who had just >>> the words they needed to hear and would never have known they existed, and >>> by God I KNOW what this network is for, and you can't have it." >>> >>> -- Russ Allbery, from http://www.foad.org/~bodhi/ >> >> <applause!> > > Seconded. I love that quote. I'll have to third it. I find the idea that what one writes here (or anywhere else on the net) not actually being "real" and not mattering somewhat sinister. Do I change my personality into something completely different when I sit in front of a computer screen ? Do I treat the words that people write differently to spoken words in the "real world" because I can't actually see their faces here ? (and to be honest, unless you're sitting right next to me in the "real world" I can't see your face there either.) Do I somehow treat a written opinion or emotion as less than a "real world" opinion or emotion ? Do I treat words of advice or comfort or description that I read here as less valid than the same expressed in the "real world" in speech ? Of course not, it's not neccessary for me to do that nor would I want to actively try to. I understand the courtesies of text and realise that words written really can show the real person underneath if the writer intends it. So I don't need to start out with a dismissive attitude to people I might "virtually" meet, just as I don't in the "real world". But there are people who do. You get 'em all over usenet (and in the real world too of course). People who would say, for example, negative or dismissive things through text that they would never dare say in actual physical presence of a person in the "real world", and I feel very sorry for those people, to be honest. I think sometimes (I stress sometimes) a person's opposition to off topic chat in a group such as this can stem from an inability to "be themselves" through text. Often people in the real world have difficulty relating to others that they have only passing aquaintence with, let alone being able to feel comfortable with that through text, but I've been lucky enough never to have that problem, either in the real world or the net world. I'm not uncomfortable with social interaction with those I barely know, for example, I could strike up a conversation with people in the bus queue who I didn't know. The next day in the same bus queue I could acknowledge those I remembered from the previous day, and speak to them again. A month down the line those regular bus queue bods might be people I knew and liked and had shared the time of day with. We might talk about buses and how they were always late or particular bus drivers or bus routes or where we were going, but you can be sure we'd talk about tv and music and just any old shite too. It's how we interact as a species. And advice or opinion or comfrot offered during the chats we had may well be considered valid and real. The bus queue example is pretty much how I see this group (and others like it). Just my two pennies worth. Rachael
Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:42:36 +0100
Ian Robinson wrote: > > So if you're in Africa and got TB, you probably think Microsoft's hegemony > > is a good thing. I would find that hard to argue against. > > Agreed. What Gates is doing is very good indeed. Having someone with > his wealth, a reputation for getting things done and an interest in > hands on management of the funds should be a good thing in the fight > against infectious disease. > > Kudos to him and his foundation. No, fuck him and al of his worthless, lying, hypocritical sanctimonious kind. When you have spent your life screwing everybody, and that includes making all the efforts you can to establish your nasty monopoly in the developing world so that too can fit neatly into your plans, you're going to feel an urgent need to start buying your way into heaven. Gates has no more need for money, he can't possibly use any more. What he wants is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with prime-ministers and statesmen, to have the UN Secretary General lauding his works. The most massive acts of charity on the part of the likes of Gates aren't going to change the world and the lives of the poorest people in it. Those people are poor largely thanks to the system of international capitalism which has made Gates rich, and his eye-catching acts of charity serve mainly to reinforce that system and give incredibly wealthy individuals, corporations and societies a chance to feel good about themselves without actually having to face any obligations save the ones they choose to dress up in for when they get to deliver speeches at conferences on poverty or disease. Daniele
Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:55:09 +0100
Bonge Boo! wrote: > > No, fuck him and al of his worthless, lying, hypocritical sanctimonious > > kind. When you have spent your life screwing everybody, and that > > includes making all the efforts you can to establish your nasty monopoly > > in the developing world so that too can fit neatly into your plans, > > you're going to feel an urgent need to start buying your way into > > heaven. > > Jolly good. > > When you've changed the entire world economic system and distributed wealth > equally amongst the nations of the world, I'll agree entirely with you. > > But for the moment I'll be glad that prominent public figures are trying to > buy their way into heaven. I don't think you really get it. First of all, they are not "prominent public figures". They are private indivuals, and huge corporations. There is nothing public about them at all, other than the fact that we seem to know a lot about them and they are famous. Public means belonging to the community. Secondly, the 'good' they do amounts to a tiny fraction of the harm they do. They participate in these glamourous gestures of philanthropy in their time off from lobbying governments and international organisations to make sure that laws and treaties go their way and making agreements with the likes of the Chinese authorities to help decide exactly under what circumstances they will help usher dissident journalists into the torture chambers. It's a smokescreen to help distract us from the gross and subtle evils they are responsible for. If just one child doesn't die of malaria or TB thanks to Bill Gates, then that's good. But Bill Gates's acts of charity work to distract us from the fact that he is an active and fervent participator in a system which helps guarantee that millions of people across the world will never be able to escape those same diseases, and that they and their communities will live and die in misery. We don't have Bill Gates's charity over here and his other activities over there, nice and separate so that you could praise one without taking into account the other. They are part of the same thing, completely bound up in each other. The charity is only necessary because of the other activities, and in the end helps sustain those other activities. It's like a bunch of arsonists running around burning down entire streets, and every so often one of them chucks a bucket of water on a fire or dramatically rescues a kitten. So they're feted by fools, but in the meantime people and their lives and houses are going up in flames. Daniele
Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:59:46 +0100
Ian Robinson wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:15:36 +0100, D.M. Procida wrote > (in article > <1hhg7ql.v1yxl1130qpchNemail@example.com>): > > > Of course not. What I'm objecting to is the idea that he should be > > praised for it, or that it represents any kind of ideal worth > > applauding. > > You're entitled to your opinion. Like everyone else. Mine is right though. And some people are in fact not entitled to opinions, for example the Chinese, whose rulers (with a little essential assistance, particularly from Yahoo!, but also from the philanthropic Bill Gates's Microsoft) like to track them down and imprison them should they dare to express the wrong ones. Great guy, that Bill Gates! Daniele