 | | Re: Stupid Question
|
|
(...) We have him where we want him, get guys!! Cheers, (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: laser Safety and cats
|
|
(...) Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy, what are we going to do with you? Don't you know that you can patent __anything__ in the US?! For goodness sakes people are patenting mathematical equations (TrueType fonts)!! Cheers, (24 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) Mine is inconsistent. Andrew (24 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) I'm sorry, but my knowledge of Goedel is incomplete. Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) I agree. c.f. Goedel. This statement has the truth value "undecidable" (24 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) This is a restating of the "Liar Paradox" a la "Everything I say is a lie." If I recall my Logic course correctly, a statement of that sort has no distinct truth value one way or the other, in that (in context) it cannot be definably true or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) Yes you are... But I was hoping to start a discussion on whether or not the third error is untrue. Or is it? Cleverly yours, theirs, and everybody's, --Electro-- (24 years ago, 22-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Just a simple question
|
|
Yes it does help but the idea is that my lego folder has it's own icon (...) (24 years ago, 21-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Just a simple question
|
|
Note the "follow-up" redirected to "o/t.geek"... (...) I don't know if it can be done at all for a folder proper. I do know that it can be done to a _shortcut_ (for a folder or other item). Here's how (for "shortcut" icons): Right-click on the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Nov-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
So was I right? "Jon Palmer" <jpalmer@oklahoma.net> wrote in message news:G4B9xn.JI7@lugnet.com... (...) (24 years ago, 21-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Another heirarchical DB question
|
|
(...) Really? All that mumbo-jumbo helped? We'll have to try harder this time. (...) Generally speaking, the specific cross-axles would be described as children of the Cross Axles category. And the Cross-Axles category would be a child of the (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: error message!
|
|
(...) heheh... let's not go there today :) (...) nod, could be cool :) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: error message!
|
|
(...) But.... but.... I thought Linux/Unix were already secure? ;) I'm staying at the conference hotel - I'm sure we can work out dinner or something! (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
Hmm let me take a shot... 1. substitute are for is 2. errors is misspelled. 2. there are only two errors in the sentence. -Jon "David M." <ElectroTX@webtv.net> wrote in message news:G4B7nt.FFn@lugnet.com... (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
Hey gang, Here's a sort of logic puzzle: There is three errers in this sentence. What are they? Good Luck! --Electro-- (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Another heirarchical DB question
|
|
Hi: First thanks to Christopher, Steve and Larry for your help with my last question. Here's todays question. Say that you had a list of data that needed to be not only in heirarchical order but also each child of a given parent needed to be in a (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Arrggh!
|
|
(...) Not because they had copies (that's fair use under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, United States Code, Title 17, section 1008), but because they *distributed* copies for which they had no license (17 USC s. 1103). Chris FUT: (...) (24 years ago, 20-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Arrggh!
|
|
(...) But there's *exactly* no difference. If I make an MP3 of a track from my own CD, it'll be exactly completely the same as one I download from the internet (assuming the same software and options used to create it). If the law doesn't recognize (...) (24 years ago, 19-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Arrggh!
|
|
(...) Because in one case it's deemed fair use; in the other you're republishing the work. But I don't claim to understand the legal intricacies to really be able to explain this intelligently. However, since MP3.com was sued for this exact same (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Arrggh!
|
|
(...) Why would it be illegal to download an MP3 version of a CD you own, yet be legal to rip your own? I mean, the whole point of digital media is that two copies are exactly identical.... (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
