Re: CHAT: browsers

En réponse à Tristan <kesuari@...>:

>
> Ah, okay ;) I guess WinXP is one of those really-good-or-really-bad
> things.
>
Which seems to be quite common among Windoze thingies ;)) .

>
> Not necassarily. And I generally use it in text-based environments
> where
> people are less likely to complain about already knowing what it means
> because I could be talking to a dozen different people.
>
I thought you were talking about real life! In that case it's quite different
indeed...

>
> I know you were. I can't imagine anyone not knowing what bats (or
> cricket) was.
Well, I *know* that some of my classmates had never heard of cricket before we
tried at school.

 Except perhaps Americans, though according to Gatorade,
> they know nothing *about* cricket, which implies that the know of it.
>
LOL. Indeed...

>
> LOL. And anyway, how could they kill crickets in countries where they
> don't exist?
>
OK, replace crickets with your own version of the plague insect ;)) .

>
> Sure you can. The precompile XFT-enable Phoenix will run in any
> directory you choose.
>         tar xjf phoenix-whatever.tar.bz2; cd phoenix; ./phoenix
> and there you are! The whole idea of installing software is incredibly
> old-fashioned.
>
Seems to be the rule here though...

> And anyway, when compiling all the bits and pieces (except perhaps
> XFT,
> I'm not sure---it may mix in too much with X), you just run
> './configure
> --prefix=~/mozilla' and when you type 'make install' it'll be
> installed
> into ~/mozilla.
>
You could talk to me in Chinese that it wouldn't be less understood...

>
> Are ewe shore about Word? People hear no better then two trust a spell
> chequer...
>
But that's because English orthography is magellish, while French orthography
is simply Etabnanninous, and thus regular at heart (and homophones are rare
enough or happen in very different contexts) so that a spell checker does work
well on it (just don't trust it for applying agreement rules correctly, it
seems to consider that an adjective or a participle must follow the word they
complete directly! ;)) ).

>
> Really? Oh. I got that from some website-or-other that was suggesting
> the English were taking the whole metrication thing to far. I should
> know better than to trust websites, shouldn't I?
>
Especially one which is not in favour of metrication. They'll invent every
reason to not accept it. As for still using pounds, but metric ones, you would
have a point in Holland. Here the "pond" is still in common use, and is exactly
500g. Less commonly used but I've heard it sometimes is the "ons", which is
exactly 100g here :)) .

>
> I have no idea. If it were up to me, I'd make it all correct. If
> something is correct, whether I like it or not, I obey it (unless it's
> incredibly stupid/dangerous etc). Thus, unlike many of my fellow
> republicans, I refer to Her Majesty as Queen Elizabeth II of Australia
> (which is just below the point of 'incredibly stupid', because we've
> never had a Queen Elizabeth I), and not Mrs Windsor. (Personally, I
> think if she's going to be our queen, should be the queen of the
> people;
> she's Queen Elizabeth I of Scots or somesuch, why can't she be Queen
> Elizabeth I of Australians? But then, we might as well just become a
> republic...)
>
LOL. This Commonwealth thing seems to make things quite complicated ;))) . I
find it strange already that you can accept having a head of state who lives at
tens of thousands of kilometers from you...

> (BTW: Republican obviously has a different meaning in Australia
> (favoring changing Australia into an independent republic with our own
> head of state, rather than a foreigner) and America (follower of the
> Republican party). Less obviously, though, in America, 'Republic'
> seems
> to mean 'representative democracy' (i.e. you vote for people who
> represent you in Government, as in the current system in both America
> and Australia), whereas in Australia it has to do with having your own
> head of state (certainly not for life, but not necessarily elected,
> and
> not necessarily with any power).)
>
In France and anywhere in Europe, a Republic is a system where you vote for the
head of *state*, not only for the government and chambers. So if the head of
state is not elected (at least indirectly, like in America) by the people, this
is not a republic. But that doesn't mean it's not a democracy. Unlike what most
French people think (and most republicans - in the European sense - in other
European countries), republic and democracy are two different and separate
things. You needn't be a republic to be democratic. And even in republics the
head of state (even if s/he is called "president") needn't have any power. Just
look at France during the Third Republic. The President was elected by the
Parliament (and thus indirectly by the people) but didn't have any power to
speak of. I think the same system is still working today in Italy.

>
> I thought they were both official, with L preferred.
>
Officially, 'l' is *tolerated*. It's certainly not official on the same level
as 'L'.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Replies