On Mar 25, 7:45 pm, John Machin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Furkan Kuru incorrigibly top-posted: > > > Ok, you're right. > > > but I did not give it a chance "not trying python interpreter in another > > directory" > > I don't understand that sentence. > > > so if we assume the problem exists in every directory, it has something > > to do with pythonpath. > > Why would/should we assume that?
Process of enumeration. > > you can try setting pythonpath to some directory and put a re.py there > > and try from any directory starting your interpreter and importing re. > > and achieve the same result: importing the bogus re. What's your point? I'm not so sure that dispute burdens of proof are resolved all that virtuously (life isn't fair; fair is good). What are newsgroups like in the monarchies? Ever feel you're typing on auto-pilot? It's not like you vote on me staying. However, the things I've said about myself aren't written intepretation-strict, thence there must be some distinction between interpretations, or between resident attitudes for me? Perhaps my fault for overinvesting hope in the newsgroups. You're not a best friend to me! <awkward>. If you look like your pets, do we look like computers? Restrictions are different for justice: my only analytically (or never) outweighs my threshold. By the process of cognition, we ascribe malice (how probabilistically- malicious is it) to people (as danger to objects?), but the ideal realm (kingdom Logos), but revising estimates is expensive. Do visual mirrors make a round-trip error? Is there emotionally such thing as a computer? They are certainly deep, but perhaps only axiomatically; people aren't made of binary. How far to the nearest indefinite precision computer? Any pull around here? Someone have a thesis on wake-detection in a parallel system? Can we 'black-box' people? ("Are you a black box?") What kind of accuracy is there in uniform media? Can we 'black-box' groups? Wakes and patterned perturbations can be modeled in feature-sets, abitrary feature collisions not fully particle. I'd be more interested in a feature specialty that facilitates to transmit waves, and a sum-of-waveform native. Is there a recursive expression of the taylor expansion of e^x, by the way? Interface and deface. Honest and true? Can you just buffer? Beliefs might settle wrong, and it's hard to change them: huge machine, right nail. Can a spider swarm simulate a macro operation (building a building), either given a power source or carrying "lifeform batteries"? Operator would need interface: thought to operation: fast enough - idle loop cost: can't be governing every small bug (once again, features over particles), the machines would need overall/level/summary operations, read memories. But you can get a couple microvolts and a memory cell on a 2-micron spider, and a radio-static but sees a medium, speed-of-propogation, limitation. Just think outside the case. How organized is the newsgroup? Can I buy a long non-commutative associative (time order (resort)) record? It's not. (That's a tongue thing, right?) A place to come to: a place to sit at energy level. (New you vs. same me here too.) 2-D primitives suck on serial input. I'd almost rather decode a video of hands. Would a computer mind learning? You could by a perceptive-order code. What the world needs is a few good spacers. I have to think; leave silent, and return broadcasting. How's yours suck + what's the monkey on your back? Multi-type time people for sale, American dollar. Anyone up for a little register- base broadcasting? It's a broad. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list