On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:08 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
My point is and was that whatever is used to replace the current system,
should be a language that is as English-like as possible.
Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
english-like language is not desirable, feasible,
In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevag...@gmail.com writes:
Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
english-like language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
happen.
--
I propose that A) you are not the authority
stevertigo wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Tim Starlingtstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Wikisource has a complete translation in modern English, and it
already seems to be annotated with IDs for verses, e.g.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/John#3:16
Hm.
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then
wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with
the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway.
Obviously the current script's sources need to be
Tim Starling wrote:
A lot of bible references don't have a link at all. Maybe we could add
a magic link feature, like we have for RFC and PMID. Then whenever
someone types something that looks like a bible verse reference in
plain text, MediaWiki would automatically convert it to a link. For
I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw
bible citations, not for templated ones.
That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}}
The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV. That
would be super. Then *if* someone feels the need to
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several
translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That
would require something less like wiki pages and more like
Here is the current list:
http://bibref.hebtools.com/biblesrcs.txt
Replacing BG links with wikisource links would be the first thing to do.
Choosing other portals instead of BG would be the next - giving fair
distribution,
until the script can be modified to offer a selection.
And when all else
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
The technical hurdles are undoubtedly less onerous than the
socio-cultural ones. For the English Bible agreement on one version
would be tough. There are other situations where the desired version may
be very specific.
2009/7/6 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Is there anything that will show the same verse in several
translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That
would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database
at the other end. Or someone
Should be discrete-section transwiki transclusion translation
differential interface actually.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then
wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with
the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway.
Obviously the current
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/6/2009 12:12:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevag...@gmail.com writes:
Your point is made, understood, and soundly rebutted. An
english-like language is not desirable, feasible, or going to
happen.
--
I propose
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The use of transclusion by section on Wikisource would make it
technically simple to bring the existing verses (or chapters) together
on pages for parallel reading. Of course it would be a lot of work ...
2009/7/3 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
Durova wrote:
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the matter.
In practice this
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:20 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I think what Tim was saying is that this magic link would only be for raw
bible citations, not for templated ones.
That is Gen 4:2 instead of {{biblequotex|Gen|4|2}}
The raw citation would be magically linked to the wikisource KJV.
Guettarda wrote:
Most modern translations have known benefits and weaknesses, so the one you
pick is largely a matter of taste, albeit with a bit of politics mixed in.
The KJV, on the other hand, is perhaps the least accurate translation. So
while I am hesitant to endorse an off-site script
We were actually dealing a bit with the idea of a heads-up verse
comparison/translation interface.
Its not just about linking, its about compiling a page that displays
the content of two separate articles (different selected versions) but
the same verses in parallel.
The Navpop tool can show text
The current practice in many academic publications on religion for
non specialists seems usually to use the NIV, and often add the KJ V
if substantially different.
If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the KJV
I therefore do not see how we can find a uniform
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
and not the Atheistpedia.
-Stevertigo
2009/7/6 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The current practice in many academic publications on religion for
non specialists seems usually to use the NIV, and often add the KJ V
if substantially different.
If however one is discussing English literature, one would just link to the
KJV
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:52 AM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The current practice in many academic publications on religion for
non specialists seems usually to use the NIV, and often add the KJ V
if substantially different.
If however one is discussing English literature, one
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living
third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well.
Both use a most English-like foundation.
Is Python more represented in want-ads ? Most
Continued...
..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough
to English, then Neil's offering: PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS
BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
COLON CHARACTER IN THE... makes the substantial point, in addition to
being esoterically funny.
-Steve
In a message dated 7/6/2009 11:46:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
..if you dislike Lua, Python, etc. because they aren't similar enough
to English, then Neil's offering: PRINT THE NUMBER OF CHARACTERS
BEFORE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE
COLON CHARACTER IN THE... makes
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Neil Harrisuse...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Consider the difference between the ease of writing, say, the Python-like
print %02x % find(:, param[1])
or even the Lisp-like
(print (fmt %02x (find : (param 1
compared to writing an English-like equivalent
2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Neil let me just point out in counter-point that the two longest-living
third-generation langages, COBOL and BASIC are both still alive and well.
Both use a most English-like foundation.
Is Python
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:20 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
While it's true program languages have pretty much given up experimenting
with natural
language and similar, it's also true that programing has shifted from
something any computer user has to do to something rather more
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's
easier to learn.
I don't know that BASIC in any of its flavors lines up well with the
functional requirements needed for easy (compact, easy to read, easy
to learn how
In a message dated 7/6/2009 3:54:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
Although the point could have been put more tactfully, I think the
salient point here is that English-like programming languages have
been tried before many times, and have (with the possible
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Deliriumdelir...@hackish.org wrote:
Durova wrote:
With respect and appreciation extended toward Apoc2400, it's dubious that
there would be a need for a separate policy to cover this rare situation.
At most, a line or two in existing policy would articulate the
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Neil Harrisuse...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Consider the difference between the ease of writing, say, the Python-like
print %02x % find(:, param[1])
or even the Lisp-like
(print (fmt %02x (find : (param 1
compared to writing an
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Neil Harrisuse...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Oh, don't tempt me to write an implementation... a grammar for it might
look something like this:
I thought we were keeping this conversation high level.
-Steven
___
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
Yeah, that could work... if we lived in bizarro world where all the
developers actually liked COBOL!
If I know software engineers, over their dead bodies!
On 06/07/2009, Neil Harris use...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Neil
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself.
Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus
Manskemagnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in
Forgive my pseudocode (based on Neil's example):
function A: search : = [0], scope (before [0]), count [a-z] = [1],
format [1] [TWO-DIGIT ZERO-PADDED HEXADECIMAL NUMBER] /* :-P */,
format [1] [lowercase], move [1] [0].
Breakdown:
function A:
search : = [0], // search for :
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 19:23, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The language chosen will hopefully be as ENGLISH-like as possible, even it
that means it requires more typing.? The hyper-complex and excessively
structured codes of most languages make it difficult for the vast majority of
our
Of course you've hit the nail right on the head.
I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people
have to learn just to code for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an
existing language, so that some people can jump right in with both feet and
others, who want
We can quote autobiographies in terms of what the deity has to say about
themselves.
It's a primary source, not original research when quoted.? Only original in the
first-form.
That is, we can't publish it by itself, but we can quote it, with other sources.
Or it's true, which would mean
Yes I mean PRINT is far more obvious what it's doing.? Most programmers can
understand what ADD, COUNT or FORMAT is supposed to do, in general.? Sure you
could just use / or ~ or ^ but it's not obvious what they do without a
manual.
Me: Compromising between efficiently terse syntax and
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:14 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Of course you've hit the nail right on the head.
I don't think we want to create a brand-new additional language that people
have to learn just to code
for Wikipedia.? What we'd want to do, is use an existing language, so that
some
Funny Wycliffe is the only one who states clearly that God created everything
from nothing.
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?booknumber=bookname=Genesisrange=1%3A1source=doit=Do+it
-Original Message-
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
To: English
Not sure I'm exactly following that.
Are you suggesting creating methods with inputs and outputs out of underlying
templates and then allowing those methods to be called directly, so essentially
building a higher-level language out of these templates as the tools ?
You'd have to build
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:52 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On the other hand, why is a Wikipedia article citing a Bible verse?
Because in spite of their dominant representation, its the Wikipedia
2009/7/7 Mark Wagner carni...@gmail.com:
Every few years, English-derived programming languages become
fashionable as a solution for programming being difficult, and every
few years, another generation of advocates discovers that it isn't the
obscure codewords and symbols that make programming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05pubed.html
'The Public Editor: Journalistic Ideals, Human Values'
Although word spread quickly last November among Western reporters in
Afghanistan that Rohde, Ludin and their driver, Asadullah Mangal,
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:13 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. So if the terrorists do not make any demands about silence, it is
our ethical duty to censor ourselves, as many wiser heads than mine
have expounded about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:18 PM, stevertigo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkpStAwACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oLEZwCfWrhSHh5KB5v0fwxa5YwFxI84
qSgAoJXPKqzjhDoL5SyfDYz/f4MjQOAz
=5x/F
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM, David Carsoncarson63...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you actually read Charles' message, or just stop after the first
sentence to fire off a reply? He wasn't saying why on earth would
Wikipedia be citing the BIBLE?!, he was saying that you need to look at
the reason
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
corporate do-gooderness. Obviously, if the NYT, in
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It would have been much better if it was officially an office action.
Would it have worked as an office action, though? They aren't very discreet.
In this situation, perhaps it was thought it would work better if it
stevertigo wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Gwern Branwengwe...@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, my point is that the reasoning offered for the
censorship is intellectually bankrupt.
Well let's not attribute to malice what better can be ascribed to
corporate do-gooderness.
stevertigo wrote:
Still I sort of took the liberty of interpreting his first statement a
bit literally, and maybe out of context too, just to make a tangential
reference to the fact that ~65% percent of us are devoutly atheistic,
and yet are dealing, somewhat accurately, with technical aspects
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
I would have said corporate integrity, but everyone would easily
figure out that was a pun.
Not all puns are oxymorons.
Hence the dilemma of corporate media. Fortunately for us, we decided
long ago to
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
It's always slightly ironic when
atheists deal with theological topics, and myself being, by design,
one of the other ~35%, I felt a bit compelled to bring that up in as
flat and contrite a way as
60 matches
Mail list logo
