International Sanctions May Accelerate Adoption Of GNU/Linux In Russia

GNU/Linux has been in the pipe for a while but US sanctions on Russia may“The State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, is drafting a bill to require government agencies and state-run enterprises to give preference to local providers of software and hardware, according to a document from the commission for strategic information systems obtained by Bloomberg News.” bring GNU/Linux to the front burner. I can see them also accelerating trade with China. If China ramps up production of computers with GNU/Linux to serve the Russian market, China will be better positioned to help out every other country squirming under the weight of Wintel and NSA probing the world’s IT.

While I really hate what Russia has done in eastern Europe lately, this could be a silver lining in the whole horrible mess. Eventually, Russia and its neighbours will figure out how to get along and GNU/Linux and open standards could be a tiny part of a brave new world, a beneficial legacy long after Putin and others have left the scene. US sanctions play roles all around the world. I can see countries like Cuba going full speed for GNU/Linux if they see Russia doing that. It’s too bad Putin decided to invade Ukraine and prop up Assad instead of finishing the migration to GNU/Linux sooner but the world is a better place for the job getting done sooner rather than later.

See Russia to Reduce Reliance on Microsoft, IBM After Sanctions.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to International Sanctions May Accelerate Adoption Of GNU/Linux In Russia

  1. DrLoser says:

    Time to wrap this up.
    Let’s sum up the entire miserable stupidity of oiaohm so far on this thread, shall we? From the bottom, and therefore the horse’s ass:
    On Kurkos DR

    DrLoser like it or not kurkosdr is not Fluent in English. In fact does not understand many english grammar rules.

    Kurkos is indeed fluent and does understand those rules, oiaohm. You are staccato at best and clearly do not.

    On Saving Ink

    Works out skipping them [who cares what] saves 0.1 of a percent of ink of a document. Yes this adds up.

    On an Internet blog?

    On Rubber Hyphens

    Yes there is a such thing as an hyphenator for Ancient Greek text. First appears in Latex solutions by the way.

    And it’s the only single instance where it occurs. There are later references to the Academy of Athens in 1939. I don’t think the Academy of Athens in 1939 was in possession of a workable LaTeX solution of any kind.

    On The Origins Of Greek Hyphenation

    By the way the Ancient Greek Hyphenation rules start with movable type printing presses prior to computers.

    No they don’t. Not at all. And moveable type presses do not correspond with the later idiot argument about 15th century presses. And even if they did, there is no way in Hell that the Codex Vaticanus was produced on any sort of type press whatsoever.

    On Writing Zig Zag

    Another group from the early 10 Century Is zig zag. Old lines left to right even lines right to left. Very high page effectiveness higher than Hyphenation. Now asking a person to translate that for you they kinda want to kill you because its truly not easy to read.
    They gave up on the zig zag format early in the 11 century AD. Why zig zag is a group different print shops did different things. Some the chars are all same way. Some the even lines are upside down kinda reasonable to read until you remember books of that time-frame were chained in place.

    Quoted in full, for sheer spectacular awfulness. Note, however, the inability to use the correct term for “zig-zag,” which is boustrophedonism.

    Also note the extraordinarily weird claim that “they” gave up on “zig zag” at some completely random yet closely defined date. Bollocks, isn’t it?

    On Eleventh Century Printing Presses

    11 century movable type in Europe are wooden blocks

    Or then again … not.

    On Pennies Saved Via Boustrophedonic Text

    The savings of writing left to right then right to left and repeating is zero inserted extra chars. A hyphen takes a space. Its what you do at the page edge.
    nehpyh tuohtiW
    ation you have saved.

    Except that you can make this trivial saving, whether or not you write forwards of backwards.

    On Defending Superior Zig-Zag Against Boustrophedonism
    Major reason why zig zag is not boustrophedon is the typographical errors like printing a line the wrong way round remains

    Pathetic, isn’t it?

    On Unusual Perversions In Late Byzantine History

    Byzantine reliquaries can go over 2 centuries from the start of the book to the end. Individual and cluster of letter Printing was well and truly underway in Greece by 12 century

    No it wasn’t.

    On The Black Death, As Subtly Transmitted Through The Forbidden Archives

    10-15 century archive is split out for a very particular reason. Documents before that are mostly safe documents after that are mostly safe. Those documents may be contain black death and a few other nasty items like radioactive and toxic pigments (due to books being so expense to prevent theft some were made toxic). Books being made toxic cease after Gutenberg

    Preposterous.
    On Being A Greek Typesetter
    Sorry mate I am a Greek typesetter

    Sorry, mate. You ain’t.

    On Appreciating The Last Letter In The Greek Alphabet
    Ome what you would think it would be. Is lower case. Oxford did not make the separation Unicode does. The letter Ome is the lower case Omega.

    Not … as such.

    On Being A Bozo Who Misrepresents Breathings As Otherwise Pointless Hyphenations At The Beginning Of A Line In The Codex Vaticanus

    DrLoser Look at the picture in Link1. There are three hyphen marks in Link1. Link1 image is not of the Codex vaticanus original. Link1 image on the wikipedia is a image latter reproduction.

    Calm down, dear. Just rough breathings, is all they are. And they are almost certainly a later addition.

    ——————————————————-

    I added a link to “reliquaries” there, which somehow evaded the eagle eyes of the resident primus inter pares nutter.

    And to be honest, I was very lax. I could track down — heck, anybody could track down — at least as many utterly stupid comments, links, or failed assertions.

    I feel these are enough to wrap the present conversation up.

    Should oiaohm care to tackle “Vulgar Latin,” however, I am afraid I may feel the need to return,

  2. DrLoser says:

    It is just about possible that oiaohm has confused “Vulgar Latin” with the “Latin Vulgate,” by the way.

    I’m not going to prejudge his next absurdity.

    But I really hope that this is his reason for mentioning “Vulgar Latin” in the first place.

  3. DrLoser says:

    It’s a small point, oiaohm, but since you seem determined to call the fellow “Charles Hapsburg,” could you at least get his ordinality right?

    He was in fact “Charles I Hapsburg.”

    In terms of the Holy Roman Empire, the first three Charles were — you’ll never guess — Carolingians, and the fourth was from the House of Luxembourg.

    Want to nit-pick? You’ve picked the wrong guy to pick nits with, kiddo.

  4. DrLoser says:

    A lot of pure Ancient Greek documents made in more modern times are incorrectly filed.

    Bull. Cite a single one.

    Both Ancient Greek and Church Slavonic Christian documents trace their production to 20 years after the death of Christ.

    Bull. The Greek in question would be Koine, and it’s unlikely that anyone would think, circa 60AD, to write Old Slavonic documents in Glagolitic, a script that didn’t even exist until the Ninth Century.

    Ancient Greek including all it variations is in fact the Greek Orthodox Church official language.

    Bull. Koine Greek or Arabic. It wouldn’t surprise me to find a Greek Orthodox Church conducting the service in Aramaic or even in Armenian.

    But I would be flabberghasted to find one that conducts its service in Ancient Greek.

    So much bull-shit for a man with such a tiny little shovel, oiaohm.

  5. DrLoser says:

    As far as I am aware, Charles V Hapsburg spoke no Greek whatsoever.
    This is wrong. He had to speak a little when he was being taught it.

    Aside from being asinine (I can confirm that it is quite possible to learn Ancient Greek for a year or two without speaking it. That’s what I did for the first two years), this is just pitiable.

    No. Only a freak and a dishonest fool would claim that Charles Hapsburg ever spoke Ancient Greek in any meaningful sense.

    Just to be tricky what is. “Vulgar Latin”. What is Vulgar Latin its a hybrid text between Latin and Greek with the majority of the text being Greek.

    That’s not being tricky, oiaohm. That’s being both intensely stupid and incredibly ill-informed at the same time. Apparently, for once, you didn’t bother to consult Wikipedia on this one.

    Yes reading old Latin books is hell if you don’t know any Ancient Greek because you can strike pages and pages of Vulgar Latin part way into the book.

    … leading me to believe that you have never read an old Latin book, either: otherwise you would have noticed the almost complete absence of Greek in any form. True, you will occasionally see the quotation of a phrase or two (I seem to recall Pliny the Elder doing this), but you most certainly will not see “page after page.”

    Come to think of it, have you ever read a book at all? In any language whatsoever? It seems unlikely at this point.

  6. That Exploit Guy says:

    @Dolding

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physic

    And what are you trying to prove with this link except that word indeed meant none of the things you thought it meant?
    Idiot.

  7. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser this is the big trap. A lot of pure Ancient Greek documents made in more modern times are incorrectly filed. Yes you find them in the Vulgar Latin section even that they contain no Latin. This is the problem Christian religious arguments today are carried out in Ancient Greek, Vulgar Latin, Latin, Hebrew and Church Slavonic even today. Both Ancient Greek and Church Slavonic Christian documents trace their production to 20 years after the death of Christ. Church Slavonic is Russian Orthodox Official language. Both Greek and Russian Orthodox exist before the Catholic church is founded.

    Ancient Greek including all it variations is in fact the Greek Orthodox Church official language. Because a religious leader should be able to read the source documents including out loud. This is the problem DrLoser Ancient Greek is not a dead language.

  8. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser
    This man has to be the poster child for an educated linguist in the 15th century.
    In his time-frame there are other rich people who speak more languages. Also he is not highly fluent in Latin or “Vulgar Latin” what makes up 70 percent of the produced text at time.

    As far as I am aware, Charles V Hapsburg spoke no Greek whatsoever.
    This is wrong. He had to speak a little when he was being taught it.

    Just to be tricky what is. “Vulgar Latin”. Vulgar Latin is still produced in the 15 century and later. What is Vulgar Latin its a hybrid text between Latin and Greek with the majority of the text being Greek. Worse Ancient Greek. Its not proper Vulgar Latin if you have used modern Greek. So its kinda requirement to understand all of Latin to understand a little Ancient Greek because the two languages cross over each other.

    Ancient Greek text fragments have been produced for a very long time and will keep on being produced as long as we have religious studies around. This is why Ancient Greek gets updated in production rules.

    Yes reading old Latin books is hell if you don’t know any Ancient Greek because you can strike pages and pages of Vulgar Latin part way into the book.

  9. oiaohm says:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physic
    That Exploit Guy physics or physic is correct spelling. This is what really annoys me.

  10. That Exploit Guy says:

    @Dolding

    That Exploit Guy the line “the letter ohm” comes from writing physic and maths formulas. Yes the mapping to 3 letter English of greek chars was made by Physic majors.

    Here, we have arrived at the subject of “Physic”. I guess its kind of like “psychic”, except perhaps a little more mundane and less with that “spiritual” woo-woo stuff. I heard Bob had a degree in “nuclear physic”, but I am not sure that’s how it’s spelt. Maybe if we drop a few more nukes in Hiroshima and bomb the s out of it, we will be, as Bob so hopes, advanced enough to figure out the intricate relationship between laxatives and our majestic universe.

  11. DrLoser says:

    Think of it this way you give someone a copy of Codex Vaticanus what do you write the inscription in the front cover in.

    I see you have transformed yourself from Marcel Proust to Emily Post!

    Ta for the advice. Should this distinctly unlikely possibility come my way, I shall religiously drag it out of my memory banks. Until then, it’s worthless gibberish, isn’t it?

    Charles of Habsburg was attempted to be taught Greek.

    Indeed. From your cite:

    He did not like Latin, never paid much attention to Greek and was hardly ever seen reading classical literature. Nevertheless, and due to his demanding political life (and his many travels) he was fluent in several languages (French, Spanish, Flemish and German) and could also speak some Italian and Latin.

    Which is pretty much exactly what I said, isn’t it?

    I learned this through painstaking scholarly work at school and university, oiaohm.

    You didn’t even learn it by reading your own cite, did you?

    I believe it’s time to resume the practice of grading your “efforts.” I give this one an Ohm.

  12. oiaohm says:

    Think of it this way you give someone a copy of Codex Vaticanus what do you write the inscription in the front cover in. By many Greek orders the same language as the complete book. It is in fact impolite not to.

  13. oiaohm says:

    http://itineracarolusv.eu/en/02-1.html
    Charles of Habsburg was attempted to be taught Greek. He had translators to and from Greek in his court. Charles of Habsburg is the neater title instead of Charles 1/V mess.

    Charles of Habsburg is a poster child of it does not matter how rich you are does not mean you can be educated in a particular language. You have to have the mental aptitude for it.

    Ancient Greek Languages are is still spoken today by particular groups of Monks of the Greek Orthodox Church DrLoser. This is the problem there are modern documents written in old style. Its like new documents written in old style Latin. The second language of Rome was always Greek. So in Rome of someone only spoke Latin they would have a translator who spoke Greek and Latin. The way the rich travel has not changed that much.

    Drloser your information is bad. The right up to and include today are new texts being made in the older languages of Greek. Its normal religious order activities with their own internal private scripts.

    DrLoser you are presuming that 4 century documents were not reproduced latter in exactly the same language even with extensions in the same language. Religious orders rewriting the text for their own gain. Fragments off the Greek Orthodox are vastly better than it than you dream. There are impostor documents of all bible text written in the old languages. But in Greek Othordox you also find modern day records written in the old language as well. Why tradition a new monk is to a order is added to a book of that order in the same language the book has always been written in.

    The old Greek languages have become rare not non existent.

  14. DrLoser says:

    I hardly need to point out to you, Robert, the primary requirement of being an honest and accurate and productive teacher.

    You have been one. The world needs more honest and accurate and productive teachers like you.

    The primary requirement for such a teacher is to listen to people who know more about a subject than they do, and to transfer that knowledge to their pupils, or to other teachers.

    Over to you.

  15. DrLoser says:

    Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read what others wrote. Greek was either preserved in books or spoken or both. I say it was both. Educated people learned both Greek, Latin and one or more local languages. In the Dark Ages, that still went on in one quarter of civilization or another.

    A reasonable challenge, Robert. I’m not on a high horse: I’m just applying what I see as academic rigour to the question. (And it’s not a question I would have imagined cropping up on a tech site, so you should be proud of your ecumenical audience.) Let us analyse.

    Greek was either preserved in books or spoken or both.

    Quantification? By definition, any Ancient Greek we now see was preserved. In documentary form. Nobody in the 14th century spoke Attic Greek.

    I say it was both.

    And you completely incorrect. In a matter of no importance whatsoever to the question at hand. I, for instance, can read both Attic and Koine Greek.

    But I can’t speak either of them.

    The question here is whether, let’s say, more than 5% — I pick a fraction out of my hat here for pedagogical purposes — of the educated classes in late Medieval or early Renaissance Europe were able to read Greek. Ancient or Koine.

    I maintain that 5% is an impossibly high barrier for that one. You maintain the opposite. I have a detailed and rational argument behind my claim.

    You have nothing whatsoever to back yours.

    Educated people learned both Greek, Latin and one or more local languages.

    No they did not.

    Let’s take Charles I (Spain) V (HRE) as an example. This man has to be the poster child for an educated linguist in the 15th century. He was fabulously rich, he was well-educated, he ruled over the wildest conglomeration of multi-national lands you could ever imagine in Europe. He spoke fluent German and French and Dutch. He certainly read and wrote fluent Latin. He probably had a smattering of other languages (military Italian would have come in handy, also obviously Spanish).

    As far as I am aware, Charles V Hapsburg spoke no Greek whatsoever.

    None.

    In the Dark Ages, that still went on in one quarter of civilization or another.

    No definition for “Dark Ages.” No definition of the particular “quarters.” No sizing for said quarters.

    Give it up, Robert. I know what I’m talking about here.

    And I don’t rely on Wikipedia for my information.

  16. DrLoser says:

    Incidentally, there was also an “explosion of interest” in Greek texts, both ancient and koine,in the dying years of the Byzantine Empire (1261-1453, with particular reference to the Hellenists in the later part of the 14th century and a few Good Men like Francis Bacon and — once again, you will be pleased to hear — William of Ockham).

    Sans printing press, this was a period where interested parties could only, really, read the texts in the original Greek. And there weren’t many of them. Say, a few dozen per organised state, eg England or Scotland or Capetian France or Burgundy or even Sicily?

    See, you’re trampling on ground which is practically my specialism here, Robert.

    I’d advise you to listen and criticise afterwards, rather than your typical approach of getting to the interesting bit of criticising first.

  17. DrLoser wrote, “you might more profitably read what I wrote”.

    Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read what others wrote. Greek was either preserved in books or spoken or both. I say it was both. Educated people learned both Greek, Latin and one or more local languages. In the Dark Ages, that still went on in one quarter of civilization or another.

  18. DrLoser says:

    [Euclid’s Elements] was printed in 1460-1482 but not printed in translation until 1505. It was widely read in Greek.

    You’re pulling my leg here, aren’t you, Robert?

    Unless, of course, you have a cite that suggests a few tens of thousands (that would be a large number of literate people in the early Renaissance) of people who took advantage of that period between 1460 and 1505 to read Euclid’s Elements in the original Greek?

    It just didn’t happen, did it?

    As with a remarkably large number of other Classical Greek texts (and indeed with the Koine version of the Bible, as I have pointed out), there was an explosion of interest once a) the technology of printing presses arrived and b) these texts were translated into …

    … well, here we get into a side topic, although it’s relevant and I hope informative.

    I was going to say “into the vernacular,” but as it happens, I’d be wrong. For the first couple of centuries or so, the use of printing presses was very expensive. Not so expensive as hand copies, obviously, but expensive enough to mean that printers used what you will be very glad to learn was the “Open Standard” of the day, rather than some proprietary one.

    The vernacular, in the late 15th and the 16th and the early 17th centuries, was in fact the equivalent of a “Closed Standard.”

    So, and you’ll love this, what happened was that the printers (and the expensive translators on whom they relied for content) simply transferred the original Ancient/Koine Greek into the “Open Standard.”

    That “Open Standard” being Latin.

    See? Every now and again we can agree on some things, like Open Standards.

    The main difference here is that I’m prepared to go the full mile towards an honest reconciliation, and unfortunately you are still a little hobbled by being stuck in the mire of your crusty old misbegotten preconceptions.

  19. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser basically you brought me a wikipedia entry with both old and 10 century stuff.

    Your memory is failing, old man oiaohm. You brought the Codex Vaticanus (which is incidentally 4th century with some later additions, as mentioned in the part of the Wikipedia article I quoted yesterday). I merely accepted your cite as evidence, and demolished your ludicrous argument with it.

    It truly stands out like big time when you know want you are looking at.

    I wouldn’t normally do so, but I’m going to take that “want” as a Freudian slip. You want to know, or more properly understand, what you are looking at, don’t you, oiaohm? But, very sadly, as is the case with almost everything else you have ever wasted your finest frontier gibberish on, you don’t.

    And in this particular case, I do.

    Link1 image is not of the Codex vaticanus original.

    Foolishly and weirdly irrelevant. But interesting. You know this, how? Because it’s in black and white?

    And if it’s not a reproduction of the original, then why on earth …

    <blockquoteDrLoser Look at the picture in Link1. There are three hyphen marks in Link1.

    … are you even bothering to misidentify various later accretions (I would presume, accents), or possibly even JPEG artefacts — and what a fine choice Wikipedia made in using a lossy JPEG image of TEXT, for crying out loud!) — as your mindlessly-postulated “hyphens?”

    You really do get more absurd every day, don’t you, you buffoon?

    For the record: I see one marginal mark which I presume is a footnote reference to the Old Testament (see later in the Wikipedia article for how this works). It’s beside line 2.

    I see several things at the start of lines that I am fairly sure are rough or smooth breathings. These have probably been added by a later hand (again, as described in the Wikipedia article).

    And, because you have not allowed us even the simplest courtesy that an omniscient textual analyst such as yourself should allow, oiaohm — to whit, actually bothering to mention which three lines you refer to — it’s impossible to go any further than this.

    There are no hyphens in this text.

    Hyphenation did not exist in the fourth century AD.

    You are a weird fantasist.

    Need I go further?

  20. DrLoser says:

    Are you suggesting that Greek somehow survived the centuries merely because it was found in some old books?

    Briefly, Robert: no, I am not.

    Rather than invent a straw man, and mangle my “suggestions” (aka actual real knowledge, gleaned from ten or more years of study), you might more profitably read what I wrote.

  21. oiaohm says:

    Link1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_vaticanus.jpg
    Link2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Codex_Vaticanus_B%2C_2Thess._3%2C11-18%2C_Hebr._1%2C1-2%2C2.jpg

    DrLoser Look at the picture in Link1. There are three hyphen marks in Link1. Link1 image is not of the Codex vaticanus original. Link1 image on the wikipedia is a image latter reproduction. Most likely a reproduced section for someone doing religious studies. Link2 is a image of the genuine original Codex vaticanus. Codex vaticanus age no hyphen should be in it. Yes how you know for sure you have a Codex vaticanus reproduction is marks that should not be.

    DrLoser basically you brought me a wikipedia entry with both old and 10 century stuff. It truly stands out like big time when you know want you are looking at. That link1 also has tool marks from the punches that should not if it was a scan from an original page. Link1 not even good quality work.

    DrLoser the wikipedia information on what formatting should be in the document is correct. Its sad that no one has checked their own images against it because they would have spotted the more modern impostor.

    DrLoser we all know the wikipedia has errors you just happened to bring one straight in front of me.

  22. DrLoser wrote, “Knowledge of any sort of Greek, Ancient, Koine, or otherwise, was extremely rare.

    In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
    Not, therefore, I suggest, remotely relevant.”

    Are you suggesting that Greek somehow survived the centuries merely because it was found in some old books? I’ve met people who were fluent in Greek and several other languages. In certain cultures, one is uneducated if one doesn’t know several languages. Even I have read Greek literature, although in translation. It’s out there and has been for centuries. Euclid, for instance, was Greek and his works have been very widely read both in Greek and translation into many languages because they were important documents of human knowledge/history. e.g Euclid’s Elements, was very widely published and read. “Not until the 20th century, by which time its content was universally taught through other school textbooks, did it cease to be considered something all educated people had read.” It was printed in 1460-1482 but not printed in translation until 1505. It was widely read in Greek.

  23. DrLoser says:

    Further to the Codex Vaticanus:

    The lettering in the Codex is small and neat, without ornamentation or capitals. The Greek is written continuously in small neat writing; all the letters are equidistant from each other; no word is separated from the other; each line appears to be one long word. Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations. The OT citations were marked by an inverted comma (>), as was done in Alexandrinus. There are no enlarged initials; no stops or accents; no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts.

    I think that’s utterly conclusive in this case, oiaohm. Don’t you?

    No doubt you have further fantasies to spin on this new diversion of yours.

  24. DrLoser says:

    Someone was reading Greek, and not just the Greeks. My take is that many Europeans studied classical literature in the old days.

    And your take is hopelessly misinformed and pure guesswork, Robert. Leaving aside your malapropism — “classical literature,” which does nothing but conflate the two separate cases of Latin and Greek, not to mention translations of either into the vernacular — you’re missing the point.

    Latin was fairly common amongst the educated classes across Europe from the Dark Ages all the way through to the eighteenth century. Amongst the various reasons for this: it was the language of the Church (right up until Vatican II in 1965, I believe), and it was the language of Law, including Contract Law. It was also the language of Diplomacy, right up until French superceded it in the eighteenth century.

    I won’t deny that Greek (of some form, albeit hardly Classical) was used in some cases: but I will claim, and I suspect I have more knowledge than you in this case, that it was mostly used in the Eastern Mediterranean — there’s a surprise! — as a trading language. It was probably roughly as common as Arabic in that respect.

    Knowledge of any sort of Greek, Ancient, Koine, or otherwise, was extremely rare. Which is why I mentioned John Tyndale. You might want to look that excellent and learned man up.

    Electron, rare gases argon, krypton, neon. xenon, rooted words from photo all derive from Greek.

    Indeed they do, Robert, indeed they do.

    In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

    Not, therefore, I suggest, remotely relevant.

  25. DrLoser says:

    My apologies, but I am going to have to consider two completely separate bits of futile ignorance by oiaohm here.

    First, the Codex Vaticanus, which I didn’t mention at any point, but naturally that fact is no reason for the grass-hopper mind of oiaohm not to jump on it. So here we go. From Wikipedia:

    It is written on 759 leaves of vellum in uncial letters and has been dated palaeographically to the 4th century.

    It therefore does not qualify as “Ancient Greek.” Indeed, except for the fact that it is obviously expressed in “Koine Greek,” it barely qualifies as that, for the purposes of tracing these mysterious (read: non-existent) “grammar marks” of which oiaohm speaks.

    The relative ages and history of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are, of course, completely beside the point. Not really relevant, unless you are oiaohm, but I like to refute every bit of pointless ignorance as it crops up.

    You have found me a segment copied from punched text.

    It is not punched text.

    Look down the edge of it their are 3 marks that are not a greek char. A top of letter hyphen.

    A “top of letter hyphen?

    Bwahahahaha!

    What you are seeing, you pitifully ignorant little man, is either a rough breathing or a smooth breathing. Not a “hyphen.”

    It’s worth pointing out, btw, that the Codex Vaticanus presents, in very visible form, proof for the assertion that Ancient/Koine Greek does not use “grammar marks” or punctuation or even spaces between words. Just look at the damned thing. They’re nowhere to be seen.

    Nowhere.

    Now, to expose the second cretinous claim by oiaohm:

    The first punctuation char to appear in Greek is hyphen. To be exact top of char Hyphen not the modern middle of char Hyphen.

    To be exact think I modern middle of char Hyphen so Important it need you it capitalise no good reason there … Good Lord, I’m slipping into Hamster Pidgin … anyway, a hyphen in the middle of a character would be a strike-through, wouldn’t it?

    No matter. Once more, from that fount of all modern wisdom, Wikipedia:

    The first use of the hyphen—and its origination—is often credited to Johannes Gutenberg of Mainz, Germany circa 1455 with the publication of his 42-line Bible.

    Remind me again, oiaohm. What was Gutenberg’s first language? Ancient Greek? I think not.

    The Wikipedia article is actually quite informative on the origins of the hyphen — something that, what with not being an insane compulsive liar, I was previously disinterested in — and it turns out as follows:

    1) Nothing at all to do with saving the forests. Who’d a thunk?
    2) Entirely to do with the mechanics of the earliest printing press, which required “individual letters of type to be held in place by a surrounding non-printing rigid frame.”

    Again, who’d a thunk?

    Certainly not oiaohm, whose typical methodology is to thunk down from a two-bit theory to a no-bit conclusion.

    Next idiocy please, oiaohm.

  26. DrLoser wrote, “Robert, you’d be very hard pressed indeed to back up your claim that “Greek … [was] widely used in Europe in the old days.”

    Wikipedia: “The classical languages of the Ancient Mediterranean world influenced every European language, imparting to each a learned vocabulary of international application. Thus, Latin grew from a highly developed cultural product of the Golden and Silver eras of Latin literature to become the international lingua franca in matters diplomatic, scientific, philosophic and religious, until the 17th century. In turn, the classical languages continued, Latin evolved into the Romance languages and Ancient Greek into Modern Greek and its dialects. In the specialised science and technology vocabularies, the influence of Latin and Greek is notable. Ecclesiastical Latin, the Roman Catholic Church’s official tongue, remains a living legacy of the classical world to the contemporary world.”

    Electron, rare gases argon, krypton, neon. xenon, rooted words from photo all derive from Greek. Someone was reading Greek, and not just the Greeks. My take is that many Europeans studied classical literature in the old days.

  27. oiaohm says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Codex_vaticanus.jpg
    DrLoser commas, hyphens and colons trace their way to Greek languages. Early english only has full stop.

    So called reverse claim is about the oldest copies of “Greek New Testament”. Why did it have to include the oldest copies because the newer copies have punctuation. And one of the newer copies were produced in 10 century still in the same version of Greek but with punctuation inserted.

    Sentence punctuation was invented several centuries after the time of Christ. The author does not give the date. Its how you tell if a Greek bible could be really old not by the language it written in but if it has punctuation or not. If it has punctuation it modern and there are rules to it.

    DrLoser the Greek Orthodox church is older than the Catholic Church and has never considered the Catholic Church as a authority. it was founded in the time of Christ. Greek Orthodox church that has the prime location at Christs tome because they were first.

    You also need to watch what you quote.

    Codex Vaticanus on the wikipedia something to bring in. Thank you DrLoser. You have found me a segment copied from punched text. Look down the edge of it their are 3 marks that are not a greek char. A top of letter hyphen. Common today hyphen is middle of letter. The copy on the wikipedia is a latter reprint not the hand written.

    DrLoser finding sample segments on-line of these early documents is hard. But if you do find them you will find a lot with hyphens.

    The first punctuation char to appear in Greek is hyphen. To be exact top of char Hyphen not the modern middle of char Hyphen. But even then some of the old documents writer got lazy and putting some middle of char.

  28. DrLoser says:

    On a side note, Robert, you’d be very hard pressed indeed to back up your claim that “Greek … [was] widely used in Europe in the old days.”

    Because, I am sorry to tell you, it was not. Latin, yes, but not Greek.

    The ability to read Greek — even koine Greek, which is an intentionally simplified version of Greek, thus the “koine” bit — was exceptionally rare even amongst the educated classes and the clergy. I seem to recall that Umberto Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” has a plot-twist that depends upon this very point.

    In fact, one of the greatest and yet unrecognised achievements of Reformation scholars was that they had the very rare ability to go back to the original sources for, say, the Septuagint, and translate directly from the Greek.

    The authorities, both the Catholic Church and the various rulers of early Renaissance Europe, took a very dim view of this. Which is partially why William Tyndale was burnt at the stake.

    Not, thankfully, a fate likely to befall oioahm.

    You see, William Tyndale understood Koine Greek. oiaohm does not.

  29. DrLoser says:

    A less noxious version of that link, here.
    Apologies for the original mangled HTML.

  30. DrLoser says:

    As you well know Greek and Latin were both widely used in Europe in the old days and English stole from all of it.

    I think “stealing” is rather a harsh term, isn’t it, Robert? It’s also probably the first time I have ever seen anybody describe the process of osmosis across linguistic barriers as “stealing.” I’ve heard “borrowing” and even “loan-words” a few hundred times — never once “stealing,” though. Perhaps there’s some sort of International Copyright on each and every word of the world’s two thousand-odd present languages, plus their antecedents, of whose existence I was previously, blissfully, unaware?

    Irrelevant in any case. oiaohm’s endearingly nutty proposition was that English (I’ll give him any century he chooses) is indebted (through stealing or borrowing) to the following:

    Learning the typesetting of modern or Ancient Greek explains where lots of our grammar marks come from.

    Not in a single, solitary, case.

    Quite the assertion, that, coming from oiaohm, who doesn’t really deal in English punctuation. Or English grammar. Or, indeed, English spelling.

    The reality is pretty much the reverse of what oiaohm claims, in fact. Here’s a handy little summary that might help us all understand quite how dreadfully ignorant and off-target oiaohm is in this particular case.

    In brief: conveniences such as punctuation, “grammar marks” (whatever those might be — “2/10 for trying, oiaohm, but if you cease your drivel right now I’ll up it to 3/10″), and even the use of space between words were back-ported to Ancient Greek, centuries after it was first written down.

    I admire your honest loyalty to a long-time contributor, Robert. But why are you trying to defend oiaohm in this instance?

    Clearly, the man is completely out of his depth.

  31. DrLoser wrote, “even though I am relatively well-versed in Ancient Greek, I can’t quite see how it would help you with the basics of the English language.”

    As you well know Greek and Latin were both widely used in Europe in the old days and English stole from all of it. e.g. Olive: “The word derives from Latin ŏlÄ«va (“olive fruit”, “olive tree”; “olive oil” is ŏlÄ•um)[3] which is cognate with the Greek ἐλαία (elaía, “olive fruit”, “olive tree”) and ἔλαιον (élaion, “olive oil”)”

  32. oiaohm says:

    The reason why I did not write Dictation Diagramm is that Orthographikon can translate into more than 1 word in English. There is only one document from the The Academy of Athens published in 1939 that covers Greek Typesetting. So that is absolutely enough information to identify the book.

  33. oiaohm says:

    Kallitsounakes, I.: Orthographikon diagramma tes Akademias Athenon (The Academy of Athens Dictation Diagramm). Praktika tes Akademias Athenon, 14 (1939) (in Greek)
    In the referees on the springer site. I have mention part of its name many times. Academy of Athens 1939 is referring to a book. If you are going to dispute how some Greek document is hyphenated you need to be able to quote the section from that book why its wrong.

    Springer provides a stack of explanation why Tex does what it does. It is in fact a good read if you are trying to find conner cases in the Academy of Athens 1939.

  34. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy the line “the letter ohm” comes from writing physic and maths formulas. Yes the mapping to 3 letter English of greek chars was made by Physic majors.

  35. DrLoser says:

    Learning the typesetting of modern and Ancient Greek explains where lots of our grammar marks come from.

    You may have a point here. Obviously we are all wasting our time trying to prove or disprove the not very interesting fact(s) that Ancient Greek has some sort of arcane relationship to either typesetting or hyphenation.*

    So, let’s start again.

    Learning the typesetting of modern …Greek explains where lots of our grammar marks come from.

    WOW. What a moron.

    * (See below. They do not, under any known circumstances whatsoever.)

  36. DrLoser says:

    . Learning sections of Modern Greek is in fact learning sections of english.

    I admire your evident longstanding aim of learning “sections” of English, oiaohm. I’d recommend you take the language as a whole.

    But, no, even though I am relatively well-versed in Ancient Greek, I can’t quite see how it would help you with the basics of the English language.

    As in, being able to communicate through that language.

  37. DrLoser says:

    . I would never claim to be Arabic typesetter.

    Well, that’s a start, oiaohm.

  38. DrLoser says:

    Sorry mate I am a Greek typesetter.

    Except that you aren’t, oiaohm, are you?

  39. DrLoser says:

    In many ways, I admire oiaohm. And I would hate to bury his extraordinary and unique wisdom down the page, just because I made a few fatuous corrections to his original comments. So: here, for posterity (enjoy, posterity!):

    Ome what you would think it would be. Is lower case. Oxford did not make the separation Unicode does. The letter Ome is the lower case Omega. There was only 1 upper case Omega. Translation basically Great due to the prior char. Its because you have maths formulas with both.

    The rubber room beckons, oiaohm.

  40. DrLoser says:

    The resident brain-dead nincompoop insists:

    DrLoser I gave you a document in Modern Greek that tells you that your hyphenation good and bad is wrong.

    No you did not, oiaohm. You didn’t “give” anything at all, did you? You merely cited an article on Springer.

    It doesn’t support your claims in any way whatsoever.

    It is not in Modern Greek. I invite anybody in this discussion to read the cite and to attempt the none too difficult task of distinguishing between Modern Greek and straightforward English.

    And I promised to demolish the very claims in that cite that you depend upon, provided that you are “good.”

    You’re not “good,” are you, oiaohm? You’re no use at all. To anybody here.

    Now, do you want me to re-evaluate your original second “hyphenation” cite against the “1939 Greek Academy rules,” as stated by you? I can do that, you know. It will not be pretty.

    Do you want to reconsider your ill-advised assertion that you make more sense backwards than forwards? (Admittedly hard to judge.)

    Do you have any other pet names for single letters in the Greek alphabet? “Frodo” might work. I’ve always been a little bored by the simple and (unfortunately) accurate “Phi.”

    And once we have got past the task of renaming every single letter in an alphabet that has lasted for 2,500 years or more, and has transcended the evil efforts of the Black Death over five hundred years in the middle and has survived and is readable today …

    Perhaps you could retire to your study and contemplate suitable scholarly activities. To whit: find me a single hyphenation in either the Septuagint or the Gospels.

    No such hyphenation exists.

  41. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ Dolding

    Note the difference here Ohm symbol not The letter Ohm.

    Again, there is no such thing as “the letter Ohm”. Not in ancient times. Not in modern times. “Ohm” is the last name of a German physicist, whom the SI unit for electrical resistance is named after. All this BS you are spewing simply doesn’t make even a lick of sense and is frankly an insult to everyone reading it.

    ad part is a lot of modern day fonts Omega is the Ohm symbol because font makers don’t know the minor differences… True Omega should have up kicks from the base line.

    Font makers know what they are doing, alright? If what you said was even remotely true, then the correct way to write capital “alpha” would be with two horizontal strokes at the bottom. It’s called stylisation, you fool. Think serif and sans-serif in Latin typefaces – that’s what the ticks on both sides of capital “omega” are about.
    By the way, the capital “omega” is often written as a circle with a horizontal line underneath, but don’t let that distract you from making up more spectacularly stupid crap.

  42. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy. Math formulas use upper and lower case of Greek chars. Googling does not help you in this case. Ohm and Omega were exactly the same char. Oxford on 3 char representation comes in when Oxford gets typewriters. 1867 is when Omega capital is used for Ohm values. Oxford after 1910 typewriters but before 1960. Todays Ohm symbol is 14th General Conference on Weights and Measures 1971 when the tails spikes of Omega were cut off for SI symbols this is the birth of the Ohm symbol. Note the difference here Ohm symbol not The letter Ohm. Sad part is a lot of modern day fonts Omega is the Ohm symbol because font makers don’t know the minor differences. Omega having the Ohm symbol is one of the most common font bugs I know of. Blow to like 50 point and you should see a difference if the font is correct. True Omega should have up kicks from the base line. Ohm symbol should not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mho#Mho And the 3 letter starts 1881 and before. Yes you write the 3 letter backwards for upside down. Yes 1881 Ohm is capital Omega.

    Some electrical books in the 1980-1990 incorrectly write Ohm as Omega even that the standard body has decide to alter the symbol before that.

    Yes Ohm not being Omega is quite a recent thing.

  43. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ Dolding

    That Exploit Guy I told you exactly where that use of Ohm comes from.

    Which was a load of BS.
    When it comes to Greek letters, I expect an origin that is more Greek-related than Oxford. But that’s a story aside.
    Let me tell you a secret that even Google won’t let you in on – the lowercase letter for omega (Ω) is, well, omega (ω). Actually, I lied – even a person not knowing a single thing about the Greek language could spend less than one minute to find out via Google that the lowercase letter for omega was just friggin’ omega. Did your condescendence reach such a ridiculous point that you simply assumed people would believe the lowercase letter of omega was the last name of a German physicist?
    Also, here’s a reminder of how you told me one whole post of completely made-up nonsense about NDISWAN:
    http://mrpogson.com/2014/07/09/testament-against-non-free-software/#comment-164011

  44. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy remember at the start of this DrLoser states there is no such thing as hyphenation in Ancient Greek. Now he goes and attempts to correct something he truly has no understanding off that he did not believed existed.

    DrLoser should be able to quote from the Academy of Athens 1939 typesetting instructions if he had read up on Ancient Greek since finding out there is such a thing.

  45. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy I told you exactly where that use of Ohm comes from. I would never claim to be Arabic typesetter. Learning sections of Modern Greek is in fact learning sections of english. Learning the typesetting of modern and Ancient Greek explains where lots of our grammar marks come from.

    That Exploit Guy over time I have pulled both DrLoser and kurkosdr on the miss usage of english. Even explaining out where the differences where between Kurkosdr greek understanding and the rules of English. You don’t know this by googling in English. Why because greek formating rules are written in modern greek not english. Note I cannot typeset Modern Greek. I can check for common errors in Modern Greek.

    This is not claiming to be a expert. I do not claim to write greek or be able to speak it.

    That Exploit Guy I really should not of had to tell DrLoser what I was. As it should have been in his face by the things I have pulled him up on.

  46. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ That compulsive liar that Bob for some strange reason still wants to defend

    Sorry mate I am a Greek typesetter. Did you not think it was funny that I knew how Modern Greek define paragraph compared to English.

    If you are a Greek typesetter, then I am Mickey Mouse.
    Most of what you claim you know obviously comes from Google. What’s more – you rarely show any understanding of what you cite. “NDISWAN” was one such prime example.
    Also, this is not the first time you have claimed to be of a relevant profession to justify your argument despite showing none of the knowledge a person of that profession should possess. Seriously, “the letter Ohm”? Next time you will probably be claiming to be an Arabic typesetter despite knowing nothing about the Arabic script.
    Stop, Peter Dolding. Stop rubbing in our faces your insultingly bad lies. Instead, talk to your treating doctor about your compulsive lying habits and see if he or she can send you off to therapy.

  47. oiaohm says:

    Ome what you would think it would be. Is lower case. Oxford did not make the separation Unicode does. The letter Ome is the lower case Omega. There was only 1 upper case Omega. Translation basically Great due to the prior char. Its because you have maths formulas with both. Maths people use chars as symbols. It gets really fun transferring some english copies of Greek text back to Greek.

  48. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser I gave you a document in Modern Greek that tells you that your hyphenation good and bad is wrong. I have also told you where the master document on the rules is as well. Sorry mate I am a Greek typesetter. Did you not think it was funny that I knew how Modern Greek define paragraph compared to English. I know a decent set of the rules of Greek enough to make heads and tails correctly of the “Academy of Athens” type setting documents. Speak Greek no way in hell. Can I typeset Modern Greek no way since you need to be able to understand it way more. I learnt it to help out a friend proof reading stuff and finding possible errors. Modern Greek I mark way too much as questionable.

    kurkosdr is most likely sitting back laughing at you DrLoser why he can read the documents I provided. The first latex document in fact references “Academy of Athens” rules.

    “the letter Ohm” There is a such a thing when you are using english. Writing Greek chars in English only chars by Oxford has rules. Yes Greek text becomes huge since each char now takes 3 letters. Why it exist is you had to be able to write math formulas on old typewriters. Yes “the letter” prefixing is mandated by Oxford writing style as well when using the 3 char in isolation from mathematics.

  49. DrLoser says:

    Should you be good enough — and by good, I mean both kind and lucky — to avoid a similar example of persistent extreme ignorance in your next post, I will gladly analyse your foolish cite from a Springer document.

    It doesn’t remotely mean what you think it means.

    My analysis of the actual hyphenation on offer remains, I think, valid, until either a scholar or a native Greek speaker contradicts me.

  50. DrLoser says:

    There is no such thing as “the letter Ohm,” oiaohm.

    I think I’ll focus on one extreme example of persistent ignorance per post from now on.

    That’s it for this post. Try again.

    Backwards, should you feel up to the challenge.

  51. oiaohm says:

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-540-27773-6_6
    The new hyphenation patterns, while not exhaustive, do respect the grammatical and phonetic rules of three distinct Greek writing systems. In general, all Greek words are hyphenated after a vowel and before a consonant. However, for typesetting Ancient Greek texts, the hyphenation patterns follow the rules established in 1939 by the Academy of Athens, which allow for breaking up compound words between the last consonant of the first constituent word and the first letter of the second constituent word, provided that the first constituent word has not been changed by elision.
    Found a english segment of the rules. Sorry all that stuff you are calling bad is bad by Modern greek typesetting rules. Unfortunately due to how Academy of Athens defines a word the Letter Ohm is a word for typesetting Ancient Greek.

    Sorry everyone you called bad is correct by 1939 Academy of Athens. The reason why you don’t see very much Ancient Greek hyphenated is that the rules are half assed. The FOSS implementation is by the rules.

    Sorry the shoe is not going to drop. Black death bacteria can be preserved in the bindings. So if a book was rebound in the time of the black death it can be hidden protected by the bindings and the binding providing the material to keep it alive.

    Sorry waiting for the shoe to drop will not happen on me. I have limited your archives the Academy of Athens has a 10-15 century archive.

    The shoe in fact needs to drop on you DrLoser. Writing backwards I try not to do because it disrespectful when it not the common language style here.

    DrLoser you are not the “Academy of Athens” they set what is good or bad typesetting of Greek documents. Note the thing hyphenation in Greek documents is not grammar it is typesetting.

    For each on that you called bad name the rule in “Academy of Athens” guide to Ancient Greek typesetting that it has broken. Please don’t use modern Greek typesetting on Ancient Greek its wrong. Ancient Greek typesetting is horible.

    Xapa I know is wrong font. You have 1 marked as wrong and one as right. Sorry with Ancient Greek that is either word or is not. If its a word you can break after it. Modern you have to worry about being able to say it.

    If you are submitting to the “Academy of Athens” you have to submit by their standards if you like it or not. The highest modern day authority on Greek languages is the “Academy of Athens”. If you want to call something bad you better be able to quote their rules.

    You are USA trained you never learnt the typesetting side. You have never had to submit a document to “Academy of Athens”. One of my friends had to and he was native Greek. And boy was he swearing until he found Latex because any document not correct typeset will be rejected.

    Its not only people like you DrLoser who find the rules stupid. The Rules are the Rules so get over yourself.

  52. DrLoser says:

    How’s that “I’m writing backwards because it makes what I say more intelligible” thing going for you, oiaohm?

    lausu sA .pu lla ti gnikam erew uoy taht timda ot uoy rof dna ,pord ot eohs rehto eht rof gnitiaw m’I

  53. DrLoser says:

    10-15 century archive is split out for a very particular reason. Documents before that are mostly safe documents after that are mostly safe. Those documents may be contain black death…

    Black death?

    That is moronic on so many different levels, oiaohm, that I don’t even know where to start …

  54. DrLoser says:

    But, to be fair, we still have a discussion here where two of us (TEG and me) are contributing evidence, and one of us (oiaohm) is sitting on his fat lazy arse imagining things and not bothering to research them.

    It therefore behoves me to get off my fat lazy arse and research oiaohm’s second cite for “Ancient Greek hyphenation.

    Incidentally, this comes from an archive of TeX stuff. It’s a neat way of showing what you can do with TeX, which is wonderful. It’s a nice homage to Donald Knuth, who is wonderful. But it’s bog all use when it comes to six centuries and counting of typesetting Ancient Greek.

    But, to continue. And I promise I won’t miss a single one out. I’m going to give a binary rating, good and bad, to each hyphenation.

    κω-δίκων — bad
    µπο-ροῦσαν — good
    σύµ-φωνο — good
    παρά-δειγµα — good
    συλλαβι-σµὸ — bad
    συνθε-τικῶν — bad
    ∆ιόσ-κουρος — good
    περα-σµένου — bad
    χαρα-κτηριστικά — bad
    συν-άγω — good
    κει-µένων — bad
    συνθετι-κοῦ — bad
    Χαρα-λάµπους — good
    στοιχειοθε-τοῦν — bad
    διαφέ-ρουν — bad
    δί-νουν — bad
    κειµέ-νων — bad
    δηµιουργή-σαµε — bad
    Χαραλάµ-πους — bad
    ἐκεῖ-νον — bad
    ἀποκλειστι-κὰ — bad
    ἀνα-φέραµε — good
    ἑλλη-νικῶνBLOODY AWFUL
    ὁµοιό-γραπτων — good
    προ-κατόπτευση — good
    διφθόγ-γων — bad
    προ-φέρονται — good
    ᾿Επι-πλέον — good
    κατά-λογος –good
    κειµέ-νων — bad
    χρησι-µοποιήσουµε — not good, but so-so
    ᾿Ω-µέγα. — bad. So bad I imagine it’s obvious.
    παρατη-ρήσεις — bad

    I’ve tried to be fair there, and there are one or two that are contentious and I would want to run up against a native Greek speaker.

    But, even if you wanted to hyphenate Ancient Greek, and nobody does, you wouldn’t use this particular library package, would you?

    It’s half-arsed and mostly wrong on an unpredictable and generally dangerous basis.

    A bit like FLOSS in general, if you ask me.

  55. DrLoser says:

    May I respectfully advert you of the following four facts, Robert:

    1) You are apparently compounding oiaohm’s general unforgivable ignorance of almost everything with your specific and very understandable ignorance of Ancient Greek (I’m tired of typing out Doric…etc, and besides, it burns down forests) archives.
    2) A cite from Wikipedia is not normally considered to be reliable scholarly evidence. (Although sometimes, it is.)
    3) Your cite does not refer to “archives from the 10th to the 15th century.” Consequently, however scholarly it might be, it is worthless in this case.
    4) Your cite centres around the Church and Monasticism. Let’s for the moment, accept that it means the Orthodox Church (Constantinople) and Greek Monasticism in general (Mount Athos and various others). It doesn’t seem to be limited to such, but I’ll go with proof by narrowing the proposition.

    Not a lot of “major archives” there at all, are there?
    A moment’s thought would tell you why. Imagine that, like me in 1982, you are a historian specialising in Medieval Greek history.

    “I know, I’ll just go check the 10th-15th century archive!”

    NOT.

    In other words, this is one of those rare occasions where you had nothing worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, isn’t it?

  56. DrLoser, ranting again, wrote, “Can you find a single major (or indeed minor) document archive that has a category labelled “10th to 15th century,” oiaohm? No?”

    See some monasteries… Some of those folks worked the land, made stuff or spent the day writing and rewriting stuff of that era.

  57. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser I have only worked out you don’t have access to it. None of the Byzantine punch form produced texts from the 10 or 12 century are on-line. Neither are the Greek Orthodox church bibles and extracts of older bibles produced from 10-15 century by the same method. Access theses is access an archive.

    If you contact Academy of Athens they can email you some images of hyphenated greek documents from the 10-15 century. Academy of Athens also wrote the modern formal rules for Ancient Greek Languages hyphenation in 1939 based off the source documents. Again this information is only written normally in Modern Greek. This is the problem you need Modern Greek to read the Ancient Greek rules to be able to write it correctly.

    10-15 century archive is split out for a very particular reason. Documents before that are mostly safe documents after that are mostly safe. Those documents may be contain black death and a few other nasty items like radioactive and toxic pigments(due to books being so expense to prevent theft some were made toxic). Books being made toxic cease after Gutenberg. Yes you need special permission to access 10 to 15 century stuff due to what you are handling. Interesting enough stuff prior to the 10 century normally did not contain toxic pigments.

    The 1939 rules of hyphenation for Ancient Greek are accessible not in english. The reality here you have been wrong all the way along.

  58. DrLoser wrote, “Speaking of subjects you know nothing at all about, oiaohm”

    Why don’t both of you go to the woodshed and beat your heads against a stump until you’ve felt enough pain to return to the real world? The rest of us don’t really want to know how you feel about each other and stuff so far off topic. Just a suggestion…

  59. DrLoser says:

    Speaking of subjects you know nothing at all about, oiaohm …
    1) How’s your mastery of Han Dynsasty Clerical Script going? (Upwards or downwards. You can use hyphenation to save paper if you feel the necessity appeals.)
    2) That IBM SAN thing. Have you googled enough for a feeble little answer, yet?
    3) UTF-8 … no, let’s not go there again.

  60. DrLoser says:

    Can you find a single major (or indeed minor) document archive that has a category labelled “10th to 15th century,” oiaohm? No?
    Then shut up.

  61. DrLoser says:

    Can you find a single instance where printed Ancient Greek uses hyphenation, oiaohm? No?
    Then shut up.

  62. DrLoser says:

    Can you write English intelligibly, backwards, oiaohm? No?
    Then shut up.

  63. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser boustrophedonic writing style is why hyphens exists…

    I’m going to stop you right there, moron. No it is not.

    Let’s forget “zig zag writing” for a moment and concentrate on two of your earlier claims.

    1) I, oiaohm, can write more intelligibly backwards than I can forwards.

    OK, then. Let’s see you try.

    2) Hyphenation in printed Ancient Greek Texts exists.

    OK, then. Let’s see you trawl through (Koine, admittedly, but as I say this makes it easy for you) either the Septuagint or the Gospels. I’ve given you the link.

    You are pitiable, oiaohm. You are ignorant. You are incapable of rational thought.

    The only thing to say in your favour is that, when you trip across a subject of which you know nothing at all, you are hilariously pitiable, ignorant, and incapable of rational thought.

    And repeating your pitiable, ignorant, irrational bleats does not make them truth.

    Now, go back to your prize bullock and do something useful with him. I don’t really care what.

    It’s not my field of expertise.

  64. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser boustrophedonic writing style is why hyphens exists and hyphens only exist at end of lines in a lot of really old documents. Please really get your hands on some 10-15 century greek letter punched text.

    Section of the page will be normal left to right. Section of page will be boustrophedonic. Normal left to right will have hyphens and if the line was thumped in upside down by mistake the hyphen will be at the start. After 15 century with Gutenberg consistency of same direction in a book become possible by printed by Moveable type. Wood Block printing from before the 15 century was also consistent in writing pattern.

    DrLoser you are thinking like a post Gutenberg person with hamltic and semltic languages printed in a consistent way. Most hamltic and semltic languages have hyphenation rules that were used for about 400 years. There are a lot of languages where the hyphenation rules of the 10-15 century are forgotten about. Latex has collected most of them. Making replicas of old documents require it.

    DrLoser breaking words as required works as long as you don’t have reverse written boustrophedonic mix with normal direction for language. How to tell boustrophedonic from not is 1 consistent length of text and no hyphens. Now you write normal direction text and break where ever you like hello reading nightmare.

    Greek and other languages did not grow hyphens in the 10 to 16 century for no reasons. Of course the part of the reason does not exist in most modern day document production.

    I like the statement I can break the words where ever I need and not put in a hyphen that is a modern trained fool who has never had access to the history documents to see the functional reasons behind hyphens. So not understanding that a lot of historic documents only come in 3 forms boustrophedonic, hyphenated and whole word. Split word without hyphen becomes a nightmare in mixed formatting documents that some of these historic documents are.

    Of course to a modern writer of hamltic and semltic langauges can get close to the effectiveness of boustrophedonic styles but that is mostly because boustrophedonic styles is not in heavy usage any more so writer does not have the problem of going what is this. Thinking that most printing is English we could save trees with English if web-browsers hyphenated.

    The zig zag mess of those early punch typed documents lead to some interest rules. Most modern taught are not aware that hyphens don’t appear boustrophedonic and was a differentiator between it and normal.

  65. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser 10 to 15 century section exists for many reasons. Materials used in 10 to 15 century require different preservation methods. Any major archive storing materials from that time frame have a section particular for it. Its what the leather was treated with changed at the start of the 10 and changed again in the 15 century.

    http://www.gutenberg.de/english/erfindun.htm this skips over many little facts.

    There is quite a bit of wood block and other printed materials from the 10-15 century. Printing was more than underway by the time of Gutenberg. Issue is there were those who failed before Gutenberg with movable type.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography
    The pre Gutenberg stuff is documented as existing.
    The same printing technique can apparently be found in 10th to 12th century Byzantine reliquaries. Read the line before this.
    This is small block individual letter punch groups. 1 to 3 lines. Not the full page like Gutenberg did.

    The first individual char printing in mass in europe is documented in grease. None of the Byzantine reliquaries or equal time frame material can I locate on-line. I do know I can see pages of Byzentine reliquaries in one of the backup archives in Australia. Of course I have been forgetting you are in the USA. You don’t have access to source material Greek texts because there are no backup archives in the USA. Most major Australian universities host archives for different parties. UQ, Macquarie and so on so you do have greek history researchers come out here to access some of the old texts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_letter_tile Then you have these from the 13 century as well. Movable type is well and truly under way by the time by the time of Gutenberg. English hyphenation also appears between 10-15 century. The big thing is Gutenberg is mass production.

    This is the problem you don’t have to look far to see that move-able type was not exactly Gutenberg.

    DrLoser carbon scan tells if the book has been messed with. It also tells you even if you could come up with an aging method that particular books pages where made over large time frames. Byzantine reliquaries can go over 2 centuries from the start of the book to the end. Individual and cluster of letter Printing was well and truly underway in Greece by 12 century.

  66. DrLoser says:

    (“with the presence of boustrophedonic text.”)

    Oops.

  67. DrLoser says:

    Writing normal way is in fact inverse to the way my mind wants to write.

    Would you care to test that theory out by writing your next post entirely backwards, oiaohm? I’m willing to encourage anything at all that makes you more intelligible.

    If you do carbon or any other aging method on the books from that time frame you are in for confusion because during the life of the book pages where replaced.

    What complete and utter tosh.

    Seriously.

    Carbon dating? What’s that got to do with anything at all?

    Yes there is a 10 to 15 century section in major archives.

    Name one, then. Name a single archive with a |”10 to 15 century section.”

    Anywhere.

    Just the one.

    Boustrophedonic saves on hyphens it also saves on wasted space.

    No it does not.

    You are mindlessly conflating the absence of hyphenation with the presence of hyphens. All your nitwit calculations are for nothing, when you consider the entirely equivalent case of standard left-to-right (or right-to-left for Hamitic and Semitic languages, and so on), breaking words as required, and not performing any hyphenation.

    I note that you have still not come up with a single piece of printed Doric/Attic/Hellenistic/Koine/Byzantine Greek that has hyphenation of any sort whatsoever.

    You’ve got nothing, oiaohm, nothing but your febrile imagination.

    I’m eagerly trying to guess which piece of your pointless and utterly inaccurate gibberish you are going to attempt to defend next.

    Don’t forget … entirely backwards!

    You know it makes sense!

  68. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser it is in fact easier for me to write backwards by the way. Writing normal way is in fact inverse to the way my mind wants to write.

  69. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser 10-15 century is used when referring to these items. If you do carbon or any other aging method on the books from that time frame you are in for confusion because during the life of the book pages where replaced. And the complete books were replaced after the 15 century will full new additions done Gutenberg method. Its a bit hard to cite a on-line source when these books are not image scanned in anywhere. I have told you where to go and what area you need to be looking in. Archives of these old books are also grouped into year bundles that can be identified. Yes there is a 10 to 15 century section in major archives.

    DrLoser
    Gee, let’s all use boustrophedonic text! It saves on hyphens! (For some unimaginable reason)
    Save the forests!

    It would save the forests if you were willing to put up with it. This is you not knowing the topic.

    Boustrophedonic text compared to normal text. Lets take a page 80 chars wide 50 chars long. Or another words round figures of a general bit of A4. Boustrophedonic text works out roughly as 3 chars saved per line compared to hyphenated. So every 40 lines a line and a half saved and about every 26 pages a free page compared to general hyphenated. If you don’t use hyphenation its about 4 to 5 a line end. I will go 4 so compared to non hyphenated ever 40 lines you save 2 lines every 80 lines 4 lines. Or about 4 pages every 100. So a 4 percent saving on costs. Now lets make a 1000 copies of a 100 page book that is 4000 pages less for Boustrophedonic over non hyphenated. 3000 less pages for Boustrophedonic hyphenated(you cannot save a half page) . Notice there is 1000 pages difference between hyphenated and non-hyphenated.

    DrLoser the saving by using Hyphenation is general printing mathematics. Boustrophedonic can save even more but very few wants to read it.

    Find the Boustrophedonic in any Office suite. It does not exist.

    Boustrophedonic saves on hyphens it also saves on wasted space. Its one of the problems we have on these sites is items like web browsers don’t have auto hyphenation so printing straight from a web browser is consuming about 1 percent more due to not being hyphenated.

    Hyphenated text is about 1 percent smaller than non hyphenated and it adds up for a print shop. Its start of mass production of books that cause hyphenation to appear in many languages. So between the 10-16 centuries most hyphenation rules appear.

  70. DrLoser says:

    Actually, you didn’t give up on hyphenation at all, did you, oiaohm?

    In passing, I notice that, when you write English backwards, you are far more accurate and comprehensible than when you write it forwards.

    A hyphen takes a space. Its what you do at the page edge.

    nehpyh tuohtiW

    ation you have saved.

    See 1 char saved out that line using write left then right alternatively.

    You don’t actually realise how pitifully stupid that makes you sound, do you, oiaohm?

    Gee, let’s all use boustrophedonic text! It saves on hyphens! (For some unimaginable reason)

    Save the forests!

    But what I find interesting is this:

  71. DrLoser says:

    Pardon me for paying scant attention to your latest outburst of insane ignorance, oiaohm. There’s only so much of this I can take.

    Let’s just deal with the following:

    Boustrophedon documents the lines are parallel to each other and uniform pattern of left to right DrLoser. You do find some latter documents that you would call boustrophedon. The early produced tablet stuff is also nicely parallel lines to each other. 10-15 century stuff does not match what you call boustrophedon.

    1) What “10-15 century stuff?” I mean, you’ve given yourself an awful lot of headroom there. Five centuries, in fact. A single cite?. I imagine not.
    2) I notice you’ve given up on the absurdity of Doric/Attic/Hellenistic/Koine/Byzantine Greek “hyphenation,” not to mention “saving paper.” A single cite?. I imagine not.
    3) I don’t call anything boustrophedonic text. As it happens, I don’t call the sky blue, either. Want to know why?

    Because
    a) Boustrophedonic text is boustrophedonic text. It is a property of text to be boustrophedonic.
    b) The sky is blue because the sky is blue. It is a property of blue sky.
    c) You are a feeble-brained incompetent moron. It is a property of oiaohm to be a feeble-brained incompetent moron.

    That’s why, oiaohm.

  72. DrLoser says:

    It’s too bad Putin decided to invade Ukraine and prop up Assad instead of finishing the migration to GNU/Linux sooner but the world is a better place for the job getting done sooner rather than later.

    Somehow I missed that, first time round.

    Yes, it’s too bad, isn’t it? Too bad for millions of people.

    But, never mind. They’ll all have Gnu/Linux to console them for losing their homes, futures, and lives.

    It’s not all bad, is it?

  73. oiaohm says:

    Boustrophedon documents the lines are parallel to each other and uniform pattern of left to right DrLoser. You do find some latter documents that you would call boustrophedon. The early produced tablet stuff is also nicely parallel lines to each other. 10-15 century stuff does not match what you call boustrophedon.

    Boustrophedon has a set or rules basically what I was referring to as zig zag is close to Boustrophedon but not quite. Bad printing quality starts of lines don’t line up and lines are not parallel to each other and operators screwing up what lines should be left and what lines should be right all apply to a zig zag document.

    Maybe 10 to 15 century relation to boustrophedon but that really does not describe it. Major reason why zig zag is not boustrophedon is the typographical errors like printing a line the wrong way round remains. So you might get like 2 left going lines then 1 right with zig zag documents. Remember what I said about the plates being 1-3 lines. Three line plate screw up results in 2 lines left then 1 right then 2 lines left than 1 right. What is zig zag is not boustrophedon due to the errors it has. Printing of boustrophedon style text does not reappear until after Gutenberg. 400+ year gap.

  74. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser when you are referring to bible study materials that stuff is reproduced over the centuries. So all the greek versions of language turn up in bible study material. You can never say X version of a language with bibles is the only one.

    How the come its called zig zag is because that is exactly what the lines are doing on the page. Sorry its not childish but a description.

    The savings of writing left to right then right to left and repeating is zero inserted extra chars. A hyphen takes a space. Its what you do at the page edge.

    nehpyh tuohtiW

    ation you have saved.

    See 1 char saved out that line using write left then right alternatively. See hyphen-ation there at edge of got to skip a letter and be 1 char smaller.

    A word written forward and backwards at edge of page there was a saving. Of course it reasonable readable when you can write lines flipped around so you can rotate the book. Of course any modern reprint of the horible books will not be done in that format. Yes it sorting some books first editions out from latter printings.

    Its horible to read in any language. No one has given zig zag a formal name because it was only used for a short time frame and went out of fashion.

    vellum Imprinting you can smudge output material by dragging against the imprint item. Smudge with printing vallum is poor quality setup. Yes pre Gutenberg poor quality setups.

    DrLoser modern and Ancient greek documents are done with two different hyphenation methods. The stuff you are complaining about would be wrong modern not Ancient.

  75. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ Bob

    TEG exhibited trollish behaviour

    Trollish? Perhaps, but I see that as a step-up to being an amoral piece of human garbage that sees the senseless loss of innocent lives as a mere stepping stone for technological “advancements”.

  76. DrLoser says:

    One other observation, oiaohm. (You’re really no use whatsoever at any of this, are you?)

    1. DrLoser mind you the Ancient Greek Hyphenation is not the worst form of Ancient Greek document the printers managed to come up with. Another group from the early 10 Century Is zig zag.

    Zig zag? Dear Lord.

    You are referring to “boustrophedonic” text (I won’t, for the moment, demonstrate how one would go about hyphenating the Greek original of this term).

    Nobody bar you ever refers to it by such a childish and inaccurate name as “zig zag.”

    It’s not even particularly relevant to Attic/Doric/Mycenean/Hellenistic/Koine/Byzantine Greek, although it can be found on a small number of stele inscriptions, I believe examples being from the 5th and 4th Century BC on Ionian islands which were part of the Athenian Empire.

    There are technical reasons for its use. You will be relieved (or not — I suspect not) to discover that they were nothing to do with saving paper.

    As far as I know, the earliest evidence of boustrophedonic text comes from cuneiform, which is extremely relevant in this case. You’re not writing in ink, so you can’t smudge the vellum, whether you are right- or left-handed. You’re either carving, or imprinting on clay with a stylus of some form. Boustrophedonicism comes naturally to such a scribe.

    As for boustrophedonic “typography” (what a hilarious concept) saving paper — it doesn’t. (And it certainly makes hyphenation of any kind, in any language, much more difficult.)

    Show me a word in any language, oiaohm, any language at all, that has more letters when printed forwards than it has letters when printed backwards?

    Because that’s the underlying lemma behind your latest insane assertion here.

  77. DrLoser says:

    Before I start, oiaohm, allow me to point out that I have taken one of your two “example texts” and demonstrated, beyond I think reasonable doubt, that the “Ancient Greek hyphenation” you talk of blows chunks. You have not provided evidence to the contrary. Would you care to do so? No? I forgot: your command of Ancient Greek, indeed any form of Greek, is non-existent, isn’t it? Beats me why you keep trying to claim any sort of ability in this area.

    I can do the same for the other text, if you wish. I can even point out what the “correct” hyphenation, should such a notion exist, would be. You see, I understand Ancient Greek (to an extent). You are totally ignorant of it.

    And before I forget, one correction to my earlier sweeping assertion (at least I implied this, although it’s not something I’d considered):

    There is one form of pre-modern Greek where hyphenation (in print, possibly elsewhere) is potentially useful and important. It has nothing to do with “saving paper,” which is the most bone-headed fantasy you have yet managed to come up with in about five years of not thinking very hard at all. (An impressive feat in itself.)

    I refer, of course, to Koine Greek, 95% of which comes down to us in Biblical texts. It is just about plausible that somebody out there would like (correct, not the hopeless abortion you served up) hyphenation for this. It’s about the most accessible pre-modern Greek there is — intentionally so. If any pre-modern Greek is to be hyphenated, then it would be Koine Greek.

    Thinking back to my school days (and a recent excursion into an exegesis of St John, which I picked up cheap, second hand), I don’t recall ever seeing it.

    Oh, and a cursory wander round the Web unsurprisingly turns up evidence that directly contradicts this supposed need, even in this case.

    Go oh, oiaohm, do a bit of honest work for a change. Plough through that lot — I don’t care whether you pick the Septuagint or the New Testament — and let me know, the moment you’ve found “Koine Greek hyphenation.”

    It isn’t there, is it?

  78. TEG exhibited trollish behaviour, writing, “You either answer my questions, or go choke yourself.”

    TEG has no authority to make such demands. If he doesn’t like some commentators personally, TEG has the option to go elsewhere to avoid the unpleasantness.

  79. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy any long term document has been printed or written on vellum since roman times until the invention of paper vellum. Vellum has always been an expensive material. The arguement that the most common cloth is flawed. 1/4 of all of the first edition of Johannes Gutenberg’s first Bible are printed on Vellum not cloth. Over 10 percent of all document production prior to the 15 century was on Vellum its also the stuff that has lasted. Yes the majority of production might be cloth. Cloth is really like our A4 paper today. New blue prints of buildings for archives are printed on paper vellum. Of course you would print on to ordinary cheap paper first because even modern day paper vellum is many times more expensive than normal paper. It can be cheaper to print on silk than paper vellum.

    If you want an expensive long lasting book made today the British Acts of Parliament those are still printed on real animal Vellum. I could not remember the word Vellum was so typed what it was leather pages. You would not bother about cost savings on cloth pages. Vellum on the other hand you would try cost staving stunts on.

    You could think of Vellum as the 10~ percent OS X market share in the PC world making being more expensive than the rest and being treated differently because of it.

    You need to look up the history of the silk road. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serindian_art The Greeks where trading with China by the silk road. As active trading partners. That Exploit Guy they were interested in each other culture. Chinese printing technology enters Europe by the silk road. Of course is not the complete technology just like how long it took to get silk worms out of china. This is case of Greek Christians attempting to produce the same kind of document Buddhist monks from China had that were better quality.

    That Exploit Guy to say China was not interested in Hellenistic Greek is really a joke thinking you find Hellenistic Greek text on items in from China that were meant to be traded with Greece along silk road between the 2 to 11 century. Metal move-able type lot like Gutenberg appears in China 1234 yes the trade route is broken at this point so this tech does not make it to Greece or the rest of Europe until after Gutenberg. The trade backwards and forwards restarts late 15 Century after the invention of the Gutenberg Press. So we have two independent inventions of the same thing. But move-able type is Chinese everything using move-able relates to early Chinese movable type. Most miss how the tech got from China to Greece then it got into all of Europe has a poor imitation.

    If the Greek Christians where not attempting copy the Chinese Buddhist monks and the people in china printed Hellenistic Greek bible it would not be done like a dog breakfast. When china could not print complete pages they used a device that gave lines even spacing along page. It was such a simple but time consuming process. Bash the letters in a clay slab than print off slab onto a block of wood and carve away everything with ink on it then print from that. Horrible process. You could a piece in each end. Yet for some reason no one from Europe thought of this. Yes the bible would have been printed way faster as well since each tablet become a page.

    A person making a copy without being able to see how something really done can make a complete ass up job of it. This is exactly what happened with move-able type in Europe.

  80. That Exploit Guy says:

    China used cermanic that allowed molds to me made before the 15 century.

    Yep, I am pretty sure the Chinese were mightily interested in Hellenistic Greek as well.

    So you claim no where is wrong.

    No, I never claimed that.

    They are only black and white.

    Wikipedia says you are full of crap. Everyone having seen a genuine article knows you are full of crap. Your explanation?
    Anyway.
    Let’s get back to your argument of “saving paper”. You said hyphenation was the result if medieval publishers trying to save sheets. Your favourite source Wikipedia, however, identified that the most common medium for printed material in the 14th century and prior as cloth. Your explanation?
    Don’t try and bore me again with this “Gutenberg” nonsense. It’s not relevant, and it is nothing more that an pitiful attempt to distract others from your dubious “saving paper” argument. You either answer my questions, or go choke yourself.

  81. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy read your own posts
    Also, the invention of movable type printing in Medieval Europe was often credited to one Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, who also brought you what is now known as the “Gutenberg Bible”. Anything in the 11th century would have to be either block-printed or copied by hand.
    This is exactly what you said sorry you did credit Johannes Gutenberg with the invention of movable type in Europe that is wrong . China used cermanic that allowed molds to me made before the 15 century. So you claim no where is wrong.

    Why was Johannes Gutenberg bible so impressive in features is that he was attempting to over come the damage caused by prior printing. Prior printing due to lack of means to make chars in volume that Gutenberg solved in metal and china solved by using moulded ceramic. Yes china solved it first different method. Print shops end up using both. Before these each letter had to be hand carved. So the cost of a set to 1-3 lines of text was insane pre Gutenberg in Europe and pre Ceramic Printing in China so no one could afford todo a full moveable type page at a time.

    Pre Gutenberg printed books from Europe have three signature features.
    1) The lines across the page are not square to each in any way shape or form.
    2) They are only black and white.
    3) Miss printed chars due to poor application of pressure.

    Most common thing to be found done this method is items like Ancient Greek Bibbles.

    Why would you use printing over hand written even that it was horrible. Printing you did not have the scribe between document have a brain screw up and write the wrong work on one copy and all the others be the same. Documents you need absolutely identical were printed in prior Johannes Gutenberg. Johannes Gutenberg in fact wrote a book about the invention of the printing press where he talks about all this including describing the prior examples of 1, 2,3 line printing plates and how complete documents were printed with a broken char because it was too expensive to replace the letter. This was the big thing he had to solve. Letters had to be cheap to replace.

    Johannes Gutenberg inventions in mass type face production in metal and Full page printing in 2 column format and his style of printing press. No book prior to his bible used any of these.

  82. ram says:

    When Einstein was asked what he thought the weapons of WWIII would be, he said he didn’t know. However, he said he was absolutely sure what the weapons of WWIV would be: rocks!

    Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it.

  83. TEG wrote, sarcastically, I presume, “So when are you going to throw a party to celebrate that?”

    Let’s see: radar, airplanes, radio, computers, physics, chemistry, etc. have all seen rapid progress when the powers that be saw they were useful for the “war effort”. Now war is a bad thing, but sometimes necessary. Certainly those technologies have been of great benefit to humankind long after the reasons for going to war were forgotten by most of us.

  84. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ Bob

    War has often stimulated rapid evolution of technology.

    Lovely. So when are you going to throw a party to celebrate that?

  85. TEG wrote, “the loss of many human lives in what is considered by some a prelude of a civil war instigated by Russia and what is by you merely yet another opportunity for Linux adoption. ”

    This is not a prelude to civil war, but the prelude to another world war. War has often stimulated rapid evolution of technology. This is another example. Folks who are preparing for war may well not trust the other’s operating system. FLOSS is uniquely suitable for warring nations because everyone can run, examine, modify and distribute the software unlike that other OS which is a huge vulnerability. Embargoes/restrictions on trade or exchange all may add to the quite reasonable pressure to migrate the OS.

  86. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ Bob

    Nope, not a requirement to adopt FLOSS. See India and France and …

    What a lame attempt to change the subject!
    Let’s not beat around the bush here: this is not just about “antagonism by the US” or some such but the loss of many human lives in what is considered by some a prelude of a civil war instigated by Russia and what is by you merely yet another opportunity for Linux adoption. I am aware that it is almost customary for you to utter tasteless, thoughtless things but this one simply takes the cake.
    @ oiaohm

    That Exploit Guy you made a common mistake. Johannes Gutenberg is like Edison and the light bulb.

    *Yawn*
    Where on earth did I say in any definite way that Gutenberg did invent movable type printing? Oh, yeah, the correct answer is “nowhere”.
    So are you boring me with this rubbish? After all, wouldn’t it be more beneficial for you to focus on defending your dubious “saving paper” argument?
    Or do you want everyone to just forget about it like you did last time with that “NDISWAN” nonsense?

  87. oiaohm says:

    That Exploit Guy you made a common mistake.

    Johannes Gutenberg is like Edison and the light bulb. “Gutenberg was the first to create his type pieces from an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony—the same components still used today” Edison did not invent the light bulb he perfected it. Gutenberg did not invent movable type he fixed the issues of non equal application of force and wood random-ally absorbing ink ruining prints. Its time consuming to produce a book without having a lot of rejects to fix.

    11 century movable type in Europe are wooden blocks. Yes form of wood block printing but its still move-able type but its rubbing application or at least it appears that way. Simple poor quality weighted presses might have existed in the 11 century as well in Europe. Wood Block Move-able type and Metal Move-able type are two different things. Wood Block Move-able type is horible for creating massive numbers of failures. Another reason why costs were horible in that time frame.

    That Exploit Guy yes all punctuation of Ancient Greek are more modern inventions. Yes this is why when talking about punctuation with Ancient Greek you are talking centuries of additions.

    That Exploit Guy Ancient Greek hyphenation is strange. Its design to break where the word does not read so you have to read the bit after the hyphen. So its the exact other way to how a modern person would expect it.

    By the way bibles and long term important historic texts are the exception to common printing rules. Any book meant to last is leather pages(Vellum) this means calf sink that is really hard to prep and produce material.

    Medieval manuscripts also on vellum. Some signs of the start of Ancient Greek hyphenation on some of those text even that they are hand written.

  88. TEG wrote, “So what you are saying is that, in order for Linux to become relevant, all you need is a country accused of destabilising an entire region and putting lives in jeopardy.”

    Nope, not a requirement to adopt FLOSS. See India and France and …

    Antagonism by USA is one of many reasons to accelerate adoption of FLOSS in the world. Others are that FLOSS works for people, costs less, etc. The recent Snowden/NSA debacle has raised the profile of FLOSS widely as have embargoes on Cuba and such. Anyone can use FLOSS whether the USA likes them or not.

  89. That Exploit Guy says:

    @ Bob

    GNU/Linux has been in the pipe for a while but US sanctions on Russia may bring GNU/Linux to the front burner.

    So what you are saying is that, in order for Linux to become relevant, all you need is a country accused of destabilising an entire region and putting lives in jeopardy.
    This is all very tastelessly Robert Pogson, isn’t it?
    @ oiaohm

    DrLoser some time go and handle a genuine printed on leather pages Christian Ancient Greek Bible

    My knowledge of ancient Greek in that regard goes only as far as my ability to Google it, though nonetheless it tells me the following:
    1) You are talking biblical Greek, and that means Hellenistic Greek.
    2) The advent of punctuation marks was dated much later than the end of the Hellenistic period. In fact, there weren’t even lower-case letters in the earliest biblical Greek manuscripts, i.e. they were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
    The conclusion here is obvious: any hyphenation rule for biblical Greek would have to be a latter addition by those handling the original texts, presumably based on what they thought was the correct pronunciations for the words. This is, of course, assuming that such hyphenation rules actually existed in the 11th century, though I have my doubts.
    Also, the invention of movable type printing in Medieval Europe was often credited to one Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, who also brought you what is now known as the “Gutenberg Bible”. Anything in the 11th century would have to be either block-printed or copied by hand. This means the cost of producing a copy of anything would have mostly been feeding the scribes or making the woodcuts rather than acquiring a material that was meant to be an inexpensive alternative to cloth.
    Oh, did I mention cloth? Because, that, according to your favourite source Wikipedia, was the most preferred medium in Europe for printed material even in the 14th century. That seems to make your entire “saving paper” argument kind of shaky, doesn’t it?

  90. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser mind you the Ancient Greek Hyphenation is not the worst form of Ancient Greek document the printers managed to come up with. Another group from the early 10 Century Is zig zag. Old lines left to right even lines right to left. Very high page effectiveness higher than Hyphenation. Now asking a person to translate that for you they kinda want to kill you because its truly not easy to read.

    They gave up on the zig zag format early in the 11 century AD. Why zig zag is a group different print shops did different things. Some the chars are all same way. Some the even lines are upside down kinda reasonable to read until you remember books of that time-frame were chained in place.

    So there are a few more formating options that could be added to cover all of Ancient Greek written and printed history.

    DrLoser basically Ancient Greek Hyphenation does not look that bad when put against its competitor from the same time frame.

  91. oiaohm says:

    http://www.tex.ac.uk/ctan/languages/hyphenation/elhyphen/ancient.pdf

    DrLoser some time go and handle a genuine printed on leather pages Christian Ancient Greek Bible. Yes this means going into an archive room and putting on the white gloves. Because we are talking something from the 10-14 AD century. Most major universities have a bibles from between 10 – 14 AD you will need special permission to access them. As you said Hellenistic is from the 4 century BC then you pretend there is no latter version of Ancient Greek. There is one more version of Ancient Greek. I will give you most of the reason why people say that Hyphenation in Ancient Greek does not exist is because its horible. It appear in the 10 century AD.

    DrLoser I did mention that is from move-able type. Leather pages cost a fortune. If you are replicating the look of a 10 century Ancient Greek book it has hyphenations. Bad style hyphenations. So there is 10 century Ancient Greek and that gif is a perfect representation of 10 century AD Ancient Greek and its like that until well after the introduction of the Printing press. So over 4 centuries of this style. As I said you have not read enough books.

    Yes it great fun to take a person with thinks they know Ancient Greek and put them in front of a 10 century bible and watch them swear exactly like you did DrLoser. Yes your cursing the stupidity fails to understand why. Greeks by tradition are merchants. This means they are greedy little so and so who will take cost saving over read ability. Anything that saved a buck including brain dead hyphenation has been done in their history. Notice that the document explaining how todo it at Latex that provide the second link is does not have a english translated version. I provided two references.

    Get someone you know and trust to translate Modern Greek for you Dr Loser. That latex write up on the topic explains the insanity. So I did not just provide the GIF example I provided the source document explaining the nightmare. Problem there is no officially translated english version. So if you cannot read Modern Greek you cannot read all the rules of every form of Ancient Greek. So a person claiming they can read Ancient Greek but cannot read Modern Greek you know they are incompetent with Ancient Greek just don’t know it because there are many key reference documents for Ancient Greek that only exist these days in Modern Greek.

    Over the centuries the meaning of common sense has changed. 10 century is was common sense to get the most number of chars possible to a page.

    movable type printing Look back at my posts DrLoser. I mention this exactly as when this appears. Yet you are referencing Ancient Greek older than this. This is a failure to read on your part DrLoser and not knowing of the last form of Ancient Greek.

  92. DrLoser says:

    One last thing, oiaohm. When you start insulting people who know more about the subject than you will ever do, you never actually give concrete examples, do you?

    In this case, you didn’t give a single concrete example of how to hyphenate “Ancient Greek” (helpfully leaving you the opportunity to claim that “I didn’t mean that particular version”).

    In the case of UTF-8 and Unicode, you lapsed and gave a bunch of examples that were instantly demolished by TEG and me.

    In the case of a SAN controller …

    … We’re still waiting for a concrete example of that one, aren’t we?

  93. DrLoser says:

    Don’t even get me started on Medieval Greek, otherwise known as Byzantine Greek, oioahm.

    I have suffered enough, not least by having to waste my time on your bottomless ignorance of the entire two millennia of the language.

    Not that I didn’t suffer for Byzantine Greek between the ages of 16 and 21, but that’s a different issue. And a non-hyphenated issue, to boot.

    I refer you to, amongst too many others to mention, Michael Psellus.

    A man blessedly free of hyphenation, but that’s about the best I can say of him.

  94. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser like it or not there is such thing as hyphenation of Ancient Greek.

    No there isn’t, you gibbering idiot. Not in the real world. But let’s take your links one at a time, shall we?

    Link One: You should really have cited the source project.. But then, as we all know, you are too lazy and ignorant to follow your own links, aren’t you? No matter. Let us count the “hyphenations.” This is a fairly well-known text, btw: Aeschines’ “Against Timarchos.”

    I count nine, not including the passable effort with “without one” at the end of the first line. (I’d like to quote the actual text, but the moron in charge of the site has inserted his “proof” as a GIF.)

    1a) “Assemblies.” It’s really, really hard to mis-hyphenate “deme.” This effort does just that.
    1b) “is said.” Broken randomly in half. “λεγε–σθαι”. I think not.
    1c) “Laws.” Split as “νο–μοι.” Are you kidding me?
    1d) “επιταξαντες” rendered as “επιτα–ξαντες.” Pitiful.
    1e) Here’s an interesting one. Join in, folks, because this is practically a transliteration! How would you hyphenate the word “Athenians?”

    Not, I’d bet, as “Athe–nians.” Or, in bozoid, “Αθη–ναιοι”.
    1f) “All things?” Don’t really see “αλ–λα” as a meaningful bit of type. Unless you’re channelling Joe Strummer and the Clash, of course.
    1g) “Formulations,” or in bozoid, “ομολο–γουνται.” (The tool I’m using doesn’t do rough breathings or accents. Sorry ’bout that.)

    The actual roots are “ομο” and “λογουνται,” bozo.
    1h) “πολιτει–αν”. πολιτει–αν? Come on, you;’re having a laugh. For English readers, think a similar word: “Politici”
    “an”.
    Seriously.
    1i) “παρανομου–ντων” Wow, a complete misunderstanding of a Genitive Absolute there.*

    In short, Oiaohm, drivel, and completely useless drivel at that. I was going to demolish your second cite (which I have read: it is just as unspeakably awful), but life is too short.

    And then you google/bing up a reference that just happens to be one of the old Greek Languages that there was never a hyphenation solution designed for it or no one has found the print shop books for it.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

    Classical Athenian Greek (circa 6th-5th century BC) is quite similar to Classical Doric Greek (go back to Homer and Hesiod: walk forwards) and quite similar to Macedonian Greek, ie Hellenistic Greek (circa 4th century BC onwards).

    They’re all in print, Oiaohm. Not a single one of them has any need for hyphenation.

    Let alone the wretched efforts that you are here propounding, third hand, through links you have not the faintest hope of ever understanding.

    Give it up,Oiaohm. Admit that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

    *I’ve always wanted to have a legitimate chance to say that …

  95. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson most of the losses up to this stage the Ukrainian government were believing were malfunctions in the BUK units due to how infrequently they have been happening and the min disruption to operations. Why did they think it was malfunctions since the rebels in their eyes did not have BUK. So the shot downs have only been due to the aircraft crew thinking the airspace was safe.

    Now Ukrainian government are aware what the real issue is. The effectiveness of the rebel controlled BUK units will get even worse to the point of being worthless.

    In fact the rebel controlled BUK’s have not stopped the Ukrainian government from hitting any target they have wanted to. So from effectiveness point of view shotting down a few aircraft and mostly not killing the crew(the hard to replace bit). Is a waste of time. Why new aircraft with better tech replace the ones that were destroyed. Yes its been the older aircraft the BUK has been able to destroy with weak anti-anti-aircraft tech. This is the problem the rebels have been progressively losing the battle with each aircraft they destroyed.

    This is the problem with anti-aircraft and anti-anti-aircraft. Its a tech race. You don’t win. Every successful shoot down is not really successful when you remember its replacement will be more resistant.

    Then remember once the other side become aware the person who has the aircraft due to being able to fire at higher altitude will always be able to take out the ground anti-aircraft units from outside the ground anti-aircraft fire range. So once aware of problem the ground anti-aircraft units quickly become nothing more than targets.

    This is the problem BUK units have not been effective by any true measure. Making your enemy stronger by destroying their weakest assets causing them to replace them will not win a war it is losing it.

    Robert Pogson the rebels have done some great disinformation to hide the fact they had BUK and that is the only reason they have lasted as long as they have.

    Old saying “Winning a single battle does not win a War.”

  96. oiaohm wrote, “The reality is the BUK units in the Ukrainian war zones is more of a pest than anything truly useful.”

    So, the dozen or so aircraft the Ukrainians have lost to them are not useful…

  97. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson did iraq anti-aircraft weapons stop them from being bombed. The answer is no. USA just had to use strong enough anti-anti-weapons.

    Will rebel controlled BUKs in Ukrainian wars stop targets from being air bombed by mil aircraft in the area. The answer is no. Why Russia design fighter aircraft that the Ukrainian have are designed to counter the BUK but does require the person flying the aircraft to be awake if they fly into a BUK fire zone. This is the anti-anti-weapon problem. If you have a weapon the flying aircraft have counter to its pointless. All it does is kill civilians. Gets worse the Ukrainian Mig aircraft long rang missile will auto target a BUK so a Mig can fire a BUK destroying missile before its in target range. Not only can a Ukrainian Mig fly over a BUK it can blow it to nothingness without taking any risk if that is what they choose.

    So not only is the BUK effectively useless to the rebals for other than a few lucky shots. It most likely going to cost them personal and resources because using them is effectively like painting a target on their back. And for civilians BUKs are going to suck in so many ways. 1 them exploding from being hit, 2 them shotting down civilian aircraft.

    If you truly want to keep planes off your high-value targets. You either have fighter aircraft of your own for high altitude and use AA guns for low altitude or blow up the runways and resupply locations where the aircraft it coming from hopefully with the aircraft on the ground.

    Why a fighter aircraft or a AA gun are both able to use flying bit of metal solution(A bullet). No intelligence will work in case of the aircraft in front of it containing a anti-anti-aircraft solution. A human can handle anti-anti-aircraft solutions. Missiles don’t have the brains to work around anti-anti-aircraft solutions designed to block them.

    Basically anti-aircraft solution based around missiles is mostly a joke. You might as well think of them as big of bad joke as land mines are. More harm to civilians than practical solution.

    Assad case near by countries were refueling and resupplying rebel protecting fighter aircraft. This is really the correct thing todo to provide effective anti-aircraft protection. AA guns and aircraft. The problem here for weapon makers the aircraft might cost a lot but most of the ammo an aircraft uses in air to air missiles is cheaper than ground to air missles. AA gun rounds are also cheap. The cheapest happens to be the most effective. In fact even an air to air missile fired from a predator drone is a cheaper solution. Why higher the launch location longer the range and the less you need overall.

    Robert Pogson before the rebels are sold anything the question that always has to be answered will it work. The reality is the BUK units in the Ukrainian war zones is more of a pest than anything truly useful. We forbid land mines because they are more of a pest than anything useful.

  98. oiaohm says:

    http://members.hellug.gr/sng/ancientgreekoxt/
    http://www.tex.ac.uk/ctan/languages/hyphenation/elhyphen/ancient.pdf
    Look at example in the first link. Read the second link. There was a big problem with Hyphenation of Ancient Greek being protected by trade secrets. It was not that print shops did not have typesetting rules to do hyphenation of Ancient Greek its that they would not share them.

    DrLoser Loab Classical Library does not contain hyphenation at all not in the english or the greek. Just you did not notice. Just in the same ways in a lot of shake-spear books with modern english next to old books lot don’t use hyphenation either.

    A person learning a language from dual language books the thing they are most likely not going to learn is the hyphenation rules.

    And then you google/bing up a reference that just happens to be one of the old Greek Languages that there was never a hyphenation solution designed for it or no one has found the print shop books for it.

    DrLoser like it or not there is such thing as hyphenation of Ancient Greek.

  99. DrLoser says:

    .
    Why Ancient Greek Hyphenation rules exist is if you break words in random locations you can reduce readability massively. In the time of Ancient Greek being a common spoken language the splitting rules were done by the writers common sense. Auto word wrapping means the computer has to have the common sense also there is another reason why printing press operators have this common sense without knowing the language itself.

    Truly, oiaohm, that is the most entertainingly ignorant drivel you have come up with for a very, very, long time.

    I can read Ancient Greek. You cannot. Furthermore, I have read Ancient Greek. Indeed, I have read Ancient Greek in a variety of printed forms. At its most base, you can find it in the Loeb Classical Library, which is essentially a diptych with the original Greek on the one side and a very piss-poor English translation on the other.

    You’d think, if anywhere, that this is a case where you’d find “Ancient Greek hyphenation,” wouldn’t you?

    And you’d be an utter fool to think it. It doesn’t happen in any realistic scenario.

    Here, plucked literally at random from a Bing search for CLC libraries, is a bit of Callimachus. Now, Callimachus is Hellenistic rather than Classical, but the principle holds:

    You don’t see no cretin hyphenations, do you?

    Dear God, oioahm. Is there any subject, no matter how recherché, that you are prepared to admit that you are totally ignorant of?

    I mean, you’re an incompetent blowhard and you are universally ignorant. Which is fine. You are allowed your opinion, nevertheless.

    But it would at least help if, once in a while, you admitted the fairly obvious fact that you don’t have a clue about the subject matter in question.

  100. oiaohm wrote, “That is the problem anti-aircraft missiles are not a solution.”

    That’s just silly. They exist for a reason. They work and keep planes off your high-value targets, the populated centres. Planes don’t magically appear over the centres. They fly in and can be intercepted given sufficient resources. Give the rebels sufficient resources, not because we agree with their politics/religion/ethics but because Assad is a bastard.

  101. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson the problem is the word effective with an anti-aircraft weapon. As the old saying goes “What goes up has to come down”. So that aircraft you just took out the sky with a missile is going to come down somewhere and that somewhere could be civilians. Next problem once you have anti-aircraft missiles on ground then you cannot do medical evacuations by aircraft either because you cannot be sure that human error will not result in a non combat aircraft being shot at. Then every anti-aircraft missile systems also has miss fires. Miss-fires is another good cause of deaths.

    Assad dropping bombs to drop buildings please remember that anti-aircraft missile you send up to stop aircraft dropping that bomb could result in the aircraft dropping into a building anyhow. That is the problem anti-aircraft missiles are not a solution. They just bring another level of problems to the battle field from random targets being destroyed.

    Radar can be screwed up by metal fragments reflecting too much so making bombers not target-able.

    Next level of problems. You have anti-aircraft weapons on ground. Aircraft can be packing anti-anti-aircraft weapons. So this becomes a game of who has the most layers of anti. Yes no such thing as an anti-aircraft missile you can depend on against mil aircraft. You can perfectly depend on anti-aircraft systems for shotting down is civilian aircrafts as those will not have anti systems.

    The problem here is the idea that hey something on the other side is causing us problems lets just get some magic weapon to engage it. Weapon makers want wars to last. Like if a party bothered by aircraft went and bought the weapons that nuked the aircraft supply lines and bases it would be less weapons so less profit to weapon makers. Truly effective is not what weapon makers want.

  102. oiaohm wrote, “Tanks or missles leveling cities not good for civilians.”

    You do know that Assad is dropping “barrel bombs” on buildings in Aleppo and bringing the building down, right? Wouldn’t some effective AA weapon be OK for the people to defend their families and neighbourhoods? NATO should have an air cap on Syria and take out any tanks moving on the roads. That would save thousands of lives and cost just a few $million. The wrong solution is doing nothing which is what NATO has been doing. The problem will only grow worse. As a result ISIS is growing stronger while the region is in turmoil. ISIS make Al Qaeda seem like a church-choir. The time to have done something in Syria was years ago when a small effort would have had prompt and satisfactory results. Now, the problem has spread like cancer.

  103. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson remember the rebels or the government having a particular weapon means you have to set the flight height to that. Forbidding weapons as long as it fair forbid does not give the bully advantage. As you have seen in the M-17 case the bully weapons can get stolen.

    A BUK is not just anti-air. A BUK missiles can be used ground to ground. It is a ADWS. Just not a ADWS that can protect itself from anti personal or effectively neturalise missiles.

    Metal Storms ADWS has a nice little title force multiplied. So 3 soldiers can hold a city alone. Yes 8 hour shifts. This is the problem ADWS systems give a bully a huge advantage. ADWS you require less people do dominate the majority. Yes there are particular classes of weapon solutions that do need restrictions in supply. Remember supplying mines is also illegal these days. So anyone on a battle field wanting a mine has to make it themselves.

    Syria rebels were not shipped ADWS solutions or mines. In fact Syria rebels were not allowed to buy tanks due to aircraft being used to removes those from the battle field. I should be more exact I am not saying not supply no weapons. Lets try to keep the weapons to the point the civilians mixed up in the mess have a sporting chance. Tanks or missles leveling cities not good for civilians. Supply routes for food being blocked by ADWS also not good for civilians. We need some balance between allowing the two side that hate each other beat the crap out each other as they want to and making sure in the process they don’t abuse the civilians too much. As I said objective dull roar. Stop them from fighting they will just work out how to fight in future anyhow.

    A BUK is missile warhead is 62 kg warhead. General Russian Air to Air is is about 1/3 of that. But there is an exception. Vympel R-37 this is Mig mounted long range air to air same size warhead of almost identical design.

    Buk is medium-range surface-to-air not long-range surface to air. So yes ram is correct its inconstant with being hit with long-range surface to air. The damage is consistent with medium range surface to air or long range air to air.

  104. oiaohm wrote, “I think we need to start some common sense forbidding weapons being provided to war zones.”

    I disagree. I would ship whatever the rebels wanted to Syria and whatever the Ukrainians want to Ukraine. Banning shipments of weapons outright just enhances the bully’s advantage.

  105. ram wrote, “There is some evidence MH-17 was hit by an AIR-to-AIR missile on the starboard side. The debris was inconsistent with it having been hit by a long range ground to air missile. The flight recorders (divided up among three countries) will tell the tale.”

    Air to Air missiles tend to be smaller. The warhead that hit MH-17 must have been very large because the huge number of ~2cm holes in panels. I think there’s no doubt it was a ground-based missile. They have warheads with a lot of mass and explosive.
    see image 1
    see image 2
    see image 3
    see image 4
    This is the most telling: image 5 It suggests the warhead exploded near the front of the plane yet there are punctures all over the plane. That’s a very big warhead that did that. That’s likely a radar-guided missile while most air to air use heat-seaking and strike from the rear.

    Further, it’s hard to distribute two black boxes to three countries.

  106. ram says:

    There is some evidence MH-17 was hit by an AIR-to-AIR missile on the starboard side. The debris was inconsistent with it having been hit by a long range ground to air missile. The flight recorders (divided up among three countries) will tell the tale.

    With respect to some other peoples comments:

    Yes, Latex is great! It is the only thing for scientific papers.

    Arms dealers are a curse. Even weapons of mass destruction are sold at major international arms expos. In Australia it is easier to by a nuke than a sporting firearm. Nuts!

  107. oiaohm says:

    MH-17 really does make me wonder. Like Australia and USA is very restrictive on what countries can have ADWS (Area Denial Weapons System) based on metal storm tech. Metal Storm ADWS is anti-tank, anti-aircraft, anti-personal and anti-missile. In other words a real pain if it against you. Even worse it has a joke name a few joke sound names for platforms it can control example iRobot Warrior Small compact and deadly to protect you main platforms or destroy your enemies main platforms.

    So if Russia says its fine to provide this class of weapon how would they like other countries provide Metal storm ADWS class to the battle that can neutralize Buk class weapons without having the high altitude fire capability.

    I think we need to start some common sense forbidding weapons being provided to war zones. Also flight hight of aircraft over war-zones if it not possible to avoid has to be above the max height of all weapon on the battle field. Not care if we think those people are friendly or not. A friendly can make a error and still shot down the aircraft.

    Arms dealers should be required to have some requirement to justify why particular class weapons are required on a battle field. Yes UN enforced no FLY zones so neither party at war have any requirement for high altitude weapons because neither party can fly at those heights. We cannot stop wars but we should be able to restrict them to a dull roar and limit the range of stray shots.

  108. oiaohm says:

    By the way the Ancient Greek Hyphenation rules start with movable type printing presses prior to computers. Most people who are taught Ancient Greek are only officially taught about the features of the language in the time it was hand written or hand carved. So at first the only people taught about Ancient Greek Hyphenation for a long time were printers press operators.

    This is why the first program on computers to have Ancient Greek Hyphenation is Latex designed by printers printing press operators to replicate what they could do with a manual printing press.

    DrLoser just provided the best example where you can go horible wrong when you have assembled a translation team. You don’t just need people who can read the language and write the new words. You need people at times who have printing experience of that language even if its old style movable type.

    Why Ancient Greek Hyphenation rules exist is if you break words in random locations you can reduce readability massively. In the time of Ancient Greek being a common spoken language the splitting rules were done by the writers common sense. Auto word wrapping means the computer has to have the common sense also there is another reason why printing press operators have this common sense without knowing the language itself.

    Printing press operators formed rules for uniform look and readability. Why did the printing press operators need to make the rules formal. With the formal rules you could have some moron who cannot read Ancient Greek and many other languages still prep the printing trays and break the words in a quality way. So educated to write text and moron could print text. Since a moron could prep printing trays so can a computer. In fact this with hyphenation applies to a lot of languages where you want the printing press operators to find out how it done not the people who speak, read or write the language. Yes even printing press operators who cannot read the language at all can have a old rule book sitting on the shelf and this is how come they have been able to print the works for people.

    The book form for printing press operators hyphenation is funny its like a dictionary but instead of meanings it has where the words can be split. So you look up each word at the end of each line to see if you can split it or not. These are quite valuable books to find if you attempting to implement a new language into a program as written dictionaries of some languages like Ancient Greek are lacking the hyphenation information.

    I picked a very complete example DrLoser.

  109. ram wrote, “There is no evidence that Russia had anything to do with the crash of MH-17”.

    Let’s see. Russian missile shoots down MH-17. Missile was provided by Russia and operators were trained by Russia. I would not agree “there is no evidence”. I would not be surprised that eventually we learn a Russian actually launched the damned thing. Apparently, Russia has declared war on Ukraine insofar as they’ve fired artillery across the border. There does not seem to be any limit to what the Russians will do. Of course, the Ukrainians are in disarray, exactly what the Russians arranged.

  110. ram says:

    There is no evidence that Russia had anything to do with the crash of MH-17, if anything the evidence is rather the Americans were deeply involved. See for example:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/23/us-intelligence-evidence-russia-paul-craig-roberts

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/22/372329/western-leadership-shot-down-in-ukraine

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-230714.html

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-220714.html

    It always pays to look at news sources outside of America to get a better picture of how the world perceives things. The fact is, the American mass media lies, and lies almost all the time with big bold faced “whopper” lies. Another approach is to read the headlines of a Murdoch controlled media source and then put NOT after it — they lie so consistently the rule above can be used for financial investments 🙂

  111. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser http://www.thefreewindows.com/20/hyphenate-greek-polytonic-texts-in-word/ Yes there is a such thing as an hyphenator for Ancient Greek text. First appears in Latex solutions by the way. This is a problem when a person thinks they are educated in a language. Hyphenation only happens to Ancient Greek Text when in electronic production to save of paper. Yes one of the after additions. People who have only used Ancient Greek using stuff like MS Word not programs based off Latex that properly support it think there is no such thing as Hyphenation. So this error Dr Loser you are not by yourself. You will find Hyphenation in printed Ancient Greek texts. Maybe you have not read enough Ancient Greek books.

    Advanced grammar capitals can be used as emphasis point. I could have also insert a full stop before “Fluent” to do a hard emphasis point. Its part of the Oxford rules of english and a few others.

    By Oxford, Cambridge, Macquarie and few other parties the word english can be done with and without capitals but in this case a another reason exists. “english grammar rules” as a whole is not a Name so should not have a capital unless you are wanting it as a focus point. Particular english grammar rules would have capitals because that would be a name of a single item that exists. Focus points or Names have capitals. It is in fact incorrect to always use capitals on the word english if you are obeying Oxford the other two its optional.

    Any reason for the transparent and obvious lack of punctuation after “DrLoser” and before “like it or not,” oiaohm? Or, for that matter, after “like it or not?”
    They are optional and I skip optional. Read your Cambridge produced texts. Works out skipping them saves 0.1 of a percent of ink of a document. Yes this adds up.

    Any reason for the lack of a deliberative particle (“the” or “a”) between “In fact” and “does not understand,” oiaohm?
    Please attempt verbally saying that sentence with either the word “the” or “a” inserted. This is obeying phonetic rules. Again not a error this is being correct to Oxford because you must be able to verbally read exactly what is on the page.

    DrLoser grammatical solecisms is wrong there are only 8 official types of grammatical solecisms in English. Not one was in that post.

    The lack of caps on english the word “Disputed English grammar”. Lack of the comas again Disputed grammar it depends on who style guide you are following if they are in or not.

    DrLoser sorry you are a undereducated American putting on my British hat.

    DrLoser I was forced to memorize the english grammar rules of 8 major universities. You will find me using disputed forms of grammar. Issue is its not in fact invalid.

  112. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser like it or not kurkosdr is not Fluent in English. In fact does not understand many english grammar rules.

    Bwahahahaha!

    Any reason for the capital ‘F’ in “Fluent,” oiaohm? Any reason for the lack of a capital ‘E’ in “English,” oiaohm?

    Any reason for the transparent and obvious lack of punctuation after “DrLoser” and before “like it or not,” oiaohm? Or, for that matter, after “like it or not?”

    Any reason for the lack of a deliberative particle (“the” or “a”) between “In fact” and “does not understand,” oiaohm?

    I count that as twenty words and five grammatical solecisms.

    Fluent you are not, oiaohm. Mercifully you restrained your wall of incomprehensible gibberish this time.

    Kurks is, trust me, fluent in his second language. You are hopeless and generally incomprensible in your first.

    Well, let us turn to a 2,500 year old precursor of Kurk’s native language, to whit: Ancient Greek. Presumed Attic, or at least Macedonian, but I’ll accept an Ionian dialect or even a Doric version. What is this we see here?

    Ancient Greek Hyphenator in MS 2013 and older is a huge big Macro hack.

    Bwahahahaha!

    Tell us again, O great one, although this time preferably in grammatical English:

    What is an “Ancient Greek Hyphenator?”

    Truly, you are the gift that keeps on giving, oiaohm.

    (Clue: It’s nothing to do with Ancient Greek. Anybody, like me, who has an education in Ancient Greek would regard the entire exercise of a “hyphenator” as a risible waste of time.)

  113. ram wrote, “in other words, America will cut itself off from over 80 percent of the world’s population and the countries with most of the worlds manufacturing, energy, and technology”

    I think even China is rethinking its relationship with RU after MH-17. It’s one thing not to meddle in the internal affairs of another nation, e.g. Syria, but it’s clear that Russia is messing with the internal affairs or Ukraine in a big way and China can see the bad PR resulting. China and Russia have just made a big natural gas deal… but I think support in the UN and in global trade may be jeopardized now. Then there’s what happened in Crimea. Just the haste with which Russia moved was like a sprinting opera, lots of loud voices with a deadline. I think USA and others will agree to support Europe’s need for energy and Russia will be quite isolated. The China deal is for the future which can be cut short. The world needs to stand up to a bully.

  114. ram says:

    What do you mean by “International Sanctions”? I think American media means that it and its occupied territories will not trade with Russia and its major trading partners, i.e. Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Argentina, Cuba …, or in other words, America will cut itself off from over 80 percent of the world’s population and the countries with most of the worlds manufacturing, energy, and technology. Kinda returns the word “sanction” to its original meaning of blessing.

  115. oiaohm says:

    https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Feature_Comparison:_LibreOffice_-_Microsoft_Office
    http://lifehacker.com/battle-of-the-office-suites-microsoft-office-and-libre-1147940828
    http://members.hellug.gr/sng/ancientgreekoxt/

    DrLoser like it or not kurkosdr is not Fluent in English. In fact does not understand many english grammar rules. Kurkosdr like or not picking on me on english ends up forced to pull his head back in for missing different rules most of the time. Most what is wrong with my english is horible style. Horrible style is not lack of knowledge of english or bad grammar.

    kurkosdr has not required a link because I have not said anything that is invalid.

    DrLoser you are obsessed over having linked and being a pain in a ass. Due to kurdosdr being Greek he is most likely aware of the third link and MS Office lack of proper support for Ancient Greek.

    Ancient Greek Hyphenator in MS 2013 and older is a huge big Macro hack if you can find it at all. This is not the only language like this where Libreoffice has the superiority.

    DrLoser if you are not going to bring anything to the discussion shut-up and get lost.

  116. DrLoser says:

    kurkosdr::

    But worse than an app translated by professional translators, as is the case with Windows and Office.

    oiaohm:

    This is not always true. Some of the FOSS translations are in fact same level of professional as Microsoft uses.

    Leaving aside the nitwit “some of,” oiaohm, which might mean as little as one (unless you accept the existence of the null set and operations thereon, which is purely theoretical) ….

    1) Kurkos is fluent in Greek and in English. Possibly in other languages.
    2) I am fluent in English and can spot broken French or German and possibly Spanish.
    3) You are not even fluent in English.

    And of course, the big number four.

    You don’t have a single comparison between, let’s say, LibreOffice and Word, to offer here, do you?

    Not a single link.

    And we all know how much you obsess over links, don’t we, oiaohm?

  117. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr
    But worse than an app translated by professional translators, as is the case with Windows and Office.
    This is not always true. Some of the FOSS translations are in fact same level of professional as Microsoft uses. So between Novice to high level professional is FOSS translations. Issue is like Libreoffice 110 language compared to MS Office 96. Grammar check in Libreoffice for 29 languages with 7 variants compared to MS Office with support for 21 with 1 variants. Now if you are one of those languages Mircosoft chooses not to fund you are up the creek with Microsoft Office. Same with Microsoft Windows.

    kurkosdr other thing to be aware of Google Translate is in fact used in early production stages of some new FOSS application translations. http://googledevelopers.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/localize-your-apps-and-content-more.html Its very simple to do a rapid convert on a GNU gettext application. The difference is when google translate gets it wrong it simple for a human to follow behind and open up the .po file and fix the error in a gettext case. Most closed source applications the translations end up bundled into the binaries or resources where end users cannot edit them.

    Proof read google translate is not too bad. Android applications are problems where you cannot play with the translation files.

    kurkosdr FOSS basically has worked out a method that does translations to a usable quality level and min cost. Key allow end uses to edit and correct the translation if it wrong. Even with the best translation team you can be missing local knowledge of language variants.

    Over the years MS Office and MS Windows have had a lot of bug reports to fix up translation errors. So Microsoft own teams are not past screwing up badly. The longer a program has been translated and the more feedback it has got the better the translation is. Rule applies equally to FOSS and Closed. Problem is a lot of closed has a bad habit of closing off the feedback paths as it costs a lot to manage if you will not let end users edit.

    People always ask what is FOSS Killer feature. One killer feature of FOSS is the means to translate to your native language. This is not exactly a Killer app.

  118. kurkosdr says:

    “Native language support is an area where FOSS is better because most FOSS applications are built on the idea other people will wish to edit the translation strings.”

    This is actually true. The vast majority of FOSS apps either have translated text written by an actual human, or give you the original english text, or a combination of these two.

    Which is MUCH better than an app translated with the help of Google Translate.

    But worse than an app translated by professional translators, as is the case with Windows and Office.

  119. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr be truthful how much would you give to have the means to correct the strings.

    kurkosdr proof reading equals spending resources. Google translate equals disaster.

    In a lot of ways the gettext like solution from GNU is the best. Where the language file is independent to the binary and the end user can in fact edit it or have someone they know edit it in case of a major error.

    kurkosdr I should have put porting stuff to native languages in a usable form requires resources.

    kurkosdr now if you cannot read english giving you the original english is no help. Native language support is an area where FOSS is better because most FOSS applications are built on the idea other people will wish to edit the translation strings. There is are place for secrets translation strings is not one of those areas.

  120. kurkosdr says:

    ” Porting stuff into native country languages cost resources. ”

    Not if it’s done via Google Translate. Aka how it’s done most of the time. Sometimes, I prefer using the app with the original english text, than having to read what amounts to utter nonsense and have to guess what the original english text was.

    If you can’t have someone proof-read it, give me the original english text dammit.

  121. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy you have just stated the biggest issue. Porting stuff into native country languages cost resources. Issue is a lot of languages in fact don’t have a large enough population to pay. Libreoffice in fact supports more languages than MS Office. Sections of Russia pirating MS Office don’t help you if you want to write in the local language since the local languages is not support by MS Office. MS Office is a large application. You get to smaller applications the realities is that FOSS has higher odds of having native language support or at least provide the tools that they can added it themselves for the smaller languages.

    Really something closed source software makers do need to think about opening up the options for third parties to native language their programs. The reality the closed source companies cannot do it themselves.

    Inside Russia and Poland is 8 different local languages that are not the official state wide language. Yes language of a Provence may not match the state.

    What could defeat the piracy of MS Office in Russia is lack of Language support.

  122. Deaf Spy says:

    And how that would be, when the pirate rates in Russia are sky-high, just as always have been? Russians will keep pirating Windows and Office, and nothing on this world would change that.

    Btw, I recently had a drink with an acquaintance from the gaming industry. His company have been localizing their games for Germany, Poland, and Russia. In his words, Russia and Poland both can’t make even 1/3 of what Germany alone does. And Germany is lesser than UK, which is much lesser than US.
    No market is Russia, I’m telling you.

  123. oiaohm says:

    dougman really you have to remember to take BSA pricing with a grain of salt. BSA for each invalid license expects that party will be paying Recommend Retail Price to correct issue. Of course a percentage only pay volume license differences.

    Its still funny even that Microsoft officially releases software for OS X they still don’t make Maps that is their free audit what you have software for OS X.

  124. dougman says:

    MS knows all about SAM technology, but they never quite take-off.

    It built Microsoft Sam, but everyone hated his voice and laughed at him.

    Then came M$ Software Asset Management, but its implementation brought down the wrath of the BSA later.

    Then there was the Ned Ryerson and BIng!, but eh…see where this is going?

    On another trajectory, today I found this: http://www.itassetmanagement.net/2014/06/24/bsa-reports-60-billion-worth-unlicensed-software/

    I say the outcome will be more entities finding Linux as a suitable solution for their entire IT stack, and not taking a risk by downloading pirated software to begin with.

    As soon as you are done with your BSA nightmare, I advise you to stop using proprietary software. If Ernie Ball can do it, so can you.

  125. oiaohm says:

    Remember in the cold war Russia was not using Microsoft in volume. They were using there own developed odd ball OS’s.

    So DrLoser there is a chance Russia inventory system is still running PTS-DOS as it still certified.

    thr like it or not weapons will have a OS. Your choice closed source unable to be audited or something open source that can be audited.

  126. thr says:

    Linux brings world peace! … Except when it’s used in military equipment. The GPL be damned.

  127. DrLoser says:

    Perhaps Gnu/Linux could help with an inventory system that avoids the rather embarrassing contingency of supplying Mach 3 SAMs to a bunch of criminal thugs just over the border?

    Your timing is impeccable as always, Robert.

Leave a Reply