60% of the newest releases at sourceforge say "Lisp"!!
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
Martin Mallinson <················@analogsystems.com> writes:
> What's sourceforge?
"SourceForge's mission is to enrich the Open Source community by
providing a centralized place for Open Source Developers to control
and manage Open Source Software Development."
<URL:http://sourceforge.net/>
--
Vebjorn Ljosa, Initio IT-losninger AS
http://www.initio.no/
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Martin Mallinson would say:
>What's sourceforge?
<http://sourceforge.net/>
This is a web site run by VA Linux Systems that is offering hosting
services for "open source" software projects. Of late, this has begun
to include some Common Lisp projects, including:
- SBCL
- CLISP
- CLOCC, some Lisp libraries including a test suite
- Sources for SERIES
- Lambda Codex, a bunch of Allegro CL code
--
"Although UNIX is more reliable, NT may become more reliable with
time" -- Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet
Introduction Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, US Navy.
········@hex.net - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
MK:DEFSYSTEM v 3.2 Interim is available as source code in the CLOCC on
sourceforge.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa
Christopher Browne <········@knuth.brownes.org> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
·······················@knuth.brownes.org...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Martin Mallinson would say:
> >What's sourceforge?
What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
> What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
> J.B.
Nosdradamus = Michel de Nostredame, an french prophet from
~1500. Interpretations of his quatrains should probably be viewed a
healthy dose of schepticism (there were a few entertaining
re-interpretations of some of the quatrains around the Gulf War).
I just did a quick search. Maybe this will help:
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Nostradamus/index.html
The link to the Pentium Bug prediction isn't working, so you might
want to take a look at:
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~jamesf/nostradamus.html
which lists:
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~jamesf/pentium.html
--
// John Markus Bj�rndalen
"Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
> What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
No, the church is "Nofre Tete". "Nostradamus" is this olde
elevator-kind-of-a thing where many open cabins go round and round
without stopping.
- Marius
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Marius Vollmer would say:
>"Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
>
>> What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
>
>No, the church is "Nofre Tete". "Nostradamus" is this olde
>elevator-kind-of-a thing where many open cabins go round and round
>without stopping.
Michel Nostradamus was a "prophet" of the 16th century that wrote up
some texts predicting the future.
<http://Nostradamus.org> describes it...
"This Site features the writings of Michel Nostradamus, the famous
French Seer of the 16th Century"
- NEWS FLASH! PROOF THE CIA KILLED JFK AND KING!
- FREE ART PRINT OF NOSTRADAMUS CLICK HERE!
- Nostradamus predicted death of JFK Jr in Plane!
- Nets Top Mystic predicted JFK to die in Plane Crash!
- Interview with Dolores Cannon - Coming Soon
- Interview with Professor Ionescu
- Diana's Crash Photo - JFK's Autopsy Photos
- FREE TAROT - ASTROLOGY - HOTROSCOPTES
- BREAKING NEWS - The 24 7 News Net
- ELS Hidden Code Discovered in writings of Nostradamus!
- New AMAZING ELS Bible Codes Discovered in New Testament!
- Shocking 666 ELS Bible Code Discovered in New Testament!
- Free On-Line Tarot - Astrology - Horoscopes
As noted above, people have been able to read into Nostradamus' works
all sorts of peculiar predictions, including such events as the rise
and fall of the Third Reich, assassinations of various world leaders,
and the impending doom of Earth at the close of 1999.
When I say, "Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Marius
Vollmer would say:", I'm making fun of the "craze" amongst some to pay
any attention to this sort of thing. It essentially parallels the
"Bible Codes" thing where people look for patterns by running computer
analyses of Biblical texts.
At best, it's absolute nonsense. If it has *any* credibility, it is
more likely reflect reality like that which Umberto Eco suggested in
"Foucalt's Pendulum," wherein there's either a *bit* of truth to the
conspiracy theories out there, or, more dangerous, the fact that
people *believe* in such ravings may lead to them acting out the
conspiracies, which could be quite harmful...
--
"Catapultam habeo! Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum
saxum immane mittam !!" (I have a catapult! If you do not pay me the
money you owe me, I will hit you with a big rock !!)
-- Simon Gornall <·····@unique-id.com>
········@hex.net - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Marius Vollmer <···@zagadka.ping.de> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
··············@zagadka.ping.de...
> "Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
>
> > What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
>
> No, the church is "Nofre Tete". "Nostradamus" is this olde
> elevator-kind-of-a thing where many open cabins go round and round
> without stopping.
Nice, thx. You are the only one who understands me.
J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
> What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
wow, you are the first person in several years that made me reconsider
my decision to stop using killfiles (and rather stick to interesting
newsgroups) :-(
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
··············@wallace.nextel.no...
> "Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
>
> > What does "Nostradamus" mean? Is it a church in Paris?
>
> wow, you are the first person in several years that made me reconsider
> my decision to stop using killfiles (and rather stick to interesting
> newsgroups) :-(
I am sorry, Espen, I am hurting your feelings the second time within a short
period of time and I apologize.
Janos Blazi
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de> writes:
> I am sorry, Espen, I am hurting your feelings the second time within a short
> period of time and I apologize.
This answer perfectly illustrates the problem with you:
You don't realize that this newsgroup is for discussing lisp, and not
some kind of tea party where you're free to discuss whatever boring
subject you want (*)
So if you don't want to be the victim of kill files, *please* try to
go somewhere else with your general chatting needs, and keep to
the agenda when you're "here".
(*) I'll keep this in a footnote, since it's probably the kind of
reaction that you hope to see:
That you claim to have hurt my feelings, and even twice (!?),
makes me somewhat puzzled, maybe you're not just chatting in
the wrong place but working real hard trying to insult people?
I don't know...
--
(espen)
I thought I hurt your feelings when I made a joke about Notre-Dame de Paris,
as you are french.
As far as off-topic messages are concerned you are right and I am a bit
chatty. I am not the only one, as fox-hunting was discussed here a few days
ago.
I think there are some people here who hate whatever I post and if you are
one of them then really the best thing is to put me into your kill file,
whatever that may be, I am not angry. I do not know the consequences, but
you can simply disregard my messages.
J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:04:15 +0100, "Janos Blazi" <······@netsurf.de>
wrote:
> one of them then really the best thing is to put me into your kill file,
> whatever that may be, I am not angry. I do not know the consequences, but
From the Jargon File (http://www.jargon.org/):
:kill file: /n./ [Usenet] (alt. `KILL file') Per-user
file(s) used by some {Usenet} reading programs (originally Larry
Wall's `rn(1)') to discard summarily (without presenting for
reading) articles matching some particularly uninteresting (or
unwanted) patterns of subject, author, or other header lines. Thus
to add a person (or subject) to one's kill file is to arrange for
that person to be ignored by one's newsreader in future. By
extension, it may be used for a decision to ignore the person or
subject in other media. See also {plonk}.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote in message
···················@wallace.nextel.no...
> This answer perfectly illustrates the problem with you:
>
> You don't realize that this newsgroup is for discussing lisp, and not
> some kind of tea party where you're free to discuss whatever boring
> subject you want (*)
Nor is this or any other newsgroup for nagging people about what one thinks
their problems are.
No one person speaks for this kind of a group. If someone engages in
behavior that bothers you, it is much better to ignore it. If you must, and
you *truly* feel it might be productive or beneficial, explain what you
_feel_ is wrong and why and move on.
Personal attacks are NEVER productive.
Coby
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| Personal attacks are NEVER productive.
then why don't you guys ever _start_ moralizing against the provokers,
only against the _other_ people who react to them? don't you understand
that in the eyes of the village idiots, you're defending them, and very
much _encouraging_ further mindless drivel and braindamaged chit-chat?
why do you want more of that, Coby? is this newsgroup served better by
your (and a few other people's) moralizing in defense of inanities than
the occasional personal attack against which you, TOO, have to speak up
to voice that ever-important concern about form and behavior?
moralizers can follow their own advice: take it to e-mail, shut up, or
ignore it. if _you_ can't do that, don't ever expect anyone else to.
stick to _technical_ contents and _cut_ the meta-discussions, will you?
#:Erik
In article <················@naggum.no>,
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote:
> * "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | Personal attacks are NEVER productive.
>
> then why don't you guys ever _start_ moralizing against the provokers,
> only against the _other_ people who react to them?
I guess it is a question of balance, really, and this group leans very
heavily towards the intentionally offensive insults and aggressive
condemnation more than inappropriate subject matter and thoughtless
statement.
> don't you understand
> that in the eyes of the village idiots, you're defending them, and
very
> much _encouraging_ further mindless drivel and braindamaged chit-chat?
> why do you want more of that, Coby?
You and I have very different definitions of "idiot" and "drivel".
Xah is the only real troll i recall having seen here in the 8 or so
months i have subscribed to c.l.l
> is this newsgroup served better by
> your (and a few other people's) moralizing in defense of inanities
than
> the occasional personal attack against which you, TOO, have to speak
up
> to voice that ever-important concern about form and behavior?
Though i disagree with your characterizations i understand what you are
asking; the answer is yes.
>
> moralizers can follow their own advice: take it to e-mail, shut up, or
> ignore it. if _you_ can't do that, don't ever expect anyone else to.
>
My advice (assuming you are refering to me as a "moralizer") included
an initial IF form
(if (productive-response-possible? *stinky-post*)
(make-intelligent-comment *stinky-post*)
(ignore-post *stinky-post*))
-NB: just trying to be humorous, i am not making fun of your comments.
> stick to _technical_ contents and _cut_ the meta-discussions, will
you?
>
This is rather ironic considering the source. But i don't think a
certain level of meta-discussion is out of line when so many very bad
feelings fly around in any group of people.
Coby
> #:Erik
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
* Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| This is rather ironic considering the source.
it's stuff like "considering the source" that defines "ad hominem", dude.
don't you at least find it kinda funny that you're the one committing
this error in argument while you're _pretending_ to be concerned about
proper form and expression? you know, here's my understanding of why you
react: it has to be "unpleasant" for you to react to something, while
"pleasant" insults and ad hominems are perfectly OK, indeed so OK that
you find yourself more than willing to use them to "fight" unpleasantness.
| But i don't think a certain level of meta-discussion is out of line when
| so many very bad feelings fly around in any group of people.
be a smart lad, now, and consider the _overwhelming_ probability that the
"bad feelings" _you_ see are figments of _your_ imagination and artefacts
of how _you_ interact with the world and thus imagine that others do,
too. basically, the only serious mistake you can make about other people
is to believe you can put yourself in their place. moralism is all about
making this mistake and being self-righteous about it.
a piece of advice, though, since you're into this bad feelings business:
just because you, a bystander, feel obliged to feel bad on behalf of
someone else, doesn't mean anyone else is actually feeling anything like
you do, particularly not anyone who is actually _involved_ in what you're
just looking at and not understanding because you're responding to them
by _purely_ emotional means (which is, before you deny it, evidenced by
the lack of _anything_ outside of your displeasure with the form that
causes your negative reactions). you thereby _introduce_ bad feelings
into this frail equilibrium. which is really brilliant, since it proves
your point and virtually removes the possibility of proving you wrong,
which moralists get _so_ immensely upset when they are, which makes them
even more eager to project their dismal world view on everybody else.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> wrote in message ·····················@naggum.no...
> * Coby Beck <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
> | This is rather ironic considering the source.
>
> it's stuff like "considering the source" that defines "ad hominem", dude.
>
> don't you at least find it kinda funny that you're the one committing
> this error in argument while you're _pretending_ to be concerned about
> proper form and expression? you know, here's my understanding of why you
> react: it has to be "unpleasant" for you to react to something, while
> "pleasant" insults and ad hominems are perfectly OK, indeed so OK that
> you find yourself more than willing to use them to "fight" unpleasantness.
>
i don't believe for one second that you cannot see the difference between what i have
said above and remarks like "you really are a brick" and "you blathering idiot."
> | But i don't think a certain level of meta-discussion is out of line when
> | so many very bad feelings fly around in any group of people.
>
> be a smart lad, now, and consider the _overwhelming_ probability that the
> "bad feelings" _you_ see are figments of _your_ imagination and artefacts
> of how _you_ interact with the world and thus imagine that others do,
> too.
Again, you cannot possibly be sincere. Anger is the most typical reaction to being
hurt. And besides, hurt or not, anger is a "bad feeling."
But I don't do all of my "moralising" out of any need to mollify other people but
rather as an effort to improve the general atmosphere that permeates this group. I
know many new lispers who find this group uninviting because of the kind of harshness i
have occasionally commented on. I've even had people i don't know email me directly
with their lisp questions. Why should they be reluctant to post here? The answer is
obvious to me and i chose to do what i can to influence that.
> basically, the only serious mistake you can make about other people
> is to believe you can put yourself in their place. moralism is all about
> making this mistake and being self-righteous about it.
>
> a piece of advice, though, since you're into this bad feelings business:
> just because you, a bystander, feel obliged to feel bad on behalf of
> someone else, doesn't mean anyone else is actually feeling anything like
> you do, particularly not anyone who is actually _involved_ in what you're
> just looking at and not understanding because you're responding to them
> by _purely_ emotional means (which is, before you deny it, evidenced by
> the lack of _anything_ outside of your displeasure with the form that
> causes your negative reactions). you thereby _introduce_ bad feelings
> into this frail equilibrium. which is really brilliant, since it proves
> your point and virtually removes the possibility of proving you wrong,
> which moralists get _so_ immensely upset when they are, which makes them
> even more eager to project their dismal world view on everybody else.
Thank you for your implied compliment, but i am not *that* clever.
But honestly, Erik, i do not wish to impose my world view on you, or anyone, at all, i
only wish to publish it beside yours so people can realize they have a choice. You are
free to continue trying to drive away people you don't like, i will continue to
disagree.
Coby
* "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca>
| i don't believe for one second
and I don't care for one second what you "believe" or not, Coby. the
reason is this one line:
| Again, you cannot possibly be sincere.
... which tells people more about you than you should ever have wished to
tell _anyone_. some day, you'll understand why it matters that you shift
from "I don't believe" to "you cannot be sincere", and then you'll stop
moralizing in the name of avoiding personal attacks while engaging in the
most hypocritical activities seen here for a very long time. good luck
with your unusual opportunity to learn something fundamental about ethics.
#:Erik
The world:
Please witness my metaphysical meta-meta-meta discussion of doctor Naggum's
reflective meta-meta discussion about moralizer Coby Beck's remonstrative
meta discussion of commentator Espen Vestre's affront at apologizer Janos
Blazi's apology to Espen Vestre's commentary on Janos' insemination of the
most fascinating off-topic subject of prophet Nostradamus' abysmal quatrains
sparked and assiduously followed up by topic-sensitive prig Christopher
Browne that is relished and denounced by all, histrionically.
We are the world. The human nature of loftiness are sometimes laudably
delectable.
Geomancy genius Xah aft and fore-bodes that off-topicality exist in history
and will continue to exist till kingdom come: "thy shall be complacent nay
complain lest the spate of furor swallows the soul of confabulation, whence
the woe not the Tower of Babel but bower of babble."
If anyone have shit to say, say it with splendor. It is better to have
ingenious pests in comp.lang.lisp than inflamed superheroes babbling about
pestilence.
--
There are many philosophies towards netiquette. The most common treat
newsgroups as a conversation medium. Thus you see "me too"s and "thank you"s
and a plethora of one-sentence trivia and Question & Answer slipslops that
are valueless and meaningless to practically all except a few people for a
brief duration. As examples, comp.lang.lisp dwellers Tim Bradshaw and Rainer
Joswig's posts are typical of this style. Then at the other extreme is the
relatively rare Victorian propensity where each post is a gem of literature
carefully crafted and researched for an entire century of readers to
appreciate and archive. Xah, Erik Naggum, and Kent Pitman's posts are
exemplary of this style, to name a few acquaintances like myself.
The conversationalists emphasizes the notions of utility and community.
Utilities can include the exchanging of opinions, getting questions
answered, chatting, bounding a community, and advancing the group's
interests. (and trampling other communities' conflicting interests. (e.g.
"it's categorically unacceptable to bash lisp in lisp group".)) A good post
in the conversationalist's eyes is basically a post that makes everyone in
the group happy. The Rococo style posters are in general more scholarly and
emphasize on quality and value. The intrinsic quality of a post of the
Rococo stylists can be judged on content and presentation aspects. The
presentation part essentially means the poster's writing skills and effort
she put into posts. This fact is not highbrowism because communication using
newsgroups are mostly done in written form: wrote and read; not spoke and
heard. The criterions for judging a post's content are essentially the same
as that of a scholar's work in science or humanitarian diciplines, roughly
that of correctness, originality, or artistry. In this school of thought, it
is ok for example to bash lisp in comp.lang.lisp if the post has sound
arguments, original ideas, thought provoking, or otherwise has value (!very
funny!). Whether a post is on-topic is less important here because the focus
is on truth and enduring quality, not sheerly bending over for the group
agenda.
The two contrasting model of posters can be realized sharply by reading a
newsgroup archive of a particular poster. Go to a newsgroup archive such as
dejanews.com and search for your favorite poster. If you find a huge
quantity of terse posts that is tiring, boring, has little content, and in
general requires you to carefully follow the entire thread to understand it,
then you know you've bumped into a conversationalist. On the other hand, if
you find posts being usually lengthy and thoughtful and fairly complete by
itself, then you've met a scholarly mannered poster that is probably skilled
at writing as well. Please note that the conversational mannered posters are
not necessarily lousy writers, uncultured, or unappreciated, but usually
are.
If there must a purpose to this post, then it is that i urge those
conversationalists who insists on their brand of morality of netiquette to
at least double the time they spend on composing messages so that their
posts might have more value in a scholarly point of view, if they are
incapable or otherwise unwilling to broaden their minds into the
philosophies of netiquette. I'm here expanding their brain from the mundane
notion of noise/signal to revolutionary signal/value idea. You fucking
buckets of morons.
--
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
> Xah is the only real troll i recall having seen here in
> the 8 or so months i have subscribed to c.l.l
In _The Land of Oz_, there are two type of witches: the wicked witches of
East and West, and the good witches of North and South. In the land of
newsgroups, there are perhaps also different type of trolls. I can't say
they do good or bad, but i think they are much brainier then the gazillion
ignorant big-mouthing and shit-dropping fishes being involuntary victims of
troll.
Coby, you gotta give me a break and be specific. Say something like "Xah is
the only real troll genius who ignited thought productivity in the meager 8
months i've observed on c.l.l...." or "Xah is a born-again Hitler who stinks
inane ruckuses like a baby's cry...". This way, posterity can judge you
without guesswork. You'd have saved me the duty of following up with this
off-topic long meander. Why do you have to mention my name anyway? Out of
respect? Need a straw man? Your legs all wobbling in front of the
perspicacious Naggum? If for respect, I hereby humbly acknowledge that in
the eyes of scholars, 1 xah's message equals to 100 conversationalist's
slobber.
Rarely,
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> No one person speaks for this kind of a group. If someone engages in
> behavior that bothers you, it is much better to ignore it. If you must, and
> you *truly* feel it might be productive or beneficial, explain what you
> _feel_ is wrong and why and move on.
Well, that's what I did, after having been silent about his numerous
ridiculous comments for weeks, even one comment which made fun of
my english, which was irritating, not because it hurt my feelings
(it didn't, since his english was even worse)), but because it polluted
a thread which up to that point had been one of the few purely on-topic
ones of c.l.l. lately.
But your comment was on my second response, which, I agree, was
unneccesary - a *plonk* would have sufficed!
(and by the way, I barely know enough french to order a baguette ;-))
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> and by the way, I barely know enough french to order a baguette ;-)
Could you tell me what this is? I only know enough french to say goodbye :)
;) will
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> You don't realize that this newsgroup is for discussing lisp, and
> not some kind of tea party where you're free to discuss whatever
> boring subject you want (*)
Do you know South Park? The two military guys, one of which speaks
thru his windpipe? I have not seen much of South Park and I'm not
sure if I like it, but anyway, you remind me somewhat of them.
"There! It's moving towards us!" and then they shoot whatever was
moving, not necessarily towards them. I think they make use of some
regulation that you can shoot anything in self-defense, and then they
simply label everything as self-defense, even when there is no threat
whatsoever, invoking THE LAW. Don't be so silly.
ObLisp:
(defun x (p n) (do ((i 0 (1+ i)) (s 0 (+ s (* (aref p i) (expt n i))))) ((= i
37) s))) (let ((p #(78 91 29 77 90 51 71 91 86 24 54 55 119 16 104 62 42 58
121 80 10 124 48 102 79 22 12 116 27 34 37 100 16 83 115 40 126))) (do ((i 1
(1+ i))) ((= i 38)) (princ (int-char (mod (x p i) 127)))))
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
> 60% of the newest releases at sourceforge say "Lisp"!!
Including a re-implementation of Emacs Lisp that compiles to Java
bytecodes, based on Kawa and Swing (for the buffer support).
See http://JEmacs.sourceforge.net.
--
--Per Bothner
···@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/