Horray for polynomials!

Wow, I must say, this is something I'd never expect. My opinion of him has increased ever so slightly.

When using a /me command from an IRC client, it is incorrectly handled on the webchat.

More specifically, when an IRC user uses the /me command, the ident string, instead of their nick, is shown.

For example:

[email protected] saying "/me jumps" shows up to webchat users as " ident: /me jumps" instead of "nick: /me jumps". This is obviously very confusing to webchat users if the nick and ident don't match.

Is it possible for someone to fix this? coughtomcough

–--
Edit:

Here are screenshots of the mentioned problem.

Also, although it didn't happen when I went back to take screenshots, no more than 5 minutes before I noticed this, the /me commands showed up like "ident: /me does something" instead of "* ident does something". Not sure if you fixed it that quickly or what

Does GTRU have any plans to implement IPv6 in the near future?

According to GTRU's policies, only one user may connect from a specific IP address, which, for most users, seems reasonable. Two different users on the same home ISP connection doesn't really make sense, however, I am considering colocating a server with some friends, mostly so we can torrent from it. Although we are 'friends' in the sense that we trust each other enough to contribute money to pay for this, sharing a single GTRU account leads to privacy issues; the FAQ mentions that boyfriends should be able to share what porn they watch with each other, but quite clearly we are not all boyfriends and that ideology isn't applicable to this situation. Even without the privacy issues, if we were to share an account, we would have to collectivize our ratio requirements; if one of our group members were to go on a downloading spree and then delete their torrents from the server as soon as it was done, it clearly would affect the ratio for us all, which really isn't fair and undermines the ratio requirement system.

We are seeking an IPv4 /29, so that we could each have our own IP, however, we plan on attempting to get more people to contribute to the pool to reduce our individual costs; thus, if we were to have more than 6 users, someone would have to share an IP, and if they happened to also use GTRU, under the current policy, they would be banned.

That said, we are also able to obtain an IPv6 /48, which would allow us all to have a seperate IP for each user (unless we were going to fit millions of users on a single server!), even if they are on the same physical machine, by simply assigning multiple addresses to the same interface and binding the torrent client run by each user to that address. This would solve both the privacy and ratio tracking issues.

There are free IPv6 tunnel providers if native support isn't available from your providers, and setting them up is pretty straightforward (and I'd be willing to help out if our admins aren't so versed in it). Even with the rather specific rationale I've provided, all of the IPv4 address space has been allocated to the RIRs from the IANA, and eventually IPv6 will be a requirement rather than an option for websites, lest they want to fade into obscurity. It seems like prime time for GTRU to get onboard the train to the future now while the fare is cheap, rather than wait until the last minute when there is no other option.

IRCのユーザーを助けることができます

めでたしめでたし 

Ah, yes, a book is tangible, however, it was just a single example that happens to be so. An example of non-tangible mutual definitions might be "thought", "思想", "idée" etc etc… Although I understand where you were going with that train of thought, it doesn't really hold up. Further, it wasn't really my point that the words are not ambiguous; it was just a simple thing that we can all agree on what is and what isn't a book, and we can all agree on what a thought is as well, even though it is literally impossible to point to one and say "that's a thought!"

As stated, language is wholly subjective. To illustrate my point in a better way, consider the word "bisexual". In common parlance, that word refers to someone who is sexually attracted to people of both genders. Some people who fit the "normal" definition of bisexual choose not to identify themselves as such, however. Are they not bisexual simply because they claim they are not? To the rest of the world, that is not the case-- they meet the standard definition of bisexual and are thus bisexual.

That said, let's pretend that a small group of people claim that science fiction novels are not "books", but instead that they are "agises". All other books retain the name "book". To the people inside that group, no agis is a book. Does it mean that is suddenly true for everyone? Of course, the answer is no. The word "book" only has its meaning because we all agree on what a book is.

Thus, although it's more than possible to assign whatever word we want to whatever object, concept or anything else, when communicating with other people, it is a necessity for the person you are speaking with to actually agree that whatever thing in question is actually what you say it is. To make a long story short, words need to be mutually intelligible for the content to be understood. When talking about things with different meanings to different people, defining them is the only real way to ensure mutual intelligibility is to expressly define the word(s) to include or exclude certain definitions.

For example, a potential ambiguity with "bisexual" would be being attracted to people whose DNA encodes the opposite gender, but they have had sexual reassignment surgery while still maintaining the physical traits of their biological gender. Ie, in simpler terms, a man being attracted to a female who still has breasts and other "feminine" traits but also has a penis because of reassignment surgery. Is the man in that case "bisexual" if he is also to such persons as well as "normal" females, but not "normal" males? The definition of "bisexual" is ambiguous there, and thus on a site like GTRU, if the definition is not clarified by the persons in charge of approving torrents, some people might be displeased to find their torrent rejected, while others might not (and vice-versa).

If you were to use "farnhamality" as a word, not only could I not prevent you from doing so, I could not stop it from entering the English language at large, no matter what meaning you assign it. That's the beauty of language– words only mean what we believe them to mean. Of course, this is the reason that we don't all speak the same language. A book, libro, livre, 本, 書, 책자, เล่ม etc etc all mean the same thing; but only in their respective languages (some share words, but that is besides the point).

The only way that we can 'bridge the gap' would be for all of us to more strictly define a particular word, or for us to coin a completely new one. That said, it would be pointless for us to do that, because since whichever we did, we would have to explain the new meaning or new word. In the particular case of GTRU's community, the fact that we are an international group, with many members that do not speak English well makes it seem a bit foolish to introduce neologisms, or to use non-standard definitions for already existing words.

@smithdtn:

I'm native speaker of Japanese.  ::)
though I haven't played the game, read some articles about it.
(official site: hXXp://ugcp.sakura.ne.jp/)

to me, 家、建てます！ sounds like "we (offer to) build your home!",
but probably "let's build…" was better as game title.
Ugh, it's difficult to me even just a few words!  :cheesy2:

I wouldn't say "home", because in English a home is any place that you live, versus "house" which is more specific. For example, an apartment isn't a house, but it is a home. A live-in caravan/camper/RV or boats with living quarters are another example of types of homes that are not houses.

Using "We offer to build your home!" isn't wrong per se, but you can't really take out "offer to" without putting something else in there, and in Japanese, the offer to do so is implied, and the speaker fully expects the listener to agree. This is more colloquially expressed in English as "Let's ________". For example, when suggesting to a friend that you want to go to a specific restaurant, you might say "Let's go to (name of restaurant)!". You are implying that you're offering to go to that place, and that you expect them to like it enough to agree. If you weren't sure that they'd like it, you might say "How about (name of restaurant)?". You could use that phrase here too– "How about we build your house?" if you weren't sure if the listener would take you up on the offer.

Most of the problem in translating stuff comes from small nuances like that!

Hm, I will have to think about this as I'm not sure if I have to time to commit to such a thing, and although I am good with Japanese, I certainly am not as good as a native speaker, and the language is full of colloquialisms and double-entendres that I admittedly am not the best at

In this particular case it was straightforward but in many it is not