Wordsmith.org
Posted By: dxb For lack of a link the post was lost - 02/03/04 11:41 AM
Well...not quite that bad.

But the live url links on the board don't work for me any more; not even when it's me that posted them. I have to copy them into Word and open them from there. Does anyone else suffer this or is it just me?

haven't noticed that yet. try a different browser?

Posted By: dxb Re: For lack of a link the post was lost - 02/03/04 12:11 PM
I'll try at home, but I don't have that facility here. Always used to work OK. Niggle, niggle, moan, moan.

Maybe you should stop rhyming post with lost, dixbie. USn servers can only take so much.

once again, ASp, yul have shone us the way...


Posted By: dxb Re: For lack of a link the post was lost - 02/03/04 12:43 PM
...the postess with the mostess.

Posted By: Jackie Re: For lack of a link the post was lost - 02/03/04 12:56 PM
Oh, man--thanks for the laughs, you-all! What a great wake-up!

Posted By: Faldage Recursion - 02/03/04 01:02 PM
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=announcements&Number=123143

Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: Recursion - 02/03/04 01:20 PM
to the moon, Alice!

Posted By: tsuwm Re: Recursion - 02/03/04 01:56 PM
interestingly, (my instantiation of) IE will only open one(1) extra window for this.

Posted By: dxb Re: Recursion - 02/04/04 02:46 PM
Well, our IS&T people have just satisfied their need to go through a mysterious process, they say to 'migrate me to a different domain'. Whatever that may mean, coincidentally it seems to have solved my problem and those links are now live. But I've also lost a lot of other stuff - hopefully they can recover it.

Posted By: musick The Department of redundancy department - 02/04/04 04:38 PM
I wo(ca)n't explain... but don't feel *all alone on this one, tsuwm.

************

dxb - Yeah, it sounded like a dns issue from here...

Posted By: dxb Re: The Department of redundancy department - 02/04/04 05:16 PM
Oh, good. Please don't explain!

Posted By: Bingley Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 04:38 AM
Since when has migrate been a transitive verb?

Bingley
Gives me a headache just thinking about it.

Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: aspirin to greater things... - 02/05/04 10:16 AM
I'm going to take that with a graine of salt, TEd...

Posted By: Faldage Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 11:42 AM
Since when has migrate been a transitive verb?

OED lists a passive usage from late 18th century.

Posted By: wwh Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 01:45 PM
Dear dxb: I hope your migration is not like that of birds,
back and forth seasonally.

Posted By: dxb Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 05:19 PM
No, Dr Bill. They're closing down my old domain. There's no going back.

Migrate has been used as a transitive verb by our IS&T people for some time now. It should be getting used to its expanded role.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 05:32 PM
This site suggests 'move' instead of 'migrate' in this context:

http://www.office-futures.com/tech_talk.htm

I dunno, Seems like 'move' doesn't quite have the necessary connotations. Maybe 'port' is a better choice, but I'm not exactly sure what meaning the word is supposed to be carrying. 'Port' would imply that some computer program was being adapted for a different platform than the one it was originally designed for. What is being 'migrated?'

Posted By: tsuwm Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 05:46 PM
>What is being 'migrated?'

I took it that dxb was migrated to a diffenent environment.

Posted By: Faldage Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 05:48 PM
I'm sorry, I hadn't gone back far enough in the thread. Yeah, parbly 'move' would have been a better word.

Posted By: Capfka Re: Recursion - 02/05/04 09:44 PM
Please, please, please let's not get into another slagging match over IT terminology. I'm aware that it's terminally flawed from a prescriptivist viewpoint - which rather pleases me, actually - but irregardably I gotta live with it. I'll migrate anything anywhere in IT without so much as a nod to the transitivity or otherwise of migrate in a strictly grammatical sense. If a thing needs architecting, then architect it I will. If an object needs orientating, I'll orientate it with the best of 'em. Life's just too short.

Posted By: consuelo Harrumph! - 02/05/04 10:42 PM
That's irregardably®, sir.

Posted By: Capfka Re: bah, humbug! - 02/05/04 10:48 PM
Please, please, please let's not get into another slagging match over IT terminology. I'm aware that it's terminally flawed from a prescriptivist viewpoint - which rather pleases me, actually - but irregardably© I gotta live with it. I'll migrate anything anywhere in IT without so much as a nod to the transitivity or otherwise of migrate in a strictly grammatical sense. If a thing needs architecting, then architect it I will. If an object needs orientating, I'll orientate it with the best of 'em. Life's just too short.

Sorry ma'am ...

Posted By: consuelo Please remit cheque - 02/05/04 11:13 PM


Posted By: TEd Remington Decomposing - 02/06/04 01:08 PM
Some years back I was in a meeting with a bunch of IT types, and one of the mentioned that he had to decompose the program. Having heard the joke about Ludvig decomposing music, I quickly figured out what he meant without making a fool out of myself.

Then I said, "I guess that's a pretty rotten job." Not ONE, not ONE of those people got it. And it was at that point that I realized I was really beginning to look forward to retiring.

© Wordsmith.org