[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Windows + IRB problems

martinus

12/2/2004 3:10:00 PM

Hi, I have installed the ruby windows installer, but irb seems to have
a strange problem: It is impossible to enter the squared brackets [ and
]. Neither the keyboard, nor copy & paste works. Does anyone else have
this problem? I have installed the release Ruby182-14.

martinus
15 Answers

Henrik Horneber

12/2/2004 3:20:00 PM

0

martinus wrote:

> Hi, I have installed the ruby windows installer, but irb seems to have
> a strange problem: It is impossible to enter the squared brackets [ and
> ]. Neither the keyboard, nor copy & paste works. Does anyone else have
> this problem? I have installed the release Ruby182-14.
>
> martinus
>

This has come up quite a lot recently.

I suppose you're stuck with a non-us keyboard (layout), German for example?

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-t... is a
good starting point, and as far as I know, _why had this covered in his
poignant guide (even though I am too lazy to search for it right now ;) )

Hope this helps!

regards,
Henrik

George Kerby

2/13/2012 1:43:00 AM

0




On 2/12/12 8:10 PM, in article p-ydndTqrtnZ-KXSnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@mchsi.com,
"Bible Studies with Satan" <bible@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pepe Le Jew wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <a3befa3a-f551-46ab-8dfa-01ac9d00b789@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>> wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 6:40???pm, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> "Pepe Le Jew" <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:Pepster-F4D73A.14471812022012@news.giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> In article <jh96v9$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally in
>>>>>> opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
>>>>
>>>>> So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that gives
>>>>> government the right to force policies on that church that conflict with
>>>>> the tenets of the faith.
>>>>
>>>> The requirement is not on the church but on businesses operated by the
>>>> church that deal with the public good which is distantly NOT a matter of
>>>> faith.
>>>>
>>>> The issue has been legislated in ~ 20 states and adjudicated.
>>>>
>>>> Recall the faith based imitative of the Bush admin? ???In theory the only
>>>> way religious organization could get access to those funds if they agreed
>>>> to keep religious doctrine out of the game. ???Same applies to the business
>>>> side (and running a NP is still a business operation).
>>>>
>>>> Last I checked there is not Holy Order of St. Insurance or a Baptist
>>>> divinity degree in actuarial science. ??? Clams of a Law Degree in Biblical
>>>> law are a stretch and not recognized by any of the Bar in any state that I
>>>> know of.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised the Obama administration hasn't used that as an argument
>>> in its favor.
>>
>> Do Muslim-run charities offer pork products?
>
> Do pork products prevent you from gettin pregnant?

Do you have any evidence?

George Kerby

2/13/2012 1:46:00 AM

0




On 2/12/12 8:13 PM, in article p-ydndfqrtlS-KXSnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@mchsi.com,
"Bible Studies with Satan" <bible@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pepe Le Jew wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <2846d42a-156e-4b37-9445-7b9bb51ca006@m7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
>> wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 12, 6:21???pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> ???wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, Virginia, there really is a difference between a church and
>>>>>>> its religion and religious-affiliated institutions that are not
>>>>>>> religions.
>>>>
>>>>>> But, it is their similarity and connection to the church which are the
>>>>>> salient issue.
>>>>
>>>>> That kind of logic is like saying corporations are persons.
>>>>
>>>> That logic won.
>>>
>>> And actual real persons lost.
>>
>> Whatever you say.
>>
>> Unions and Newspapers sure didn't like the decision, but regardless...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's
>>>>> stupid logic.
>>>>
>>>> To you maybe, but not to the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court hasn't tackled this specific issue yet.
>>
>> Maybe you shouldn't have introduced Citizens United to the argument then.
>>
>>
>>> Try not to
>>> still be fuzzy about this, it's about religious-affiliated
>>> institutions, not churches or religion itself. That's the fine
>>> dividing line.
>>
>>
>> Once again they are arms of the church.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> ???Religious-affiliated institutions are not religions and
>>>>> invariably employ people of all faiths, not just a single shared
>>>>> faith.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't matter, no-one is compelling them to do anything against
>>>> their will if they are employed there.
>>>
>>> The government isn't compelling religious institutions to offer health
>>> plans either, they can simply opt out by not being involved in
>>> delivering any health plans at all, problem solved.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, they will face heavy financial penalties for not complying with the
>> demands of he new health care regime.
>>
> I'd love to see the government suck some money out of the church instead of it
> always being the other way around!
>

So did a certain English king. You see the shit that started?!? Bet you hate
dem apples, eh?

Pepe Le Jew

2/13/2012 1:49:00 AM

0

In article <jh9ket$asj$1@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> "Pepe Le Jew" <Pepster@zionet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pepster-E9FB1A.15244512022012@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <noOdnRynJJYlt6XSnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@mchsi.com>,
> > Bible Studies with Satan <bible@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jane wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Feb 12, 3:47 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <jh96v9$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that
> >> >> gives
> >> >> government the right to force policies on that church that conflict
> >> >> with
> >> >> the tenets of the faith.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's fun to watch liberals, presumably freeing the oppressed, champion
> >> >> political behavior which historically leads to oppression.
> >> >
> >> > Liberals only support minority rights if that minority votes democrat.
> >>
> >> We support labor rights. If a person is hired to work in a hospital, they
> >> should
> >> get the same national health insurance as other hospitals provide.
> >
> > Unless that would violate the charter of the the institution.
>
> Charter of the institution must comply with the law of the state. This has
> been adjudicated, the state won.

Can you cite Catholic institutions or charity in these states that now
provide these disputed services and goods?

One will do.

> People who apply to work in these institutions are aware of the charter,
> > and what insurance will or will not cover.
> >
> > And the institutions are supposedly protected by the Constitution.
>
> Not too long ago it was part of some charters and land deeds that blacks
> could not own land in designated areas.


As much as it is instinctual to equate every struggle to the struggle of
Africans in the modern world, in this case it is the American Government,
not the Catholic Church, who is projecting their will and restricting
choice.

It doesn't matter, the rule won't stand, but that will be decided, like
everything else, after the election. This is a calculated political
decision to trap Republicans, we'll see how smart the machine is.

Pepe Le Jew

2/13/2012 1:56:00 AM

0

In article
<4201460d-d675-4577-b38b-4de53b1fa698@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 7:18?pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > In article <jh9ilu$td...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > "Pepe Le Jew" <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote in message
> > >news:Pepster-F4D73A.14471812022012@news.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <jh96v9$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >> BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally in
> > > >> opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
> >
> > > > So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that gives
> > > > government the right to force policies on that church that conflict
> > > > with
> > > > the tenets of the faith.
> >
> > > The requirement is not on the church but on businesses operated by the
> > > church that deal with the public good which is distantly NOT a matter of
> > > faith.
> >
> > "Businesses operated by the Church".
> >
> > The important part being "Church".
>
> You just negated it all by calling it "businesses". A business is not
> a religion, regardless of who operates it. Example:

Hint: Your argument will never be used by the administration.

wy

2/13/2012 2:05:00 AM

0

On Feb 12, 8:56 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4201460d-d675-4577-b38b-4de53b1fa...@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 7:18 pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > In article <jh9ilu$td...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > > "Pepe Le Jew" <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:Pepster-F4D73A.14471812022012@news.giganews.com...
> > > > > In article <jh96v9$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >> BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally in
> > > > >> opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
>
> > > > > So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that gives
> > > > > government the right to force policies on that church that conflict
> > > > > with
> > > > > the tenets of the faith.
>
> > > > The requirement is not on the church but on businesses operated by the
> > > > church that deal with the public good which is distantly NOT a matter of
> > > > faith.
>
> > > "Businesses operated by the Church".
>
> > > The important part being "Church".
>
> > You just negated it all by calling it "businesses".  A business is not
> > a religion, regardless of who operates it.  Example:
>
> Hint: Your argument will never be used by the administration.

And yet, you're unable to argue to the contrary that a business is a
religion.

Bible Studies with Satan

2/13/2012 2:09:00 AM

0

Pepe Le Jew wrote:

> In article <jh9ilu$td0$2@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> "Pepe Le Jew" <Pepster@zionet.com> wrote in message
>> news:Pepster-F4D73A.14471812022012@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <jh96v9$qdd$1@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally in
>> >> opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
>> >
>> >
>> > So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that gives
>> > government the right to force policies on that church that conflict with
>> > the tenets of the faith.
>>
>> The requirement is not on the church but on businesses operated by the
>> church that deal with the public good which is distantly NOT a matter of
>> faith.
>
>
> "Businesses operated by the Church".
>
> The important part being "Church".

Go complain to your mommy, because the Supreme Court ain't gonna hear your case.
Been there, done that.

>
>> The issue has been legislated in ~ 20 states and adjudicated.
>
> So you're telling me that catholic charities and businesses in these
> states provide BC coverage.

They do in Canada and France and the UK, and Germany.
>
> That would be news to the Church in those states.
>
>> Recall the faith based imitative of the Bush admin? In theory the only way
>> religious organization could get access to those funds if they agreed to
>> keep religious doctrine out of the game. Same applies to the business side
>> (and running a NP is still a business operation).
>
> These businesses operate o funds from the Church, they are not seeing
> State aid, especially if it requires them to violate the tenets pf theor
> faith.
>
>> Last I checked there is not Holy Order of St. Insurance or a Baptist
>> divinity degree in actuarial science. Clams of a Law Degree in Biblical
>> law are a stretch and not recognized by any of the Bar in any state that I
>> know of.
>
> The constitution recognizes the Church's position in this matter.
>
> The courts will as well, but after the election when Obama won't care.
> Neither will the left.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...
Ezekiel 23:20

Bible Studies with Satan

2/13/2012 2:11:00 AM

0

Pepe Le Jew wrote:

> In article
> <a3befa3a-f551-46ab-8dfa-01ac9d00b789@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 6:40?pm, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> > "Pepe Le Jew" <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:Pepster-F4D73A.14471812022012@news.giganews.com...
>> >
>> > > In article <jh96v9$qd...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >> BTW Catholic is a sub set of Christianity much of which is totally in
>> > >> opposition to the Catholic doctrin.
>> >
>> > > So, if the flock is not following the tenets of their faith, that gives
>> > > government the right to force policies on that church that conflict with
>> > > the tenets of the faith.
>> >
>> > The requirement is not on the church but on businesses operated by the
>> > church that deal with the public good which is distantly NOT a matter of
>> > faith.
>> >
>> > The issue has been legislated in ~ 20 states and adjudicated.
>> >
>> > Recall the faith based imitative of the Bush admin? ?In theory the only
>> > way religious organization could get access to those funds if they agreed
>> > to keep religious doctrine out of the game. ?Same applies to the business
>> > side (and running a NP is still a business operation).
>> >
>> > Last I checked there is not Holy Order of St. Insurance or a Baptist
>> > divinity degree in actuarial science. ? Clams of a Law Degree in Biblical
>> > law are a stretch and not recognized by any of the Bar in any state that I
>> > know of.
>>
>> I'm surprised the Obama administration hasn't used that as an argument
>> in its favor.
>
> Do Muslim-run charities offer pork products?

Do pork products prevent you from gettin pregnant?

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...
Ezekiel 23:20

Bible Studies with Satan

2/13/2012 2:13:00 AM

0

Pepe Le Jew wrote:

> In article
> <2846d42a-156e-4b37-9445-7b9bb51ca006@m7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
> wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 6:21?pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
>
>> > ?wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > And yes, Virginia, there really is a difference between a church and
>> > > > > its religion and religious-affiliated institutions that are not
>> > > > > religions.
>> >
>> > > > But, it is their similarity and connection to the church which are the
>> > > > salient issue.
>> >
>> > > That kind of logic is like saying corporations are persons.
>> >
>> > That logic won.
>>
>> And actual real persons lost.
>
> Whatever you say.
>
> Unions and Newspapers sure didn't like the decision, but regardless...
>
>
>> >
>> > > It's
>> > > stupid logic.
>> >
>> > To you maybe, but not to the Supreme Court.
>>
>> The Supreme Court hasn't tackled this specific issue yet.
>
> Maybe you shouldn't have introduced Citizens United to the argument then.
>
>
>> Try not to
>> still be fuzzy about this, it's about religious-affiliated
>> institutions, not churches or religion itself. That's the fine
>> dividing line.
>
>
> Once again they are arms of the church.
>
>
>> >
>> > > ?Religious-affiliated institutions are not religions and
>> > > invariably employ people of all faiths, not just a single shared
>> > > faith.
>> >
>> > That doesn't matter, no-one is compelling them to do anything against
>> > their will if they are employed there.
>>
>> The government isn't compelling religious institutions to offer health
>> plans either, they can simply opt out by not being involved in
>> delivering any health plans at all, problem solved.
>
>
>
> No, they will face heavy financial penalties for not complying with the
> demands of he new health care regime.
>
I'd love to see the government suck some money out of the church instead of it
always being the other way around!

>
>
>
>> See how this is
>> all just an artificial issue?
>
>
> Yes, created by the Obama administration for political purposes.
>
>
>> > > That's the difference that seems to get real fuzzy for
>> > > Repugnants and religious wackos but is perfectly crystal clear in the
>> > > real sane world.
>> >
>> > You're endorsing the State's action to take away a protected right, for
>> > the supposed benefit of people who have made a choice.
>>
>> No, I'm endorsing the State's action to protect those of other faiths
>> to not have to be subjected to the rules and whims and beliefs of
>> another faith not shared.
>
>
> These people are not compelled to follow any religious practice.
>
> You're just going in circles because you refuse to recognize the obvious.
> The church is not compelling anyone to do anything, it's the state.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...
Ezekiel 23:20

Pepe Le Jew

2/13/2012 2:24:00 AM

0

In article
<b0155810-55dc-4bdf-9b2a-e274d5e4d0c5@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
wy <wy_@myself.com> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 7:37?pm, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:

> > Once again they are arms of the church.
>
> But they are not churches nor religions. The fuzziness just won't
> leave you, huh?

A Catholic school is not a church, nor is a Catholic hospital.

Do either provide any avenue to birth control or abortion?