Perl modules for Gmail

Josh McAdams, after a cool interview with Allison Randal, talked about Perl modules that he tried to use in order to pull off messages from his Gmail account. (Yeah, I know the podcast was in May: I'm slowly getting thru them :))He looked at Mail::Webmail::Gmail, WWW::Gmail, and Gmail::Checker. The last one was the only one that worked for him "out of the box". It was sorta funny tho', because I spent about two hours before listening to his podcast trying to work with Gmail via Net::SMTP::SSL. Unfortunately, I never got it to properly connect to Gmail, but (fortunately) I found out about Mail::Webmail::Gmail, and spent another half-hour making it work. Since I originally wanted to send mail from my Gmail account through a script, that was the only one I tried to get working out of the ones Josh mentioned (altho' I hadn't listened to his podcast yet :)).

Initially I didn't get it to work because the module was having trouble connecting with the SMTP server. Bummer. After fiddling around with it for a bit, I decided to do some googling. I finally got it working by finding an blog posting about it, and some guy named Julien put up a fixed Gmail.pm along with instructions to connect to Gmail these days (thank you Julien!). Anyway, sending mail has worked like a charm since then, so if you want to start scripting your Gmail stuff, you might want to check it out. Like I said before, I didn't check out other modules, but they may be better if you just want to check your mail and not send your mail.

[all posts in /tech/]  [permanent link]

vocative and third-person alternation
I love you, O Lord, my strength. The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. ... The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Most High uttered his voice, hailstones and coals of fire. And he sent out his arrows and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare at your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of your nostrils. ... For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God? the God who equipped me with strength and made my way blameless. For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God? the God who equipped me with strength and made my way blameless. He made my feet like the feet of a deer and set me secure on the heights. He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You have given me the shield of your salvation, and your right hand supported me, and your gentleness made me great. ... He made my feet like the feet of a deer and set me secure on the heights. He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You have given me the shield of your salvation, and your right hand supported me, and your gentleness made me great. ... The Lord lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted be the God of my salvation? the God who gave me vengeance and subdued peoples under me, who delivered me from my enemies; yes, you exalted me above those who rose against me; you rescued me from the man of violence.

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

holy rusted metal, batman!

The Better Bibles blog was started up by Wayne Leman, one of the co-moderators of the Bible Translation (mailing) List (BTL) . There always seems to be something new and interesting that's being posted, and it's hard for me to keep up with it. Anyway, Wayne e-mailed the BTL list and suggested we have a look-see at Mike Sangrey's post. His post reminded me of a book on discourse and dialog that I started (but never finished) last summer. Go check it out (either the book or his post) if you have the time.

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

comfort possible in Sheol?
I made the nations quake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to Sheol with those who go down to the pit. And all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the world below. They also went down to Sheol with it, to those who are slain by the sword; yes, those who were its arm, who lived under its shadow among the nations.

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

views of man v. God
So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall three years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider, and decide what answer I shall return to him who sent me." Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress. Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of man." [2 Sam. 24]

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

why was it a sin?
Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."...Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."[2 Sam. 24]

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

husband or no?...the law?

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

• the quotation Paul uses: didn't Sarah have a husband? why is he using this then?
• at the beginning, what is Paul's tone? is he encouraging them to listen to Christ as they tried so hard listen to the Law? is this just buttressing his argument immediately preceding this passage? (But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.)

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

cost of sacrifice
Then Araunah said to David, "Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him. Here are the oxen for the burnt offering and the threshing sledges and the yokes of the oxen for the wood. All this, O king, Araunah gives to the king." And Araunah said to the king, "The Lord your God accept you." But the king said to Araunah, "No, but I will buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing." [2 Sam. 24]

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

curse on everyone whether they do them or not?
Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them. [ Gal. 3] The one who does them shall live by them. [ Gal. 3] For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [ Gal. 3]

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

law and faith
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [Gal. 3] What does "in order that we might be justified by faith" mean? Is this result actually thought before the introduction of the law? I don't understand why the law was our guardian for us to be able to be justified by faith.

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

angelogy and unity of God
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. [ Gal. 3] What is he trying to say? Who is the intermediary? What is the relation of the intermediary to angels and God? My first guess would be the intermediary is Christ, but why do I say that and how is it supported?

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

Group Social Structure

Just finished reading an article about patterns of societies and groups that one should keep in mind when designing social software (hat tip to Alias). The author separates his talk into three sections: 1) why and how a group is its own worst enemy, 2) why is the social software explosion happening now, and 3) what things that, if integrated into social software, it support large-scale and long-lived groups. It's well worth the read.

[all posts in /tech/]  [permanent link]

racism in the media

One of my linguistics professors, Eric Bakovic, posted on Language Log about possible "systemic racism" in the media's coverage of Hurricane Katrina. He refers to an animated gif which shows that the verb "loot" is used for describing black people's activity, and "find" is used to described the same activity of white people. Many comments mention that the description of blacks "looting" is found in an AP article, while the description of whites "finding" is found in an AFP article, and since they are different news agencies, it somehow weakens the evidence for (word usage) racism by the media. Eric replies that he's just trying to show that there's systemic racism, i.e., that there's a problem 'with the distinction between "looting" and "finding", as the title of my post says explicitly, and with the fact that the former is attributed to blacks and the latter to whites.'

I decided to go to GoogleNews and Yahoo!News and search for "looting". There are articles by non-US media describing what was happening in New Orleans, yet none of them had pictures describing the looting: for each of these articles, there's no distinction made between "white finding" and "black looting". An article from Britain and an article from down under both mention that tourists even joined in the "looting", but unfortunately (for this post) neither give the skin color of the tourists. In response to Eric's problem with the distinction between "looting" and "finding", I think he'd have to suppose that the groups of tourists mentioned by the Aussies and Brits were comprised of blacks.

Eric makes clear that he's not suggesting malicious intent by the media, but I think there is a connection between malicious intent and systemic racism. For what it's worth, photographer Chris Graythen, who took the photo of the white people "finding", has stated here why he described them as "finding" and not "looting". From what he says, and from the use of the word "looting" by so many different sources without an accompanying photo/caption, I don't see the support for "the prevalent racism in the US media" (malicious, not systemic): the photo/caption pairs with "loot" and "find" are nugatory compared to the amount of articles I noticed. ( In truth, I actually didn't find any photo/image pairs). Of course, I'm writing this a few days after the AP and AFP articles were posted, so it may be that I just don't see the many photo/caption pairs with "loot" and "find", or it may be that those were all taken down when people like Kanye West spoke out about the inequality. If anyone knows where all these photo/caption pairs are, please let me know.

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]

one use only

Via /., there has been a Ninth Circuit ruling that states you violate patent law if you use a product more than specified by its container. Altho', in all likelihood, the individual will never get sued, it does make me consider how much sense judges have nowadays. As one slashdotter (mfh) said, "Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh?" I have yet to read the ruling, but I'm interested in how they're going to define "one use only".

With the way IP rulings are going these days, I'd define 'one use only' in court as, 'don't touch. EVER.' But in real life, it means 'use as much and however you want, and ignore those stupid jurists.'

On my audio entry I said "disc golf" it's my 3rd love or something like that.

Behind Jesus.
And my wife.

[all posts in /ling/]  [permanent link]