Re: [9fans] converting to .ps/.pdf

Re: [9fans] converting to .ps/.pdf

[Scott Schwartz]

| Taking that one step further, how can I convert
| to a .pdf file within Plan9?

Use ghostscript.

[9fans] converting to .ps/.pdf

[William Staniewicz]

After composing a document in ACME or SAM,
is this a good way to convert to a .ps file format?

	lp -dstdout -pppost file.txt > file.ps

Taking that one step further, how can I convert
to a .pdf file within Plan9?

		-Bill

Re: [9fans] macro files with troff

[Scott Schwartz]

The Research Unix 10th Edition documentation is a good source for troff
related material.

[9fans] macro files with troff

[William Staniewicz]

I would like to begin using troff to prepare some
document files. So far, I have looked over
/sys/doc/troff.ps which includes the manual and
tutorial. It appears the easiest way to start is to
invoke troff with a standard macro/package like
-ms or -mm. The definitions for these I presume are in
/sys/lib/tmac.

When I begin writing the document with acme, how do I
identify all the 'requests' set in the packages? For example, Would I need
to look in /sys/lib/tmac/tmac.s for info on the -ms
package or is there a table set up for them somewhere?
Any other hints on how to begin using this would be
appreciated.

		-Bill

Re: [9fans] Acme definition

[George Michaelson]

The Epitome seems to embody almost all concepts Acme tried to reach for,
without the downside connotations. Plus, as an added benefit, it has only
one correct pronounciation but at least two plausible ones, permitting the
cogniscenti to discern those of a less 'au courant' comprehension.

Wiley should have learned from his mistakes. Nowadays, I suspect a smart
lawyer could injunct either Acme, or the new mexico roads department, possibly
both.

-George
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: ggm@dstc.edu.au    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au

[9fans] Acme definition

[William Staniewicz]

A friend asked me about the origin of the word "Acme".  My first
impulse was to consult the "OED", but not having one handy, I resorted
to some online sources.  Most neglected to include a reference to one
of my favorite contexts: The Roadrunner cartoon (btw, while living in
Texas, I actually saw one run across the street in front of my car, it
actually looked like the one in the Warner Bros' series and moved like
it too!).

Acme n.

[from Greek `akme', highest point of perfection or achievement] The
canonical supplier of bizarre, elaborate, and non-functional gadgetry
- where Rube Goldberg and Heath Robinson (two cartoonists who
specialized in elaborate contraptions) shop.  The name has been
humorously expanded as A (or American) Company Making Everything.  (In
fact, Acme was a real brand sold from Sears Roebuck catalogs in the
early 1900s.)  Describing some X as an "Acme X" either means "This is
insanely great", or, more likely, "This looks insanely great on paper,
but in practice it's really easy to shoot yourself in the foot with
it."  Compare pistol.

This term, specially cherished by American hackers and explained here
for the benefit of our overseas brethren, comes from the Warner
Brothers' series of "Roadrunner" cartoons.  In these cartoons, the
famished Wile E. Coyote was forever attempting to catch up with, trap,
and eat the Roadrunner.  His attempts usually involved one or more
high-technology Rube Goldberg devices - rocket jetpacks, catapults,
magnetic traps, high-powered slingshots, etc.  These were usually
delivered in large cardboard boxes, labeled prominently with the Acme
name.  These devices invariably malfunctioned in improbable and
violent ways.

		-Bill

Re: [9fans] Acme definition

[Dave Turner]

rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) wrote:

>	Nowadays, I suspect a smart lawyer could injunct either Acme, or the
>	new mexico roads department, possibly both.
>
>Ian Frazier wrote a story called "Coyote v. Acme" that later became the
>eponymous member of a book collecting his stories.

Here are "Coyote v. Acme" and Mr. Coyote's defense:







COYOTE V. ACME
In The United States District Court, Southwestern District, Tempe, Arizona
Case No. B19293, Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding

Wile E. Coyote, Plaintiff
-v.-
Acme Company, Defendant

Opening statement of Mr. Harold Schoff, attorney for Mr. Coyote:

     My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous
     states, does hearby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company,
     manufacturer and retail distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated
     in Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and territory.
     Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business
     income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions
     and/or gross negligence of said company, under  Title 15 of the United
     States Code, Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a),  relating to 
     product liability.
     
     Mr. Coyote states that on eighty-five separate occasions he has purchased
     of the Acme Company (hereinafter, "Defendant"), through that company`s 
     mail-order department, certain products which did cause him bodily injury
     due to defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labeling.  Sales
     slips made out to Mr. Coyote as proof of purchase are at present in the
     possession of the Court, marked Exhibit A.  Such injuries sustained by 
     Mr. Coyote have temporarily restricted his ability to make a living in 
     his profession of predator.  Mr. Coyote is self-employed and thus not 
     eligible for Workmen`s Compensation.  

      Mr. Coyote states that on December 13th he received of Defendant via
      parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled.  The intention of Mr. Coyote was to
      use the Rocket sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey.  Upon receipt of
      the Rocket Sled Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and
      sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition.  As 
      Mr. Coyote gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such
      sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Mr. Coyote`s forelimbs to a
      length of fifty feet.   Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote`s body shot
      forward with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck
      and placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled.  Disappearing over
      the horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its
      path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey.  At
      that moment the animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right.  
      Mr. Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable
      to, due to poorly designed steering on the Rocket Sled and a faulty or
      nonexistent braking system.  Shortly thereafter, the unchecked  progress
      of the Rocket Sled brought it and Mr. Coyote into collision with the
      side of a mesa.

      Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit B), prepared
      by Dr. Ernest Grosscup, M.D., D.O., details the multiple fractures,
      contusions, and tissue damage suffered by Mr. Coyote as a result of this
      collision.  Repair of the injuries required a full bandage around the
      head (excluding the ears), a neck brace, and full or partial casts on
      all four legs.

      Hampered by these injuries, Mr. Coyote was nevertheless obliged to
      support himself.  With this in mind, he purchased of Defendant as an
      aid to mobility one pair of Acme Rocket Skates.  When he attempted to
      use this product, however, he became involved in an accident remarkably
      similar to that which  occurred with the Rocket Sled.  Again, Defendant
      sold over the counter, without caveat, a product which attached powerful
      jet engines (in this case, two) to inadequate vehicles, with little or
      no provision for passenger safety.   Encumbered by his heavy casts, 
      Mr. Coyote lost control of the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them
      on, and collided with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a
      hole in the shape of his full silhouette.
      
      Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in this
      document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of 
      Defendant: the Acme "Little Giant" Firecracker, the Acme Self-Guided
      Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing, see the Acme Mail Order 
      Explosives Catalog and attached deposition, entered in evidence as
      Exhibit C.)  Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive
      purchased of Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner.
      To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and personal
      effort, Mr. Coyote constructed around the outer rim of a butte a wooden
      trough beginning at the top of the butte and spiraling downward  around 
      it to some few feet above a black X painted on the desert floor.  The
      trough was designed in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type
      sold by Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of
      detonation indicated by the X.  Mr. Coyote placed a generous pile of 
      birdseed directly on the X, and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb
      (Catalog #78-832), climbed to the top of the butte.  Mr. Coyote`s prey,
      seeing the birdseed,  approached, and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the
      fuse.  In an instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb
      to detonate.

      In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote`s careful preparations to naught,
      the premature detonation of Defendant`s product resulted in the
      following disfigurements to Mr. Coyote:

  1.  Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.
  2.  Sooty discoloration.
  3.  Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in the
      aftershock with a creaking noise.
  4.  Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling, and
      ashy disintegration.
  5.  Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.


      We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes.  The remains of a pair of
      these purchased by Mr. Coyote on June 23rd are Plaintiff`s Exhibit D. 
      Selected fragments have been shipped to the metallurgical laboratories
      of the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to
      date, no  explanation has been found for this product`s sudden and
      extreme malfunction.   As advertised by Defendant, this product is 
      simplicity itself: two wood-and-metal sandals, each attached to 
      milled-steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed in a 
      tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a lanyard release.
      Mr. Coyote believed that this product would enable him to pounce upon
      his prey in the initial moments of the chase, when swift reflexes are at
      a  premium.
     
      To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Mr. Coyote affixed
      them by their bottoms to the side of a large boulder.  Adjacent to the 
      boulder was a path which Mr. Coyote`s prey was known to frequent.  
      Mr. Coyote put his hind feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched 
      in readiness, his right forepaw holding firmly to the lanyard release.
      Within a short time Mr.  Coyote`s prey did indeed appear on the path
      coming toward him.  Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Mr. Coyote,
      well within range of the springs at full  extension.  Mr. Coyote gauged
      the distance with care and proceeded to pull the  lanyard release.

      At this point, Defendant`s product should have thrust Mr. Coyote forward
      and away from the boulder.  Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme
      Spring- Powered Shoes thrust the boulder away from Mr. Coyote.  As the
      intended prey looked on unharmed, Mr. Coyote hung suspended in air.
      Then the twin springs recoiled, bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent
      feet-first collision with the  boulder, the full weight of his head
      and forequarters falling upon his lower extremities.

      The force of this impact then caused the springs to rebound, whereupon
      Mr. Coyote was thrust skyward.  A second recoil and collision followed.
      The boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, had begun to
      bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling of the springs adding
      to its  velocity.  At each bounce, Mr. Coyote came into contact with
      the boulder, or the boulder cam into contact with Mr. Coyote, or both
      came into contact with the ground.  As the grade was a long one, this
      process continued for some time.

      The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to 
      Mr. Coyote, vix., flattening of the cranium, sideways displacement of
      the tongue, reduction of length of legs and upper body, and compression
      of vertebrae from base of tail to head.  Repetition of blows along a
      vertical axis produced a series of regular horizontal folds in 
      Mr. Coyote`s body tissues-- a rare and painful condition which caused
      Mr. Coyote to expand upward and  contract downward alternately as he
      walked, and to emit an off-key,  accordionlike wheezing with every step.
      The distracting and embarrassing  nature of this symptom has been a
      major impediment to Mr. Coyote`s pursuit of a normal social life.

      As the court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of
      manufacture and sale of goods required by Mr. Coyote's work.  It is
      our contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the
      detriment of  the consumer of such specialized products as itching
      powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and 
      two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands.  Much as he has come to mistrust
      Defendant's products, Mr. Coyote has no other domestic source of supply
      to which to turn.  One can only wonder what our  trading partners in
      Western Europe and Japan would make of such a situation, where a giant
      company is allowed to victimize the consumer in the most reckless and 
      wrongful manner over and over again.

      Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger
      economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of
      seventeen million dollars.  In addition, Mr. Coyote seeks actual
      damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional
      occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering,
      injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees
      of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars.  By awarding Mr. Coyote
      the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors,
      officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language
      they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to
      equal protection under the law.




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

_______________________________
WILE E. COYOTE,                :
Plaintiff                      :
                               :
vs.                            :    CIVIL ACTION NO. B19294
                               :
ACME COMPANY,                  :
Defendant                      :
_______________________________:

		OPENING STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. FUDDLE, ESQUIRE,
			     COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

By Mr. Fuddle:

	Ladies and Gentleman of the jury: the opening statement you have just
heard from Mr. Schoff on behalf of the plaintiff, Wile E. Coyote, paints an
incomplete picture of what occurred on the occasions when Mr. Coyote claims he
was injured by ACME products.

	The evidence will clearly show that my client, ACME Products Corp., a
Division of Dangerously Innovative Products and Patents Incorporated (or
"DIPPI") is not at fault in this matter, and that any injuries sustained by the
plaintiff were clearly caused by his own negligence, assumption of the risk
and/or misuse of the products.

	Now, we have all seen the footage on television of the plaintiff
withstanding various injuries which appear to be caused by ACME's products.
You have seen over and over the tape of a hapless coyote being bludgeoned by a
boulder as he is helplessly trapped by his ACME Spring Loaded Shoes.  We have
all seen the photographs taken at Warner Memorial Hospital of Mr. Coyote in a
very small incubator, on life support, as his doctors attempt to straighten out
the accordion-like folds from his body.  We have all seen the gruesome images
of the operation in which Dr. Tazmanian D. Devil whirls like a dervish,
obscuring his features and creating a starry, "dust cloud" effect, while
numerous limbs holding various surgical instruments swiftly repair the nerve
damage to Mr. Coyote's extremities.

	It is normal for any human being to feel pity, horror, and even anger
at such images.  I want you to put those images aside for the moment, because
they paint an incomplete picture.  What the media has not disclosed to you, and
what you will see in this courtroom, are various attempts at murder committed
by the plaintiff - attempts which, fortunately, failed - while using my
client's products.  As the plaintiff readily admits, he is a predator, and his
sole function in life is to track down and kill an innocent, highway traversing
ornithoid.

	You see, ladies and gentleman, while the plaintiff is a natural
predator, he is not a very good one.  His own skills were inadequate to
complete the task at hand, so he chose to seek the aid of various devices to
effectuate his diabolical schemes.  He looked in a catalogue, saw my client's
products, and ordered them in the hope that they would assist him in killing
his prey.

	But ladies and gentleman, ACME's products are not meant to cause
intentional harm to anyone.  The plaintiff has taken what were designed as
amusements, toys for the young and feebleminded, and has twisted their use to
his own purposes.

	But I digress.  Let us examine the plaintiff's claims and how the
evidence clearly refutes the proposition that ACME is responsible for any harm
sustained by the plaintiff.

	Mr. Coyote states that on December 13 he received an ACME Rocked Sled,
that he attempted to use said rocket sled to pursue his prey, and that, upon
igniting the sled, it accelerated with "sudden and precipitate force as to
stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of fifty feet."

	There are several reasons why ACME cannot be held responsible for any
injuries caused by this incident.  First, the warning label attached
conspicuously to the inside of the left front tire of the sled clearly stated,
and I quote: "WARNING: IGNITION OF THIS DEVICE AT FULL THROTTLE MAY CAUSE
SUDDEN AND PRECIPITATE FORCE AS TO STRETCH USER'S FORELIMBS TO A LENGTH OF UP
TO SIXTY FEET, OR MAY CAUSE DEATH."  That the plaintiff suffered so little as a
result of his carelessness can be attributed only to Providence.

	Second, Arizona law is clear on this point: a plaintiff who is found to
be violating any law whose purpose is safety at the time of his injury is
contributorily negligent *per se*.  There is ample evidence that Mr. Coyote was
violating both the laws of gravity and inertia at the time of this incident,
and thus he is responsible for his own woes.

	I could list many more examples of Mr. Coyote's negligent conduct in
connection with his use of ACME's products, but you will hear all about them as
the trial goes on.  You will also hear the following evidence:

   (1)	You will hear the plaintiff himself testify that, prior to the injuries
	complained of in this accident, he has suffered numerous injuries.  As
	an example, on one occasion prior to the use of any ACME product, the
	plaintiff cornered his prey on the edge of a rather thin precipice.
	Taking an ordinary saw, the plaintiff began cutting away so that the
	edge of the cliff, with his prey on it, would drop some 1500 feet to a
	jagged, rocky destruction.  Instead, by some inexplicable twist of fate
	the edge of the cliff remained standing while the whole mountain, on
	which the plaintiff was standing, plummeted to the bottom of the
	ravine, causing numerous injuries which affect the plaintiff to this
	day.

	On another occasion, Mr. Coyote was chasing his prey and followed it
	off of the edge of a cliff onto thin air, not realizing until too late 
	that his prey, a bird, could remain in the air almost indefinitely 
	while he, a canine, could not.  As a result, he fell yet again,
	suffering even further severe and debilitating injuries which predate 
	the injuries complained of in this action.

   (2)	You will also hear the testimony of Mr. Road Runner, the plaintiff's
	prey and the true victim in this tragedy. Mr. Runner has been forced
	to live a nomadic lifestyle as a result of Mr. Coyote's unwanted
	attention, preventing him from forming any type of long term
	relationships.  Numerous restraining orders had no effect.  Mr. Runner
	has also suffered numerous psychological problems as a result of Mr.
	Coyote's actions, including but not limited to an inability to trust
	anyone who provides him with bird seed, a necessary ingredient in his
	daily nutritional schedule.

   (3)	You will also hear from a witness to many of the incidents alleged in
	plaintiff's complaint, a colorful local prospector with red hair and
	moustache who has been known to proclaim: "No rootin' tootin' coyote
	can outsmart Yosemite Sam on any day of the week!"  Don't be fooled by
	his gruff manner and twin pearl-handled six-shooters, he's a pussycat.

   (4)	Customer service records of defendant ACME, which we were forced to
	produce in this matter, clearly show that none of the complaints
	registered by ACME's customers nation-wide have ever resulted in
	criminal convictions of the officers of the corporation.

   (5)	Finally, videotape evidence will demonstrate that plaintiff faked many
	of his injuries, setting out to create performances especially for a
	jury such as yourself.  On numerous occasions he would "mug" for the
	camera, as if he was well aware beforehand that he was being taped.
	For instance, during the "Rocked Sled" incident, as his forelimbs were
	stretched out ahead of him and his body remained behind, he looked 
	straight into the camera with a forlorn, tired expression, as if to
	say: "look at how terrible my situation is, can you guess what's going
	to happen to me now."  This jury is too smart to fall for such petty
	theatrics.

	In summary, ladies and gentlemen, it will be clear to you from the
evidence that ACME's products, if used properly, will cause only minimal
injuries to a user and his loved ones.  The plaintiff in this case has brought
his troubles upon himself by adopting his carnivorous lifestyle.  As others
have so adequately uttered: "Live by the Super Slick Jet Propulsion Automated
Explosive Metal-Shearing Heat-Seeking Laser-Guided Razor-Edged Boomerang, die
by the Super Slick, etc."

	I ask you, on behalf of my client, to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
against it.

Re: [9fans] Acme definition

[rob pike]

	Nowadays, I suspect a smart lawyer could injunct either Acme, or the
	new mexico roads department, possibly both.

Ian Frazier wrote a story called "Coyote v. Acme" that later became the
eponymous member of a book collecting his stories.

-rob

Re: [9fans] Acme definition

[rob pike]

Not exactly.

-rob