Usted buscó: when do we start , general (Inglés - Vasco)

do we close this program when searching?
programa hau itxi behar da bilatzean?

do we search for "jiten" on startup
abioan "jiten" bilatu behar dugun

and said unto him, art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
erran cieçon, hi aiz ethorteco cen hura, ala berce baten beguira gaude?

do we provoke the lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
ala nahi dugu asserre eraci iauna? ala hura baino borthitzago gara?

then came to him the disciples of john, saying, why do we and the pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
orduan ethor citecen harengana ioannesen discipuluac, cioitela, cergatic guc eta phariseuéc barur eguiten dugu maiz, eta hire discipuluéc ezpaitute baruric eguiten?

when you suspend and then resume, acpi does not seem to send the "lid open" event like it should, which i presume is because userspace is not in a position to handle the kernel event when we start to thaw userspace processes.
eseki eta berrekin ondoren, badirudi acpik ez duela bidaltzen "lid open" (estalkia irekita) gertaera beharko lukeen bezala, eta agian hori gertatzen da erabiltzailearen espazioa ez dagoelako nukleo-egoera kudeatzeko egoeran, halako erabiltzaile-espazioen prozesuak abiarazten ditugunean.

do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
hatsen gara berriz gure buruén gommendatzen? ala behar dugu batzuc beçala, epistola gommendagarriric çuetara, edo çuetaric gommendagarriric?

if you are unsure whether your report is the same, follow the main options to tentatively mark your crash as a duplicate of that report. this is usually the safest thing to do. we cannot uncombine bug reports, but we can easily merge them.
txosten berdina den ziur ez bazaude, jarraitu aukera nagusiak tentuz zure kraskadura txosten horren bikoiztu gisa markatzeko. normalean egin daitekeen seguruena. ezin ditugu elkartutako akats txostenak banatu, baino oso erraz bateratu ditzakegu. @ info/ rich

assume that, in the figure below, we start off knowing that the top left square is mined and so the two squares marked 2 on the left only require one more mine. next observe that the left-most 2 implies that one of the covered squares beneath it is mined, but we don't yet know which one. since at least one of these squares is mined and they are both neighbors of the second 2 then we know that that 2 is also satisfied by one of these two squares (we still don't know which one). this means that the square beneath the 4 is clear because it is also a neighbor of the second 2 and not one of the two squares we identified previously. this one blank square now leaves the 4 with only four neighbors - all of which must be mines. not only does it tell us which mines surround the 4, it now tells us which of the squares beside the 2 is mined!
eman dezagun azpiko irudian badakigula goiko ezkerreko laukiak mina bat duela. beraz, 2 zenbakiaz markatuta ezkerretara dituen bi laukiek mina bakarra behar dute. jarraian, kontuan har ezazu ezker-ezkerrean dagoen 2 horrek adierazten duela azpian estalita dauden laukietako batek mina bat duela, nahiz eta oraindik ez dakigun zeinek. lauki horietako batek mina bat duenez, eta guztiak 2 horren ondoan daudenez, badakigu 2 hori bi lauki horietako batek asetzen duela (oraindik ez dakigu zein laukik). horrek esan nahi du 4aren azpian dagoen laukia hutsik dagoela, bigarren 2 horren alboan baitago eta ez da aurrez identifikatu dugun bi laukietako bat. lauki huts horrek, beraz, lau lauki uzten ditu 4 horren inguruan –guztiek minak izan behar dute. ez digu soilik esaten zein diren 4a inguratzen duten minak, baizik minak 2aren inguruko zein laukitan dauden ere esaten digu.