Slashdot Mirror

Cornflicker was a non-event for those who had installed the patch months before the worm began to do it's thing.

Although it's quite funny to see you so arrogantly prescribe incorrect grammar, I feel obligated to inform you that you've got it backwards.

Or perhaps it's his lack of apostrophes.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/its.html

fuck you

From http://www.misticsoftware.com//

Mistic Software is an independent developer located in Montreal, Canada. Mistic has spread its success across the world, adding subsidiaries in France and the Ukraine.

I wonder why Ukraine got emphasized over Canada and France.
And, BTW, it's just Ukraine, no 'the' necessary: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ukraine.html/

to breathe. There is room to BREATHE.
Breathe is a verb. It rhymes with "seethe". Ex: "I seethe with anger over usage errors so badly that I cannot breathe".
Breath is a noun. It rhymes with "death", Ex: "Your failure to grasp this distinction takes by breath away."
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/breath.html

...the use of apostrophes with initialisms like "learn your ABC's and "mind your P's and Q's" is now so universal as to be acceptable in almost any context.

This makes for a good example of why the word 'Nazi' gets used...

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/myriad.html

Some traditionalists object to the word âoeofâ after âoemyriadâ or an âoeaâ before, though both are fairly common in formal writing.

Surely some of the comments offer better fodder for your zealotry...

And they do http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-meteor/strikes.html.

God dammit! It's discrete, not discreet!
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/discreet.html

1) The Code of Hammurabi was not an organized law code in the sense that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis (aka. the Codex Justinianus) was. It was more like a compiled set of legal precedents, some of which are complex and arcane. It is NOT a good example of a "simple" legal system. It was, however, a unified set of precedents that applied across the entire empire, as opposed to every city having their own probably differing precedents.

2) The society of Hammurabi was NOT vastly simpler. Read up on the laws and society of ancient Babylon sometime; it some ways, it was surprisingly modern... not unlike ancient Rome in that respect.

3) Bodies of law seem to grow like kudzu until some one with extra-legal powers comes along and whacks the thicket back down to something manageable, and says, "This will now be the law of the land". They become known in history as "lawgivers", then the simplified system grows kudzu for the next thousand years... (cf. Sulla, Justinian, Draco, Solon, Napoleon... or check out legal codes in general.)

4) ...or someone tries to collate the body of law and precedents into a work that explains it in a reasonable fashion--something like taking the kudzu and arranging it on a trellis. (cf. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England). (NB: Blackstone is the definitive source for pre-Revolutionary War Common Law in the United States).

I believe you meant "lose" http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/lose.html

Drunk and pissed off enough to think you didn't see my accidentally anonymous post. Therefore I'm reposting now. CBA putting the formatting in so if you have serious trouble viewing it then check out the AC post for a properly formatted response. _______________________________________ Ok, let's start from your assertion: ""But to the extent that there are any rules for such things, "disk", in the context of computing, is spelled with a "k"."" This is, at this moment, untrue. I pulled these links from a (very) quick google search on "disc vs disk" so bear in mind they're not neccessarily 100% trustworthy, however I hope to make up for their possible sketchiness in volume. Here goes. This one's pretty straightforward - disk=magnetic, disc=optical. Both used in computing. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2300 [apple.com] This one almost supports your assertion, but if you take into account that compact discs are pretty standard in the computer world these days, then maybe not. http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-disc-disk.asp [future-perfect.co.uk] Another one making the magnetic/optical distinction, but with no reference to the supposed computing/audio distinciton. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/disc.html [wsu.edu] Whether or not the history of this one is accurate, I can't say, but all in all I came away from reading it without the belief that in computing, it is always "disk". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_disc [wikipedia.org] Finally (because I'm at work and can only slack off for so long) there is a short discussion on the matter here, which, while it is between regular joes, not industry experts, is interesting in that it points out (as do one or two of the other links I've posted) that the English usage was previously disk and was changed over time to the latin rooted disc. Again, this has little to do with disk=computing disc=something else, which was your original assertion. http://everything2.com/title/disc%2520vs.%2520disk [everything2.com] Hope that helps explain where I was coming from. Back to work now...

Ok, let's start from your assertion:
""But to the extent that there are any rules for such things, "disk", in the context of computing, is spelled with a "k".""
This is, at this moment, untrue.

I pulled these links from a (very) quick google search on "disc vs disk" so bear in mind they're not neccessarily 100% trustworthy, however I hope to make up for their possible sketchiness in volume.
Here goes.

This one's pretty straightforward - disk=magnetic, disc=optical. Both used in computing.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2300

This one almost supports your assertion, but if you take into account that compact discs are pretty standard in the computer world these days, then maybe not.
http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-disc-disk.asp

Another one making the magnetic/optical distinction, but with no reference to the supposed computing/audio distinciton.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/disc.html

Whether or not the history of this one is accurate, I can't say, but all in all I came away from reading it without the belief that in computing, it is always "disk".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_disc

Finally (because I'm at work and can only slack off for so long) there is a short discussion on the matter here, which, while it is between regular joes, not industry experts, is interesting in that it points out (as do one or two of the other links I've posted) that the English usage was previously disk and was changed over time to the latin rooted disc. Again, this has little to do with disk=computing disc=something else, which was your original assertion.
http://everything2.com/title/disc%2520vs.%2520disk

Hope that helps explain where I was coming from.

Back to work now...

I want to know "on behalf of what parent with a kid in that school[sic] are the[sic] suing?" Nobody has a right to sue unless they are directly effected [sic] by this. The ACLU is on very questionable ground [sic] here. This is typical for these nut jobs.

Andrew Emitt

By they way, it looks as if you could do with a bit of schooling yourself.

Flaunt vs flaut... there is a difference.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/pairs3.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/flaunt.html

Too bad his publicist/administrative assistant (or, he himself) missed the difference in the words.

(No, i am not bragging nor showing off, nor being pedant. I am just pointing it out...)

making us smarter rather then selling us shit...

Since you're talking about the internet making you smarter, the internet will have to remind you the difference between then and than.

My wife regularly surfs the web at work, often news, and consistently finds stories that directly effect the industry she works in, sometimes her actual place of employment.

It looks like you need to surf the web more and boost your grammar productivity.

I always think it's funny when someone gets nervous about whether to use "I" or "me" when referring to themselves in a sentence, so they give up and say "myself" instead, and sound even more stupid.

Let me guess - because it has seen so many obfuscations of Viagra it has forgotten how to spell its own name?
Ad nauseam

But it's "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine".

At least, that's what Ukrainians say.

Just sayin... And that's what the Ukrainian rocket scientist I know says also.

Careful, there are jobs on the loose!

Perhaps you mean lose? Read about plenty of common English errors here.

You can't sell something for less then it costs to produce it.

Yes you can. While it's not, on it's own, a good long term strategy it sometimes makes sense to do so. Here's one example. Here's another.

Looking at china's history with opium addiction would be an interesting study.

It wasn't pretty

Everyone assumes one can grow plants in any old dirt. You not only need soil; but more importantly, you need the proper microbiology in the soil for the plants you are growing. Unfortunately, too many people in charge of things are more concerned with proving the existence of life on other planets then the advancement of humanity. If they would be replaced by people less concerned with ideology and more concerned with the future we would be able to take microbiology to mars. IMHO Until someone can figure out a way to prove to an ideologist something that can't be proven, or get rid of ideologists all together, Mars colonies will never happen.

There were no spelling mistakes, it was a common grammatical error. All the words were spelled correctly.

Assuming you mean the 20000x20000 jpeg, it appears to be circulating the net as a file called "dontloadthis.jpg". Here is an example.

We were "lead to believe" by *who*?

In this sentence, "we" is the subject, the last word should be whom. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/who.html

Intensive purposes.

Idiot.

Ummm... no, it is not:

Another example of the oral transformation of language by people who don't read much. "For all intents and purposes" is an old cliché which won't thrill anyone, but using the mistaken alternative is likely to elicit guffaws.

See also this article, or this one.

Whether to treat as singular or plural depends on how the group is used in context --as a single entity or as individual members of the group. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/group.html

"mono e mono"

Mano a mano.

What's really funny is that "mono e mono" in Spanish means something like "monkey and monkey."

I don't see anything wrong with teaching the history of humanity's understanding of the planet's origins.

Teach it in a history, philosophy, mythology, or another class then. But not in science, it is not science. And if you're going to teach it in these other classes then you'd better teach the Apache Creation Story, the Zuni Creation Cycle, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as well as others.

Falcon

what *is* wrong with creationism?

Nothing, so long as it's not taught in science. It is not science. Now if you want to teach it in a philosophy class then go ahead, however if you do be sure to also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Apache Creation Story, and The Zuni Creation Cycle among others.

Falcon

Wheelbarrow .

Hope this helps.

the affect of my foot up your ass?

That's "the effect of my foot up your ass". Further reading.

Your second comment is appropriate. I could care less. It doesn't mean that I do care more. If you were to assign a scoring system of 1 to 10 to my level of care, where 1 is absolute lack of care, and 10 is absolute care, the Olympics may rate a 3, at which point there is room in the scale to raise or lower my level of care. I could care less, but it wouldn't even matter, because it's lower than a neutral level of care (5), and has no direct impact on myself.

    If there were to be a direct impact upon myself by the event, then that level of care would be more significant. Take the scenario "There's a truck coming down the road". If I were not in the road, I could care less, at a care level of 3, and it wouldn't matter. If I were standing in the road in front of the truck, at a care level of 3, and I did care less, that would definitely be a sign of deep depression, which would be resolved rather quickly, assuming the truck does it's job appropriately and runs me over. :)

    It becomes a moot point, as the phrase "I could care less" entered colloquial English approximately 40 years, and it is already commonly understood to mean the same, either in the positive or negative syntax. It is found in print as far back as 1966. I'm only 35 years old, and I started speaking at 1 year old, so both versions of the phrase were already in common usage for 8 years.

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldcare.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

It's "would have".
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html
http://wvde.state.wv.us/tt/2002/grammartips/grammartip0039.html
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000204.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/asper.html

For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

This was too amusing for me to ignore. You're (either seriously or facetiously) deriding correct grammar and then you make this mistake: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.html You've made my day :D

A new good guy is sent in from the BPRD to reign in our uncontrollable hero

While he's at it can he also rein in the use of that word? Or can we also look forward to a rain of terror followed by a veil of tears and, when worse comes to worse, a damp squid?

Since you are new to English and made quite a few errors, I thought I would help you out.

Yes, I can already hear a collective groan from Slashdot purists about the idea. But let's face it, web pages are going to get more and more application-like and less page-like, and I doubt there is anything you can do to stop it. Now as developers we will need to either keep hacking and making more and more tricks for the existing HTML and CSS to get it to display correctly or bite the bullet and create optimized features that will make web browsers a good source for application development.

1. Standardized Vector Graphics. Why download graphics to display a line graph where if all browsers had vector graphics SVG or whatever just as long it was standardized. (I can't fix this sentence, it's too broken.) For some cases having XY co-ordinates will save on bandwidth and server load time.

2. Secure Bytecode Javascript. Open Source is all good and great however not all developers are keen on how the web interface works, sometimes putting too much of the security checking in JavaScript. Having JavaScript in an encrypted bytecode format where you are not just a view source away for finding a backdoor (This sentence is incomplete.). Yes, you can say people who make these mistakes are stupid and get what they deserve, however, it doesn't fix the problem, and the stupid person who coded the page could be working for your bank, with his code between the internet and your money.

3. Better Debugging: Firefox is OK. IE with Visual Studio - when it works (a big when) - is OK. But I would love to be able to debug JavaScript and HTML, put a break on an HTML (on an HTML what?), or change the CSS after it loaded and try different variants until I get it right.

4. HTML elements to have a visible property. (They do.)

5. Easier way to use the ID name vs. getElementbyId.

Yes, I know I will get a bunch of hate messages and a lot of my requests require new HTML/JavaScript standards first or they are already there and nobody has implemented them, or (there is something missing here) just hate using HTML for applications. However I see HTML as the new VT100, used as a standard for displaying information from my application, not just a text formatting option.

The affect of whiskers on soldered equipment

The effect. Say it back.

Eeeeeefect.

Now please look up the definitions of those two words and write them on the blackboard a hundred times before the start of Monday's class.

Wait, what? Are you implying that he failed, and that a lot should be one word?

Or that he should spell a lot that way, to experience failure?

In the latter case, clever, but you need a little work on clarity.
In the former, I hope you learned a lot from this post, because it was an utter failure.

</grammar nazi>

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/rediculous.html

Sorry forgot to include links.

Code of Hammurabi

Exodus 21:23-21:25

And so I payed attention,

Apparently you didn't pay enough attention: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/payed.html .

Many people are so spooked by apostrophes that a word like "they're" seems to them as if it might mean almost anything. In fact, it's always a contraction of "they are." If you've written "they're," ask yourself whether you can substitute "they are." If not, you've made a mistake. "Their" is a possessive pronoun like "her" or "our" "They eat their hotdogs with sauerkraut." Everything else is "there." "There goes the ball, out of the park! See it? Right there! There aren't very many home runs like that." "Thier" is a common misspelling, but you can avoid it by remembering that "they" and "their" begin with the same three letters. Another hint: "there" has "here" buried inside it to remind you it refers to place, while "their" has "heir" buried in it to remind you that it has to do with possession.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/their.html

http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/UsYour.html

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/your.html

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You're-and-Your

Now try again:
http://www.english-zone.com/verbs/your1.html

No need to start your own - not an open wiki, but most abuses are already here.

I'm not sure how many I have to post before you are convinced but here goes:
Exhibit A (most reliable) from Apple

Exhibit B (least reliable but similar to what you said) is here

Exhibit C (medium reliability) from Washington State University

In the end, I believe they all support what I said.