Well, when you're ill you see a doctor rather than a car mechanic. You might still investigate what the doctor tells you but can you understand why you choose the doctor?
Might? Without question I will investigate the advice that the doctor gives me, s/he'll most likely be right but I will still check.
The whole idea smacks of academic elitism. I edit Wikipedia articles on a few different subjects and I can say without equivocation that my knowledge of those subjects is second to none. Granted, none of them is going to change the world but they are topics of interest to me and I have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of them.
It's no different than "Oh. HE says that. Well you know how unreliable he is.", without any proof of the incorrectness of the statement, it gets completely disregarded.
I think it's a bad idea to quote JUST wikipedia in a court case, but come on... To dismiss information out of hand just because it came from the internet is just as ridiculous as accepting the testimony of any expert at face value.
That is a fair point. My response would be that maybe the teacher didn't get the chance because of the uproar. Can you really teach defense without first teaching attack?
After you get all of the students' ideas for attacks, you start brainstorming defenses.
Your position was that people don't ever use superfluous elements,
No. Try reading for comprehension. My position is that it wouldn't have become the standard practice if it were superfluous.
"being more than is sufficient or required", more than required for what? If the answer is to communicate the speaker's intended point of view, then it is not.
If your statement is that double negatives are logically invalid, then such a statement must apply universally.
You're conflating issues. My position is that double negatives carry a logical meaning that is the opposite of the intent of the speaker.
* Sorry, can't resist the opportunity to start a flame war:)
There's nothing to fight over. You're wrong.
Since Israel was a theocracy, the king and the god were the same, and hence both copies went into the tabernacle.
If you actually KNEW the story that you're opining about, you'd know that Moses received the tablets before they reached Israel. They were wandering in the desert. There was no palace, there was no temple. Most importantly, there was no Israel.
They had just fled Egypt, where the king was considered a God. The Israelites didn't believe that. God was God and the King was the King.
If you took the time to get to know what the fuck you were talking about before opining, you'd know that.
Full disclosure, I do not subscribe to any of the Abrahamic religions; however I do know and understand their beliefs.
Certainly, because certainly people don't ever EVER do anything that might even be REMOTELY or POSSIBLY superfluous in their speech.
Sounding an awful low like one of those prescriptivists again...
You well know that language evolved. What we not consider Standard English is different than it was 100 years ago.
Do you even read what I write? My statement was that double negatives are not logically invalid, because people can and do speak that way, in particular in most languages around the world.
Of course I read what you wrote, it's still wrong. Double negatives, in addition to violating the standard rules of the language are logically reversed from their intended meaning.
If you aren't a production operations person and you have access to production, you aren't going to pass a SarbOx audit, or PCI, or really even any kind of basic audit.
SOX is not an issue for privately owned companies. Even in organizations for which SOX could be a problem, they always find workarounds. In a tight economy, when workforces must be scaled down, they'll often just give senior/trusted developers an additional title and now they're ops too.
In an unregulated industry, it's not really worth calling it "production" anyway -- it's just the deployed version of your tools.
You're thinking with a corporate mindset. Not that it's wrong to do so, but it's not how we look at it. Production is a castle. You protect it. You treat it with care. You maintain discipline. If you're a Fortune 500 company, a small independent shop or some guy in his parents' basement.
~3000 Americans died in the 9-11 attacks. How many Iraqis and Afghans died in the wars that were launched in a misguided response to 9-11?
Clearly the odds of a 9-11 style terrorist attack are infinitesimal compared to the odds of getting into a traffic accident or even being the victim of a robbery.
That's not my point. I'm saying that it's important to get people thinking about how dangerous the world can be. A brainstorming session like this where someone thought up the idea of taking boxcutters on airplane could very well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
This is the kind of thing that teachers should be teaching. The world can be an ugly place. It's important to teach high school students what kind of things they'll experience in the real world.
Unfortunately, terrorism is the kind of thing that these young people might experience. Maybe if New York's public schools had done an exercise like this, fewer people would have died on 9-11.
"Class. If you're on 61st floor of a skyscraper and it and the building next to it are struck by passenger jets, do you 1) Stay at your desk and keep working. 2) Get out of the building and go home for the day."
I'm giving a lighthearted take on this, but I'm being completely serious. Thank God for teachers like this one.
I (and a couple of my coworkers) have access to production servers, but we don't develop on prod. End of story. We have other devs who do not have access to prod. Dev is for dev, prod is for prod and don't let anyone without the discipline to keep that rule have access to prod.
Oh, and unlike some relic from the 70's, you can actually get a job programming for tiny microcontrollers.
Just last year, I was working for a company (A fairly large one) and they were still running programs written in DEC FORTRAN 77 on Vaxen. A part of my job was to port these programs to an.......Alpha.
Plus during the last election cycle they were running on eliminating the top tax bracket entirely - putting ME in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
That would probably be helpful. Warren Buffet is likely in a lower tax bracket than you are. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
I call shenanigans. That line of bullshit might work on people who are under 30 and/or have no memory of the suck-assery of the Carter Administration. We had a "benevolent liberal" in the White House with complete Democratic control of the House and Senate. What did that get us? Double digit inflation. Skyrocketing interest rates. High unemployment. Gasoline shortages. Hostages in Iran. I could go on, but we all get the point. There's a fundamental lack of understanding about basic economics on the left.
We hear the unending cries about how "The Corporations" or "The rich" are evil. Tell me, when is the last time you were hired by someone who didn't have more money than you? You can't earn money without giving someone else a chance to earn money as well. If someone digs ditches, s/he has to buy shovels and someone has to make and sell shovels. You can sit on your ass and cry about how it's not fair that someone else is making money digging ditches while you're not making any sitting on your ass or you can get up and dig ditches for someone until you can buy your own shovel.
No one is promising that it'll be easy. No one is guaranteeing success, but it's certainly possible. I make nearly double what I made 5 years ago. How? I worked my ass of. 3 college degrees in four years. I did it, almost anyone can. IF they want to.
liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.
I'll never vote for a liberal because I'm pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-America and pro-keeping my money in my own pocket. No liberal is palatable to me.
The notion that someone should go to jail for brushing their teeth is absurd.
You are absolutely correct. Such a notion is absurd. Almost as absurd as saying that a law forbidding government funds to be used for something is the same a criminalizing it.
Dial back on the panic chicken little, the sky is not falling.
I don't understand the mentality of those who don't want people to be healthy because it offends their religious beliefs.
I agree. Clearly, you do not understand. You do not even understand the basis of the objection.
Abortion is a personal medical procedure, not a political issue, not unlike embryonic stem cell research.
-sigh- I'm going to be a bit less than diplomatic in this post because I deem it necessary to illustrate a point.
If some sociopath decided that he was going to shoot you in the face and ass-rape your children one night, would that be a personal matter? Why not? You'd be dead, you would be beyond caring.
What if we dialed it back a few notches? Would it be just a personal matter if you beat your husband/wife?
We live in a society. Nearly everything we do is in some way linked to a political issue. Drive a gas guzzler? Drink alcohol? Drink water from plastic bottles? Smoke tobacco products? Smoke marijuana? Eat animal flesh? Recycle?
Abortion being a "personal" matter is a bullshit cop-out. In every society, the members get to collectively decide what is and is not acceptable. Privacy isn't a shield to protect wrongdoing.
In any case, there is no one I've yet encountered that has made an argument consistent with their own views that would also prohibit embryonic stem cell research.
Perhaps you misunderstand their views.
It's wrong to destroy a human organism that poses no immediate threat to your safety.
The only real difference between "Jive" and "Ebonics" is time. Jive was what later became Ebonics. They are both ways to describe the contemporary slang of a certain type of African Americans.
What is the negative in "I do not have any books"? Right, it's the "not". But what about that "any" there? Would you really consider it grammatical to say "I have any books"? I really doubt it, because it's widely recognized as ungrammatical.
I'd argue that "do not" is the negative in this context. When you stripped it out, you said "I have any books" and not "I do have any books".
Slashdot Mirror
I hear you rape goats.
You can't rape the willing.
Well, when you're ill you see a doctor rather than a car mechanic. You might still investigate what the doctor tells you but can you understand why you choose the doctor?
Might? Without question I will investigate the advice that the doctor gives me, s/he'll most likely be right but I will still check.
LK
The whole idea smacks of academic elitism. I edit Wikipedia articles on a few different subjects and I can say without equivocation that my knowledge of those subjects is second to none. Granted, none of them is going to change the world but they are topics of interest to me and I have a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of them.
It's no different than "Oh. HE says that. Well you know how unreliable he is.", without any proof of the incorrectness of the statement, it gets completely disregarded.
I think it's a bad idea to quote JUST wikipedia in a court case, but come on... To dismiss information out of hand just because it came from the internet is just as ridiculous as accepting the testimony of any expert at face value.
LK
That is a fair point. My response would be that maybe the teacher didn't get the chance because of the uproar. Can you really teach defense without first teaching attack?
After you get all of the students' ideas for attacks, you start brainstorming defenses.
LK
Your position was that people don't ever use superfluous elements,
No. Try reading for comprehension. My position is that it wouldn't have become the standard practice if it were superfluous.
"being more than is sufficient or required", more than required for what? If the answer is to communicate the speaker's intended point of view, then it is not.
If your statement is that double negatives are logically invalid, then such a statement must apply universally.
You're conflating issues. My position is that double negatives carry a logical meaning that is the opposite of the intent of the speaker.
LK
understanding and believing are mutually exclusive. you either understand or you believe. belief is without knowing.
That's just as dogmatic as any revealed religion.
With a few exceptions, I don't judge the merits of someone's beliefs. I just seek to understand them.
LK
The best way to understand why someone lives life they way that they do is to understand where they think they're going after.
LK
Before they get into the specifics of anything computer related, basic logic should be in there.
LK
* Sorry, can't resist the opportunity to start a flame war :)
There's nothing to fight over. You're wrong.
Since Israel was a theocracy, the king and the god were the same, and hence both copies went into the tabernacle.
If you actually KNEW the story that you're opining about, you'd know that Moses received the tablets before they reached Israel. They were wandering in the desert. There was no palace, there was no temple. Most importantly, there was no Israel.
They had just fled Egypt, where the king was considered a God. The Israelites didn't believe that. God was God and the King was the King.
If you took the time to get to know what the fuck you were talking about before opining, you'd know that.
Full disclosure, I do not subscribe to any of the Abrahamic religions; however I do know and understand their beliefs.
LK
Certainly, because certainly people don't ever EVER do anything that might even be REMOTELY or POSSIBLY superfluous in their speech.
Sounding an awful low like one of those prescriptivists again...
You well know that language evolved. What we not consider Standard English is different than it was 100 years ago.
Do you even read what I write? My statement was that double negatives are not logically invalid, because people can and do speak that way, in particular in most languages around the world.
Of course I read what you wrote, it's still wrong. Double negatives, in addition to violating the standard rules of the language are logically reversed from their intended meaning.
LK
The evil part is debatable.
I suppose farm animals could regard humans as evil, but we're just doing what we need to do to survive. Is that not what vampires do?
Of course some individuals, from both camps have a weird schadenfreude kind of thing going on, but that's not a requirement.
LK
It's not difficult at all to believe that an Apple product gave a Fanboi a raging boner.
If the change from flaccid to full-on stiffy is only 2 inches, I feel sorry for your boyfriend.
LK
The superfluous "do" is inserted by consensus by speakers of Standard American English. It is simply what they do.
If it were superfluous, it wouldn't be standard practice.
People do not say "I have not books".
It's not currently fashionable to speak that way, but it's perfectly valid and some people still do say that.
"Any" can be an indefinite pronoun, however, in the statement "I don't have any books" it is absolutely not a pronoun
You are mistaken.
LK
They even got the Ipad right more than 20 years before it became real.
They also got cell phones right, 30+ years before they became popular. Ever notice how the original flip phone was inspired by the communicator?
They had shuttlecraft years before the early designs for Space Shuttles were created.
The list goes on and on.
LK
If you aren't a production operations person and you have access to production, you aren't going to pass a SarbOx audit, or PCI, or really even any kind of basic audit.
SOX is not an issue for privately owned companies. Even in organizations for which SOX could be a problem, they always find workarounds. In a tight economy, when workforces must be scaled down, they'll often just give senior/trusted developers an additional title and now they're ops too.
In an unregulated industry, it's not really worth calling it "production" anyway -- it's just the deployed version of your tools.
You're thinking with a corporate mindset. Not that it's wrong to do so, but it's not how we look at it. Production is a castle. You protect it. You treat it with care. You maintain discipline. If you're a Fortune 500 company, a small independent shop or some guy in his parents' basement.
LK
~3000 Americans died in the 9-11 attacks. How many Iraqis and Afghans died in the wars that were launched in a misguided response to 9-11?
Clearly the odds of a 9-11 style terrorist attack are infinitesimal compared to the odds of getting into a traffic accident or even being the victim of a robbery.
That's not my point. I'm saying that it's important to get people thinking about how dangerous the world can be. A brainstorming session like this where someone thought up the idea of taking boxcutters on airplane could very well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
LK
This is the kind of thing that teachers should be teaching. The world can be an ugly place. It's important to teach high school students what kind of things they'll experience in the real world.
Unfortunately, terrorism is the kind of thing that these young people might experience. Maybe if New York's public schools had done an exercise like this, fewer people would have died on 9-11.
"Class. If you're on 61st floor of a skyscraper and it and the building next to it are struck by passenger jets, do you 1) Stay at your desk and keep working. 2) Get out of the building and go home for the day."
I'm giving a lighthearted take on this, but I'm being completely serious. Thank God for teachers like this one.
LK
The "do" is a superfluous word added merely because that is how we grammatically insert the negative into a statement.
You're sounding an awful lot like one of those prescriptivists now.
More on point, I reject your premise. "I have not books." is the most direct negation of "I have books".
Please look up "pronoun". The "any" here is most certainly not a pronoun, as grammar precludes all use of a pronoun in this position.
I'll save you the trouble of looking up the term "Indefinite Pronoun" for yourself.
Though I admit, you would have as arguable point if you were to claim that it's merely a quantifier or determiner.
LK
Long answer, it depends on the situation.
I (and a couple of my coworkers) have access to production servers, but we don't develop on prod. End of story. We have other devs who do not have access to prod. Dev is for dev, prod is for prod and don't let anyone without the discipline to keep that rule have access to prod.
LK
Oh, and unlike some relic from the 70's, you can actually get a job programming for tiny microcontrollers.
Just last year, I was working for a company (A fairly large one) and they were still running programs written in DEC FORTRAN 77 on Vaxen. A part of my job was to port these programs to an.......Alpha.
LK
Plus during the last election cycle they were running on eliminating the top tax bracket entirely - putting ME in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
That would probably be helpful. Warren Buffet is likely in a lower tax bracket than you are. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income.
LK
are the ones hurt the most by Republican policy.
I call shenanigans. That line of bullshit might work on people who are under 30 and/or have no memory of the suck-assery of the Carter Administration. We had a "benevolent liberal" in the White House with complete Democratic control of the House and Senate. What did that get us? Double digit inflation. Skyrocketing interest rates. High unemployment. Gasoline shortages. Hostages in Iran. I could go on, but we all get the point. There's a fundamental lack of understanding about basic economics on the left.
We hear the unending cries about how "The Corporations" or "The rich" are evil. Tell me, when is the last time you were hired by someone who didn't have more money than you? You can't earn money without giving someone else a chance to earn money as well. If someone digs ditches, s/he has to buy shovels and someone has to make and sell shovels. You can sit on your ass and cry about how it's not fair that someone else is making money digging ditches while you're not making any sitting on your ass or you can get up and dig ditches for someone until you can buy your own shovel.
No one is promising that it'll be easy. No one is guaranteeing success, but it's certainly possible. I make nearly double what I made 5 years ago. How? I worked my ass of. 3 college degrees in four years. I did it, almost anyone can. IF they want to.
liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.
I'll never vote for a liberal because I'm pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-America and pro-keeping my money in my own pocket. No liberal is palatable to me.
LK
The notion that someone should go to jail for brushing their teeth is absurd.
You are absolutely correct. Such a notion is absurd. Almost as absurd as saying that a law forbidding government funds to be used for something is the same a criminalizing it.
Dial back on the panic chicken little, the sky is not falling.
I don't understand the mentality of those who don't want people to be healthy because it offends their religious beliefs.
I agree. Clearly, you do not understand. You do not even understand the basis of the objection.
LK
Abortion is a personal medical procedure, not a political issue, not unlike embryonic stem cell research.
-sigh- I'm going to be a bit less than diplomatic in this post because I deem it necessary to illustrate a point.
If some sociopath decided that he was going to shoot you in the face and ass-rape your children one night, would that be a personal matter? Why not? You'd be dead, you would be beyond caring.
What if we dialed it back a few notches? Would it be just a personal matter if you beat your husband/wife?
We live in a society. Nearly everything we do is in some way linked to a political issue. Drive a gas guzzler? Drink alcohol? Drink water from plastic bottles? Smoke tobacco products? Smoke marijuana? Eat animal flesh? Recycle?
Abortion being a "personal" matter is a bullshit cop-out. In every society, the members get to collectively decide what is and is not acceptable. Privacy isn't a shield to protect wrongdoing.
In any case, there is no one I've yet encountered that has made an argument consistent with their own views that would also prohibit embryonic stem cell research.
Perhaps you misunderstand their views.
It's wrong to destroy a human organism that poses no immediate threat to your safety.
LK
The only real difference between "Jive" and "Ebonics" is time. Jive was what later became Ebonics. They are both ways to describe the contemporary slang of a certain type of African Americans.
LK
What is the negative in "I do not have any books"? Right, it's the "not". But what about that "any" there? Would you really consider it grammatical to say "I have any books"? I really doubt it, because it's widely recognized as ungrammatical.
I'd argue that "do not" is the negative in this context. When you stripped it out, you said "I have any books" and not "I do have any books".
I'd label the any as an indefinite pronoun.
LK