Ha! I do remember you!!! Although, had I only seen the name "ChronoStrife" somewhere, I would have probably spent a week trying to figure out how I recognized it. I seem to remember you being like 13 years old at the time, though I could be thinking of someone else.
SG was about the only game we could SOCKSify out of our brutal campus firewall (remember IronMaiden and/or Kuanti? We were in adjacent dorms together). After I moved out of the dorms, I traded in that addiction to try out EverQuest--which turned out to steal another 3-and-a-half years or so. I play WoW, now, but work prevents it from consuming more than a little of my life.
Good times, though. Lots of fun. Send me an e-mail sometime; the address is up above.
The point of it is that it is an argument against the assumption that English doesn't follow logic. Both the above GP post and mine clearly demonstrate that it is at least plausable to think of the language in terms of logical rules instead of brute force memorization. Had I scored a 12, then you probably would be less inclined to believe that the logical approach is of much use, and rightly so.
All that's happening here is that the phrase "Should have" is is being deprecated, and is being replace with "Should of".
Since when does any person with any knowledge of the English language at all use the phrase "should of"? Things don't get deprecated because people are stupid; they get deprecated because the replacement is superior. Nobody with any sense at all will adopt "should of" just because it's what nonthinking people do when they don't know any better.
It's amazing how so many people don't realize that. Since you brought it up, I scored 36 out of 36 on the English portion of the ACT (did not take the SAT), and it certainly isn't because I study it. Just like any other subject, if one learns the rules correctly, everything works itself out quite naturally. Just because the logic is many layers deep doesn't mean it isn't there.
As a matter of fact, I find that proper English will almost always follow an ordered set of basic rules. There are exceptions, of course, but generally if one has a problem deciding how to spell or phrase something, one can, with a reasonable degree of confidence, deduce logically how it should be done.
You are wrong. It will never take hold for one simple reason: the words don't make sense together. "Of" is not a verb; "have" is. Common usage or not, it will never logically make sense. "Should of" almost certainly stems from phonetically spelling "should've" ("should have"). Even in speaking, therefore, it never occurs.
I think it's a gutsy move. They are practically putting the quality of their product on the line against their entire sector of business (and the legal circus it entertains). While they won't be getting any help from the big players, they are counting on technical merit and the support from its very loyal user base to win out. It would be a major victory if they manage to pull it off, in many respects.
Does this mean that Microsoft also get the copious amounts of marketing data "aquired" by Claria's present and former programs? Some people might not be too happy about that, I thinks.
I hope that before proceedings on the Bill are completed it will include a provision saying that quotations from the Bible, which I believe to be the word of God, and the great religious documents cannot be taken and used against someone because they adhere to them.
Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who just yoinked that hunk out of the patch file along with all of the windows-specific stuff before applying it to their vlc-0.8.2 source download. If I thought it was a big deal and had a webpage to post it to, I might have, but it really didn't seem like anything any other programmer wouldn't do (though Amazon could probably get a patent for the process). Judging from his blog post, he didn't, either. It just happens that his webpage is quite popular and media-type people no doubt camp it like a hawk for easy sensational stories, and when something popped up that looks like it could might maybe possibly start a war between the Open Source community and their beloved Google, they jumped to be the first to break the news. Think of it like a GNAA frist psot, wearing a suit and carrying a microphone.
Probably to avoid any issues with other people exploiting a piece of software from their site to show material of questionable content and/or legality. This way, they are only responsible for their own player with their own content. They aren't stupid--they knew how easy it would be to change. But the point is that by restricting the OFFICIAL client to content under their own control, they need not even worry about any third-party complaints or legal troubles (whether they rationally exist or not doesn't matter) regarding the playing of any content that is not provided directly by video.google.com. The user has to make an extra conscious step to do it, and the responsibility is no longer Google's burden to deal with.
The leader of Global Frequency is the enigmatic Miranda Zero, played by actress Michelle Forbes. (Forbes is fast building a tech-geek pedigree: She's also the voice of Dr. Judith Mossman in the video game Half Life 2).
Funniest line in the story. Forbes has been a tech-geek actress for a long time. Perhaps some may remember her recurring role playing the compelling Ensign Ro Laren in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Note that the shady thing is NOT that their profits were significantly lowered, but the potential gross generated by the bidding process to determine who has the rights to merchandise was completely eliminated. I doubt Mr. Jackson gets part of the merchandising gross either way, but obviously he gets a percentage of the money paid to buy the rights for such merchandise. The fact that Time Warner is merely shifting its money around means that he will be getting much less than if the rights were sold as an open bid (i.e. with merchandising corporations motivated by the potential profit as a result of the popularity of Mr. Jackson's work). Time Warner will likely require their merchandising divisions to pay only what is necessary to handle production.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! I do remember you!!! Although, had I only seen the name "ChronoStrife" somewhere, I would have probably spent a week trying to figure out how I recognized it. I seem to remember you being like 13 years old at the time, though I could be thinking of someone else.
SG was about the only game we could SOCKSify out of our brutal campus firewall (remember IronMaiden and/or Kuanti? We were in adjacent dorms together). After I moved out of the dorms, I traded in that addiction to try out EverQuest--which turned out to steal another 3-and-a-half years or so. I play WoW, now, but work prevents it from consuming more than a little of my life.
Good times, though. Lots of fun. Send me an e-mail sometime; the address is up above.
The point of it is that it is an argument against the assumption that English doesn't follow logic. Both the above GP post and mine clearly demonstrate that it is at least plausable to think of the language in terms of logical rules instead of brute force memorization. Had I scored a 12, then you probably would be less inclined to believe that the logical approach is of much use, and rightly so.
I'd like to add my "whiny Luke peeve" to the list: saying "whole 'nother" when you mean "another whole."
"You must understand I need you here, Luke."
"But it's a whole 'nother year!"
"Look, it's only one more season."
All that's happening here is that the phrase "Should have" is is being deprecated, and is being replace with "Should of".
Since when does any person with any knowledge of the English language at all use the phrase "should of"? Things don't get deprecated because people are stupid; they get deprecated because the replacement is superior. Nobody with any sense at all will adopt "should of" just because it's what nonthinking people do when they don't know any better.
It's amazing how so many people don't realize that. Since you brought it up, I scored 36 out of 36 on the English portion of the ACT (did not take the SAT), and it certainly isn't because I study it. Just like any other subject, if one learns the rules correctly, everything works itself out quite naturally. Just because the logic is many layers deep doesn't mean it isn't there.
It still stands that "of" is not a verb. "They have won the mach" will become, "They of won the match?"
Yea, I know what you mean; but the spelling Nazis are the worst! >8)
I did, during beta. Holy cow. >8)
Dude, that's quite impressive. It was, what, 4-5 years ago? I don't think I particularly stood out or anything, either.
As a matter of fact, I find that proper English will almost always follow an ordered set of basic rules. There are exceptions, of course, but generally if one has a problem deciding how to spell or phrase something, one can, with a reasonable degree of confidence, deduce logically how it should be done.
You are wrong. It will never take hold for one simple reason: the words don't make sense together. "Of" is not a verb; "have" is. Common usage or not, it will never logically make sense. "Should of" almost certainly stems from phonetically spelling "should've" ("should have"). Even in speaking, therefore, it never occurs.
Well, a good start would be to not include massively gratuitous "credits" files with everything they pirate.
(I'd normally include a sarcastic example with a comment such as this, but I can already hear the lameness filter salivating.)
I think it's a gutsy move. They are practically putting the quality of their product on the line against their entire sector of business (and the legal circus it entertains). While they won't be getting any help from the big players, they are counting on technical merit and the support from its very loyal user base to win out. It would be a major victory if they manage to pull it off, in many respects.
If I remember correctly, Hotmail was bought for $350 million. What the hell could Gat^H^H^HClaria have that is worth that much?
Lots and lots of marketing data collected from their unwitting "users".
What? To prevent stupid users from uninstalling it?
Actually...
hmmmmm
That's "acquired", of course.
Does this mean that Microsoft also get the copious amounts of marketing data "aquired" by Claria's present and former programs? Some people might not be too happy about that, I thinks.
Thought that was somehow fitting.
Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who just yoinked that hunk out of the patch file along with all of the windows-specific stuff before applying it to their vlc-0.8.2 source download. If I thought it was a big deal and had a webpage to post it to, I might have, but it really didn't seem like anything any other programmer wouldn't do (though Amazon could probably get a patent for the process). Judging from his blog post, he didn't, either. It just happens that his webpage is quite popular and media-type people no doubt camp it like a hawk for easy sensational stories, and when something popped up that looks like it could might maybe possibly start a war between the Open Source community and their beloved Google, they jumped to be the first to break the news. Think of it like a GNAA frist psot, wearing a suit and carrying a microphone.
It's cross-platform AJAX that's brutally hard
Do you mean cross-browser?
When your platform is a web browser, they have the same meaning.
Very good. You may push the button now.
Probably to avoid any issues with other people exploiting a piece of software from their site to show material of questionable content and/or legality. This way, they are only responsible for their own player with their own content. They aren't stupid--they knew how easy it would be to change. But the point is that by restricting the OFFICIAL client to content under their own control, they need not even worry about any third-party complaints or legal troubles (whether they rationally exist or not doesn't matter) regarding the playing of any content that is not provided directly by video.google.com. The user has to make an extra conscious step to do it, and the responsibility is no longer Google's burden to deal with.
The Greatest Dupe Known To Man! (Score:-1, Redundant)
Hilarious. Good luck to the meta-moderator trying to judge this one.
Hello, non-obvious clause. Nice to meet you...wait, where are you going? Come back here!
The leader of Global Frequency is the enigmatic Miranda Zero, played by actress Michelle Forbes. (Forbes is fast building a tech-geek pedigree: She's also the voice of Dr. Judith Mossman in the video game Half Life 2).
Funniest line in the story. Forbes has been a tech-geek actress for a long time. Perhaps some may remember her recurring role playing the compelling Ensign Ro Laren in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Note that the shady thing is NOT that their profits were significantly lowered, but the potential gross generated by the bidding process to determine who has the rights to merchandise was completely eliminated. I doubt Mr. Jackson gets part of the merchandising gross either way, but obviously he gets a percentage of the money paid to buy the rights for such merchandise. The fact that Time Warner is merely shifting its money around means that he will be getting much less than if the rights were sold as an open bid (i.e. with merchandising corporations motivated by the potential profit as a result of the popularity of Mr. Jackson's work). Time Warner will likely require their merchandising divisions to pay only what is necessary to handle production.