No, it didn't destroy the parallel, for the principle is the same. Sometimes you get words that wind up being shortened, in addition to a hyphen being removed. Thus 'electronicmail' could have been a valid progression, but it was obviously too unwieldy and they moved right to 'email'.
________________
By now, it should be 'email.' This follows standard English usage which puts a hyphen between compound words at first. After this compound word gets used for a while, and society gets used to it, the hyphen gets dropped.
The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed., on p. 203, says:
"A closed (or solid) compound is a combination of two or more elements, originally separate words, now spelled as one word. Examples: henhouse, typesetting, makeup, notebook."
Thus 'typesetting' probably began as 'type setting', and then moved to 'type-setting', and finally became 'typesetting.'
The path for 'email' was 'electronic mail', 'electronic-mail', 'e-mail', and finally 'email'.
One rule, when in doubt, is to check an unabridged (recent) dictionary. If a word has progressed to the closed compound stage, it will be in the dictionary without the hyphen, and that would mean it is now valid to use it that way. ________________
I would agree with you that people define "faith" differently, and that leads to discussions at cross-purposes.
I'm familiar with the definition of faith in Hebrews 11. If I recall, it includes demonstrative evidence. If such evidence were available in our day, I think more people would have "faith."
________________
This reminds me of the DisneyWorld exhibit where you walk into a room with screens all around you. You stand there and watch this 360-degree movie of flying around the country. Makes you kinda dizzy.
Get enough of these panels connected, and you could surround yourself. Talk about first-person shooter game immersion! When someone sneaks up behind you to shoot, they would really be behind you! ________________
"Personally, I don't see how creationism is totally unacceptable for educated, reasonably intelligent people."
It's because 'creationism' tends to carry a lot more baggage than just the concept of a creator existing. Typically, creationism encompasses the 6,000-year-old-earth nonsense, and that's what educated, reasonably intelligent people find absurd.
If you want to posit the idea of a creator who started the whole process rolling, that's certainly a possibility. One without evidence, of course, which is where faith comes in, but certainly possible. After all, scientists can't explain, as you said, where the mass came from in the first place.
That leaves a person with the unanswerable question of who created God. The religionists say, "He always existed," and find that acceptable, while simultaneously finding unacceptable the idea of universe (or metaverse) always existing. Whatever.
Science, of course, when faced with a question that is unanswerable at the present time says, "We don't know." So it's not quite accurate to say that atheists take things on faith. Not in the religious sense of the word 'faith', in any case. They accept that which has evidence. It's a perfectly honest approach to take. Believe what you know, and say to the rest, "I have no evidence, and therefore I do not believe." With time and new evidence, that can change. ________________
/. headlines guaranteed to get noticed
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
"Is UNIX an OS?" -- Oh, boy, is that ever a headline designed to stir up the/. masses. Makes me wonder if there are other headlines that would cause a greater stir:
"Linux sucks?"
"All hackers are evil?"
"Natalie Portman to appear nekkid?"
________________
"...since when did the united states government ever have to get support from abroad to implement policies?"
This is not at all unusual. I believe the same thing happened with copyright laws, with the U.S. government encouraging foreign governments to increase copyright holder's powers, and then came to Congress and said, 'See, the rest of the world is doing it, so we should too.'
When fanaticism is in play, not getting support for your idea is no deterrent. Just do an end-run around the problem and get what you want without public support. ________________
"We didn't recommend any mandatory practices," said Donald Telage, chairman of the commission and an executive at Network Solutions Inc. "We did consider them, but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down...I don't believe they're good enough. They're hopelessly outgunned. A legislative, quick solution may not be the right answer."
Correct. Even those on the panel who were conservative knew that filters aren't the answer. And legislation to require filters is merely the "quick" solution, not the right one. But does this stop Congress? Nooooooo...
"The House leadership believes the amendment will likely survive because of its strong public support. A study this week from the Digital Media Forum showed 92 percent of 1,900 U.S. residents polled believe pornography should be blocked on school computers and 79 percent believe software filters should block hate speech. "
Basic ignorance at work here, folks. You poll people and ask, "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" and what do you think the responses will be? "Uh, no, I don't think we should block porn at schools."?? Of course not! People are going to say, "Sure, block the stuff."
Those polled probably have no idea that filters don't work. Congress should know better, but they would rather run around waving papers showing poll results and claiming that the American public is clamoring for filters!
What makes you think I want to shoot? I used the phrase "shoot at pixels" because that is the most common type of game. As it happens, I dislike all such shooter games because they are boring. I prefer games that test imagination, not reflexes.
But thanks for making a wrong negative assumption about me anyway. ________________
Ah yes, yet-another-Apple-wannabe tries to copy the iMac and iBook style, and misses the mark.
It's strange to walk through a computer store and see all these Compaqs obviously inspired by Apple's success with the iMacs, yet looking hideous. Now the new Sony tries for the iBook handle, and striking color scheme, and it doesn't quite work.
One thing about Apple, by focusing on design from the ground up, they come up with striking looks that work in the marketplace. Everyone else seems to view design as an afterthought. This Sony is better than some, but it doesn't work any more than any of the other wannabes. ________________
The one reason I haven't gotten into games is because the graphics still suck. Are virtual worlds worth it? That's what I'm waiting for! I want a game where the graphics look like the real world. Don't give me polygons and fake-looking textures. I want full-motion, video effects. I want to see a real world, not some cheesy computer graphics.
And yes, the current state-of-the-art still looks like cheesy computer graphics to me.
Once they can make a game that looks as real as a movie, in full-motion, the game market will explode again. The notion of a virtual world will be compelling to people who want to explore a new world, not shoot at pixels. ________________
You know what's scary? I honestly couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or serious. Here's why:
"The U.S. elections would be much better if they were conducted like ICANN elections. I'd love it if the majority of members of Congress were chosen by an unrepresentative group rather than by public election,"
The majority of members of Congress are elected that way. Political parties select who they want to run, and special interest groups fund them accordingly, and at election time a minority actually vote for these hand-picked candidates. An outsider who wants in has a terrible time even getting noticed.
"...and the only voice we got was one token member from each region of the country."
As opposed to the American public, who sometimes don't even get a token member who represents them, representing special interest groups instead.
"It'd be even better if there were completely unreasonable barriers to participation in the process, and election "rules" that change at a moment's notice based on whether or not said unrepresentative group feels that an election might go its way or not. "
You mean the way the New York State political parties will change the rules to exclude any primary candidate they feel doesn't belong on the ballot, until court orders force them to do so? ________________
It's always been illegal for me to borrow tapes/cds from friends and libraries and record them, but it is easy to do, so everyone does.
I'm not sure what you meant by "record them" in that sentence, but borrowing tapes/cds from friends is absolutely NOT illegal. This is part of "fair use", and has been ruled that way by the courts. See, for instance, how David Boies, the lead attorney defending Napster, describes it in this Wired interview.
So if the DMCA is providing 'a technical implementation' of something, it certainly isn't for 'existing laws.' In fact, it's about to make illegal something that has always been legal to do. ________________
I'm the guy who wrote the original post, and even I can't figure out how it got modded as funny. Sure wasn't my intent. I posted those excerpts to be helpful.
I also enjoyed the redundant mod, as I happened upon this story early enough that mine was one of the very first messages posted on the topic. But hey, I guess I should have anticipated other people writing the same thing and not written my future-redudant message in the first place!
/. moderation has some serious weaknesses. ________________
Yes, they should be enforcing current laws, but they are not. So what's in this bill, if it were to become law, is good. Note these good points:
"Boucher said the bill would "create the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
"Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."
"The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher.
Common sense, all. But in government, common sense usually requires some laws being thrown around.
________________
I'm no expert on patent law, so I have mixed feelings about the Amazon 1-click patent. Yes, it ain't rocket science, but on the other hand they did come up with it first it seems. However, in that context, with the outrage so many feel about patenting such a 'simple' process, I found this quote very amusing:
"In the fiscal year that ended Saturday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said Friday it will have granted about 1,000 patents out of 5,000 applications for computer-related business methods."
Man, if 4,000 applications failed while something like 1-click made it, makes you wonder how stupid those 4,000 were!
'Application for patent: Method -- Slamming forehead on keyboard'...
________________
I think what others have said is correct, this may have been a plant to entice us to hack SDMI after all. In any case, I agree with those who want to hold back until after SDMI is finalized, and then hack it when it is too late for the record companies to back off.
As for this quote:
"Then came the call to boycott the hack-SDMI challenge. Those SDMI members who had been secretly hoping that hackers would breeze through the challenge and prove once and for all that SDMI was wasting its time were dismayed. If the system wasn't tested and broken, SDMI would forge ahead and release a solution that many considered fallible."
Yes, that's precisely the idea. We want a solution released that is fallible, and that way it will be immediately broken.
There is another reason why SDMI should be given free reign to do whatever they want without hacker interference: Let's see which companies decide to produce SDMI-compliant devices. Since they know such devices are basically breakable, and hostile to consumers, this will tell us which companies are willing to stand up for their principles and which ones aren't. After all, membership in SDMI is voluntary. Let's see which companies volunteer to stand up for the consumer, even in the face of economic pressure from the entertainment companies.
Then we'll know which equipment to buy, and which to avoid.
Yes, but another attempt to copy the Mac OS is hardly that innovative. Besides, it's just one more Windows version.
How about Windows NT? Granted, not the most stable, secure products ever made, but come on, almost everyone (including half the Slashdot population) uses them! Granted, he did not write every single line of code, but he did lead the company that did. Without his leadership, who knows what would have happened.
The easy response would be: "Uh, innovation?" But the less-flippant response is that there were plenty of companies (mine included) who were doing Wide Area Networking long before NT was viable. My guess, if Gates has decided to cash in at the start of the 90s, is that Ballmer would have done many of the same things. Even if he had failed where Gates had success, what makes you think that all those companies M$ crushed along the way wouldn't have provided the needed technology?
Without Windows 95, where would we be? 90 % of us would be out of a job. Computers would not have hit it off 'really big,' because they would still be too hard to use for the idiots who sit at home (yes, those same people who call tech support)
I guess they would have had to buy Macs or something else easy. Or they could have learned to use Win 3.1. In my experience, those who couldn't figure out Win 3.1 never bothered to learn Win95 either.
If BillG left Microsoft 10 years ago, would any of this come around?
Probably. Maybe not at the same speed, or with the same number of casualties along the side of the road, but probably the other tens of thousands of M$ employees would have done something without Gates around.
Or would you be running DOS or Windows 3.1? ( which was also innovative)
Actually, both were derivative, not innovate, but yes, business could and did run on those.
Would 99% of offices have a computer in them?
Absolutely.
Or, would you be flipping burgers at BurgerKing? (which runs NT, last time I checked)
I wasn't flipping burgers before Gates came along, nor was I doing so before those 90's 'innovations' you cite. So why would I be flipping burgers now had Gates retired in 1990?
Look, M$ as a company has done tremendous things and, by virtue of most folks being too lazy to care, or by virtue of their predatory ways, most of us use M$ software today. But what innovative things has Gates done in the 90s? Another respondant suggested the turnaround of M$ to embrace the Net. That was impressive, but hardly innovative. It was imitative in the extreme.
I mean, governments have a temendous influence on our lives. That influence doesn't mean they are innovative, however.
________________
I can see how Tim Berners-Lee and Linus got on the list. Certainly the work they did early in this decade had a tremendous influence on the world as the decade unfolded.
But Gates? What's he done in the 90s? Now if this were a list of the 80s, I would agree. He helped turn M$ into a powerhouse during the 80s. But by 1990, it was already dominant, and what's new since then? Windows? Same old, same old, but with newer bugs. Word? Uh, 80s. Bob? Uh, forget that... Buying off congressmen? Maybe that was new for the 90s, I dunno. Oh, I get it! Lying in court! That was definately a 90s sort of thing.
Here is a quote from the article justifying the choice:
"People who admire him point to his unwavering vision for Windows as the universal operating system, and Microsoft Corp.'s leadership in developing applications for that environment. "
ROFL! "Unwavering vision for Windows" = lack of vision for anything else! And M$'s "leadership in developing applications for that environment" = killing any other company who tried to do the same. ________________
If he makes his living as a writer, this is a rule he should live by when he writes formally. I disagree.
OK, fair enough, we will disagree. Now, if Jon was consciously 'misusing' the language, that's different. My assumption is he was being lazy and made a mistake.
Language is constantly changing and we must change with it That's more like it.
Yes, but until the language changes, there are wrong ways and right ways to express something. Since -wise is still only considered informal usage, it is incorrect to use it in formal writing. Again, if Jon feels that he disagrees with accepted usage, and is adding his vote to those who want to formalize the use of -wise, then more power to him and I take back my original comment. But if he just made a lazy mistake, my original comment was valid.
________________
Eroticism is sexual desire, and desire is in the mind. Therefore, since the mind the the source of eroticism, it makes sense that chat, say, or other "impersonal" online encounters can be erotic. There is nothing impersonal about an activity that involves two minds.
Indeed, online encounters can be more erotic, as you are forced to rely solely on the mind and cannot take a short cut to the body. ________________
Ah yes, Michael Abrash is at Microsoft now. I forgot about that. Man, M$ sure can buy some great programming talent. Abrash is a programming god in the area of graphics. M$ also bought out Anders Heljsberg (creater of Delphi) from Borland. etc.
With all that massive programming talent in-house, why is it so many M$ products come out all lame and bloated? I mean, Delphi (regardless of what you think of Pascal) is a beautifully-crafted design. What does Anders get at M$? J++ stuff at first. Oops, drop that. Then C# just so he can get to create a new language again. No doubt something god-awful to do with.Net now.
Michael Abrash now gets to play on the Xbox and people are salivating at what this thing will do. Based on Mr. Abrash's reputation and skill, I would say the Xbox will be great. However, based on how M$ usually manages to suck down the best minds in the business into their black hole of mediocrity and Billy-boy mandates, I wouldn't hold yer breath. ________________
Slashdot Mirror
No, it didn't destroy the parallel, for the principle is the same. Sometimes you get words that wind up being shortened, in addition to a hyphen being removed. Thus 'electronicmail' could have been a valid progression, but it was obviously too unwieldy and they moved right to 'email'.
________________
The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed., on p. 203, says:
"A closed (or solid) compound is a combination of two or more elements, originally separate words, now spelled as one word. Examples: henhouse, typesetting, makeup, notebook."
Thus 'typesetting' probably began as 'type setting', and then moved to 'type-setting', and finally became 'typesetting.'
The path for 'email' was 'electronic mail', 'electronic-mail', 'e-mail', and finally 'email'.
One rule, when in doubt, is to check an unabridged (recent) dictionary. If a word has progressed to the closed compound stage, it will be in the dictionary without the hyphen, and that would mean it is now valid to use it that way.
________________
anybrowser.org failed with a misues of a CENTER tag that is not supposed to be in HTML 4.0
Your homepage was OK.
Microsoft wasn't even close, but generated hundreds of errors and warnings.
Cambridge University was great! No complaints at all.
________________
I'm familiar with the definition of faith in Hebrews 11. If I recall, it includes demonstrative evidence. If such evidence were available in our day, I think more people would have "faith."
________________
Get enough of these panels connected, and you could surround yourself. Talk about first-person shooter game immersion! When someone sneaks up behind you to shoot, they would really be behind you!
________________
It's because 'creationism' tends to carry a lot more baggage than just the concept of a creator existing. Typically, creationism encompasses the 6,000-year-old-earth nonsense, and that's what educated, reasonably intelligent people find absurd.
If you want to posit the idea of a creator who started the whole process rolling, that's certainly a possibility. One without evidence, of course, which is where faith comes in, but certainly possible. After all, scientists can't explain, as you said, where the mass came from in the first place.
That leaves a person with the unanswerable question of who created God. The religionists say, "He always existed," and find that acceptable, while simultaneously finding unacceptable the idea of universe (or metaverse) always existing. Whatever.
Science, of course, when faced with a question that is unanswerable at the present time says, "We don't know." So it's not quite accurate to say that atheists take things on faith. Not in the religious sense of the word 'faith', in any case. They accept that which has evidence. It's a perfectly honest approach to take. Believe what you know, and say to the rest, "I have no evidence, and therefore I do not believe." With time and new evidence, that can change.
________________
"Linux sucks?"
"All hackers are evil?"
"Natalie Portman to appear nekkid?"
________________
This is not at all unusual. I believe the same thing happened with copyright laws, with the U.S. government encouraging foreign governments to increase copyright holder's powers, and then came to Congress and said, 'See, the rest of the world is doing it, so we should too.'
When fanaticism is in play, not getting support for your idea is no deterrent. Just do an end-run around the problem and get what you want without public support.
________________
"We didn't recommend any mandatory practices," said Donald Telage, chairman of the commission and an executive at Network Solutions Inc. "We did consider them, but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down...I don't believe they're good enough. They're hopelessly outgunned. A legislative, quick solution may not be the right answer."
Correct. Even those on the panel who were conservative knew that filters aren't the answer. And legislation to require filters is merely the "quick" solution, not the right one. But does this stop Congress? Nooooooo...
"The House leadership believes the amendment will likely survive because of its strong public support. A study this week from the Digital Media Forum showed 92 percent of 1,900 U.S. residents polled believe pornography should be blocked on school computers and 79 percent believe software filters should block hate speech. "
Basic ignorance at work here, folks. You poll people and ask, "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" and what do you think the responses will be? "Uh, no, I don't think we should block porn at schools."?? Of course not! People are going to say, "Sure, block the stuff."
Those polled probably have no idea that filters don't work. Congress should know better, but they would rather run around waving papers showing poll results and claiming that the American public is clamoring for filters!
Ignorance triumphant.
________________
But thanks for making a wrong negative assumption about me anyway.
________________
It's strange to walk through a computer store and see all these Compaqs obviously inspired by Apple's success with the iMacs, yet looking hideous. Now the new Sony tries for the iBook handle, and striking color scheme, and it doesn't quite work.
One thing about Apple, by focusing on design from the ground up, they come up with striking looks that work in the marketplace. Everyone else seems to view design as an afterthought. This Sony is better than some, but it doesn't work any more than any of the other wannabes.
________________
And yes, the current state-of-the-art still looks like cheesy computer graphics to me.
Once they can make a game that looks as real as a movie, in full-motion, the game market will explode again. The notion of a virtual world will be compelling to people who want to explore a new world, not shoot at pixels.
________________
"The U.S. elections would be much better if they were conducted like ICANN elections. I'd love it if the majority of members of Congress were chosen by an unrepresentative group rather than by public election,"
The majority of members of Congress are elected that way. Political parties select who they want to run, and special interest groups fund them accordingly, and at election time a minority actually vote for these hand-picked candidates. An outsider who wants in has a terrible time even getting noticed.
"...and the only voice we got was one token member from each region of the country."
As opposed to the American public, who sometimes don't even get a token member who represents them, representing special interest groups instead.
"It'd be even better if there were completely unreasonable barriers to participation in the process, and election "rules" that change at a moment's notice based on whether or not said unrepresentative group feels that an election might go its way or not. "
You mean the way the New York State political parties will change the rules to exclude any primary candidate they feel doesn't belong on the ballot, until court orders force them to do so?
________________
I'm not sure what you meant by "record them" in that sentence, but borrowing tapes/cds from friends is absolutely NOT illegal. This is part of "fair use", and has been ruled that way by the courts. See, for instance, how David Boies, the lead attorney defending Napster, describes it in this Wired interview.
So if the DMCA is providing 'a technical implementation' of something, it certainly isn't for 'existing laws.' In fact, it's about to make illegal something that has always been legal to do.
________________
I also enjoyed the redundant mod, as I happened upon this story early enough that mine was one of the very first messages posted on the topic. But hey, I guess I should have anticipated other people writing the same thing and not written my future-redudant message in the first place!
________________
- "Boucher said the bill would "create the presumption that the computer-assisted implementation of an analog-world business method is obvious and thus is not patentable."
- "Boucher also said that the bill could amend application procedures by adding "new protections to the beginning and end of the current process," allowing the public to submit "evidence that the claimed invention is already in use."
- "The bill would also establish an "opposition procedure" at the conclusion of the process, "so that the public at large would have one additional opportunity to challenge the award of a business method patent short of having to file a lawsuit," said Boucher.
Common sense, all. But in government, common sense usually requires some laws being thrown around.________________
"In the fiscal year that ended Saturday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said Friday it will have granted about 1,000 patents out of 5,000 applications for computer-related business methods."
Man, if 4,000 applications failed while something like 1-click made it, makes you wonder how stupid those 4,000 were!
'Application for patent: Method -- Slamming forehead on keyboard'...
________________
As for this quote:
"Then came the call to boycott the hack-SDMI challenge. Those SDMI members who had been secretly hoping that hackers would breeze through the challenge and prove once and for all that SDMI was wasting its time were dismayed. If the system wasn't tested and broken, SDMI would forge ahead and release a solution that many considered fallible."
Yes, that's precisely the idea. We want a solution released that is fallible, and that way it will be immediately broken.
There is another reason why SDMI should be given free reign to do whatever they want without hacker interference: Let's see which companies decide to produce SDMI-compliant devices. Since they know such devices are basically breakable, and hostile to consumers, this will tell us which companies are willing to stand up for their principles and which ones aren't. After all, membership in SDMI is voluntary. Let's see which companies volunteer to stand up for the consumer, even in the face of economic pressure from the entertainment companies.
Then we'll know which equipment to buy, and which to avoid.
And then we hack SDMI...
________________
I hardly think five months will be enough time to make M$ appealing...
________________
Yes, but another attempt to copy the Mac OS is hardly that innovative. Besides, it's just one more Windows version.
How about Windows NT? Granted, not the most stable, secure products ever made, but come on, almost everyone (including half the Slashdot population) uses them! Granted, he did not write every single line of code, but he did lead the company that did. Without his leadership, who knows what would have happened.
The easy response would be: "Uh, innovation?" But the less-flippant response is that there were plenty of companies (mine included) who were doing Wide Area Networking long before NT was viable. My guess, if Gates has decided to cash in at the start of the 90s, is that Ballmer would have done many of the same things. Even if he had failed where Gates had success, what makes you think that all those companies M$ crushed along the way wouldn't have provided the needed technology?
Without Windows 95, where would we be? 90 % of us would be out of a job. Computers would not have hit it off 'really big,' because they would still be too hard to use for the idiots who sit at home (yes, those same people who call tech support)
I guess they would have had to buy Macs or something else easy. Or they could have learned to use Win 3.1. In my experience, those who couldn't figure out Win 3.1 never bothered to learn Win95 either.
If BillG left Microsoft 10 years ago, would any of this come around?
Probably. Maybe not at the same speed, or with the same number of casualties along the side of the road, but probably the other tens of thousands of M$ employees would have done something without Gates around.
Or would you be running DOS or Windows 3.1? ( which was also innovative)
Actually, both were derivative, not innovate, but yes, business could and did run on those.
Would 99% of offices have a computer in them?
Absolutely.
Or, would you be flipping burgers at BurgerKing? (which runs NT, last time I checked)
I wasn't flipping burgers before Gates came along, nor was I doing so before those 90's 'innovations' you cite. So why would I be flipping burgers now had Gates retired in 1990?
Look, M$ as a company has done tremendous things and, by virtue of most folks being too lazy to care, or by virtue of their predatory ways, most of us use M$ software today. But what innovative things has Gates done in the 90s? Another respondant suggested the turnaround of M$ to embrace the Net. That was impressive, but hardly innovative. It was imitative in the extreme.
I mean, governments have a temendous influence on our lives. That influence doesn't mean they are innovative, however.
________________
But Gates? What's he done in the 90s? Now if this were a list of the 80s, I would agree. He helped turn M$ into a powerhouse during the 80s. But by 1990, it was already dominant, and what's new since then? Windows? Same old, same old, but with newer bugs. Word? Uh, 80s. Bob? Uh, forget that... Buying off congressmen? Maybe that was new for the 90s, I dunno. Oh, I get it! Lying in court! That was definately a 90s sort of thing.
Here is a quote from the article justifying the choice:
"People who admire him point to his unwavering vision for Windows as the universal operating system, and Microsoft Corp.'s leadership in developing applications for that environment. "
ROFL! "Unwavering vision for Windows" = lack of vision for anything else! And M$'s "leadership in developing applications for that environment" = killing any other company who tried to do the same.
________________
OK, fair enough, we will disagree. Now, if Jon was consciously 'misusing' the language, that's different. My assumption is he was being lazy and made a mistake.
Language is constantly changing and we must change with it That's more like it.
Yes, but until the language changes, there are wrong ways and right ways to express something. Since -wise is still only considered informal usage, it is incorrect to use it in formal writing. Again, if Jon feels that he disagrees with accepted usage, and is adding his vote to those who want to formalize the use of -wise, then more power to him and I take back my original comment. But if he just made a lazy mistake, my original comment was valid.
________________
Indeed, online encounters can be more erotic, as you are forced to rely solely on the mind and cannot take a short cut to the body.
________________
With all that massive programming talent in-house, why is it so many M$ products come out all lame and bloated? I mean, Delphi (regardless of what you think of Pascal) is a beautifully-crafted design. What does Anders get at M$? J++ stuff at first. Oops, drop that. Then C# just so he can get to create a new language again. No doubt something god-awful to do with .Net now.
Michael Abrash now gets to play on the Xbox and people are salivating at what this thing will do. Based on Mr. Abrash's reputation and skill, I would say the Xbox will be great. However, based on how M$ usually manages to suck down the best minds in the business into their black hole of mediocrity and Billy-boy mandates, I wouldn't hold yer breath.
________________
(That actually was my comment, but /. didn't log me in correctly).
________________