also please note i never told anyone how to express themselves. i just pointed out the underlying nonsense in response to someone sort of reprobating someone else for the pun word "usians". of course it was a pun, but you guys should expect that (and hopefully with a tiny bit of humor) from the moment on you mangle meanings in such a way. not a problem at all but it's just natural that other people might get confused.
btw, both [sic]'s i assume were also a joke. just for the record, i didn't get it. i hate missing jokes.
I only speak four, and here are the words they use: Spanish: americano Italian: americano French: américain German: Amerikaner
which implies that's the only form. it isn't. at all. its adoption varies but other forms are actually more prevalent in several instances, probably most. spanish language academy, for instance, expressly states that "americano" in lieu of "estadounidense" is incorrect, and should not be used. that's a board of over 40 phylologists and i'd say they have a point. of course if you disagree (or think they're just being arrogant), you can go argue with them.
while I have been making an impartial observation on their actual prevalence in usage
I chuckle that you have the hubris to think you can speak for the personal life experience of someone you don't even know
i didn't. i'm speaking for my personal experience. it's obviously different from yours.
and adopt an arrogant tone while doing it.
oh, did i? come on, i just played your words, why so stiff?
If you wish to continue trying to dictate what I know from own experience, you may carry on the conversation with my hand, as I have no interest in you telling me your "facts."
the "offensive word" ((c) monkeyzoo) has different penetration. it is more common in germany as in spain, more common in casual speech as formal, written or media, and it was also more common some decades ago. i guess it depends on the context but fact is it isn't at all universal, so...
yes, but since english has become a de-facto common language on the internet, which is a good thing for us all, the scope is significantly broader, and there is no actual consensus on the meaning of 'american' in that context.
As others have pointed out in their replies, that's not the case
it's indeed the case, at least for the languages i cited. monkeyzoo (not 'others', he's the only one making this incorrect statement) is actually wrong and you can check that easily out.
is there anything (again, non-contrived) we could discuss that would apply to people in Seattle and Sao Paolo but not to people in Stuttgart and Sydney?
dunno. are you sure there isn't? anyway, what if i tell you that people in several countries call themselves "americanos" too? will you then spot the basic contradiction?
Really, it sounds like this is just a proxy for resentment of the US.
absolutely not. i just pointed out a fact. i had no idea it would have such an impact. but i've been moded troll (wow!) and even had someone declare me his "foe" (lolololol). this wasn't expected but i have to say i do find this fortuitous trolling incident quite funny.
it's still silly and incorrect, but i do understand it is difficult to overcome cultural impregnation even if it's wrong. every language and variation has plenty of those, anyway. i have really no hard stance in this and realize it will not be easy to come along on such, er... sensible? matters. thank you for your time and informative comments, anyway!
Most European languages??? I only speak four, and here are the words they use:
Spanish: americano Italian: americano French: américain German: Amerikaner
I can go just about anywhere in the world and use one of these languages (or English). So, I'm gonna call B.S. on your statement. In fact, I find that in Europe, Europeans are more likely than US citizens to use the "offensive" word, because we Americans know we have neighbors to the south and north who don't always like it.
you're wrong.
in spanish "estadounidense" is the official term, while "norteamericano" is also used, and ocassionally "americano" but you will never hear that in the media. portugese also say "estadunidense".
in german it's "Nordamerikaner", "Amerikaner" and "US-amerikanisch" can also be heard. french indeed say "étasunien" and "américain". italian say either "nordamericano" or simply "americano"
it seems you can go just about anywhere in the world and still not learn anything from it.
which is the "offensive" word, btw? (not that i'm wanting to use it, just curious:D)
it's still silly. what's wrong with "north americans"? "south americans" seems accepted too.
i meant appropiaton in a linguistic sense. in the end it might just be you just have a silly name for your country, i admit that "united staters" or "usians" sounds weird (though that's exactly how you are referred to in most european languages), but that's no reason to disregard the meaning of a reference for all people in america to the point to,... yes, appropiate it. or else, how would you actually refer properly to that group (assuming you wanted to)? you could'nt, you'd have to use a periphrase because you gave an arbitrary meaning to the only word that would make sense.
Most people think of their location in terms of political entities rather than geography.
there are examples of the opposite. people in canary islands, for example, refer to themselves as "canarios", not "spanish". that makes sense, however, because the term isn't inaccurate.
That's not just an American thing.
can you remember any other instance where the name of a whole continent is appropriated by a single country as "nationality"? thought so. you should be able to understand how nonsensical this looks from anywhere outside united states. i know that this is customary in the states, but you guys should also note that this is the internets where you are being read.
The accepted noun for a citizen of the United States is "American." It is used in sources ranging from Wikipedia to Websters to CIA's World Factbook.
quoted from the wiki (emphasis mine):
In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1] However, this default use has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3] They argue instead that "American" should denote persons or things from anywhere in North, Central or South America, not just the United States, which is only a part of North America.
and who would give a fuck about the cia's world factbook (besides some really stubborn usian:D)
if you don't mind, i will continue to use "american" as related to anything in "america", even though "america" doesn't mean what you think it means.
trying to slow down the fragmentation of the language into dialects
"dialect" is a term used for arbitrary classification. there is absolutely no linguistic difference between what you call a "language" and a "dialect", both are the exact same thing.
language fragmentation is inherent to geographic distribution. there is no such thing as "proper english" unless maybe you are referring to a particular form of english dominant in england at a given time, which is a pretty useless definition in the current world.
dominant languages today have become such through military/economic/cultural expansion, and expansion naturally implies fragmentation. there is no more "english" to speak of, but "englishes" or whatever the plural of english would be in your particular english.
it stops new versions of Chrome from running, which is a security concern.
if old versions of chrome become a security concern it's google's responsibility to either provide a fixes or at least effectively warn users, period. has nothing to do with any aspect of any os chrome happens to run on.
So really what's going on is a conflict between organizations. Google wants to move faster than Debian does, and Debian (or at least Ben) doesn't want to give Google special concessions.
it's much like you say but i see no conflict, really. google can have its way, and debian (ben) is just being consistent with being debian. users can have their pick so no problem. responsibility is still clearly outlined and any rogue chrome versions causing havoc will be chrome's fault, regardless of kernel. so google should at least inform the user that they dropped support for platform x so he could pick a different browser. they have done so in the past.
i made this reflection because of you mentioning "security concerns", but i don't know of any in this context. i understand now that tsync allows for cleaner implementation of sandboxing, but if you deliver a sandboxed browser for a platform you better make sure it's indeed properly sandboxed with the api available for that platform at that moment. IF chrome had known security issues with that then debian, being debian, should of course hold it back.
Things Of Interest Blog Suicide Linux You know how sometimes if you mistype a filename in Bash, it corrects your spelling and runs the command anyway? Such as when changing directory, or opening a file.
no. never. really?
any time - you type any remotely incorrect command, the interpreter creatively resolves it into rm -rf / and wipes your hard drive.
well, the initial motto was "linux for human beings" but, well, it's just a catchy motto.
now if you consider what it really means to be "an operating system for casual users" you realize that ubuntu is not at all far from windows or macos on that level, don't expect too much. however, it's free, and it's an entrypoint to more advanced distros. it's still not irrelevant.
No, it isn't, and it never has been. You utterly fail to understand the 'integration' issue with IE.
yes, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... you fail to understand the single point of failure issues with ms components in general, not just ie. ie is just an example of having such vulnerable crap open to external access.
granted, i don't know if this still exists in windows 8. i very much guess so, but i don't really care. if you use windows, you should.
> "We needed a plan to make it easy for Web developers to build compatible sites regardless of which browser they develop first for."
Can you even IMAGINE Microsoft saying that 15 years ago?
yes. it's old. ms has been lying and spreading bs and fud since day one. an egregious and sick example of their cynicism in this area is "compatibility mode".
however, given just an expected output there will be lots of conforming inputs. you still need to figure out which of those randomly generated functions not only produces the same output by chance, but actually conveys the expected operation. in short, you would have to run the test for all possible inputs.
that's for a single unit test. imagining integration test just gave me a shudder:)
the demand of functionality however is also getting more. did you expect anyone to ask you to do elgamal encryption on a cell phone browser back in the day?
there will be always problems to be solved. the trivial stuff you can give to 'key punchers'. or robots, for that matter, once we have created the right tools. i don't think we have. article is bs (if it is even remotely related to the summary. didn't bother to read)
you can, just don't expect it to be widely adopted. plus your niche shouldn't have security and usability concerns.
also, be aware that applet support isn't likely to last much longer. several plugins aren't supported anymore on the desktop, and there aren't any at all for mobile devices or tablets. since java 1.7ish even running signed privileged applets on supported browsers on desktop is a pain. in short: maintaining applet support is problematic and nobody seems to bother anymore, specially since there is no benefit: js can now handle most of what applets did in the browser in the past, right out of the box and better.
there still are a few very specific usecases for applets like, for example, to access smartcard readers from a webapp. but even then, applet maintenance and deployment is hardly optimal and you'd probably will end up ditching the whole idea and lookig for a workaround.
and of course you don't have to learn "every language out there" if you don't want. however, if you want to do stuff for the web today (that's what applets were for) you simply won't get away without learning js. it's not optional.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, then. can we be friends now? :-)
also please note i never told anyone how to express themselves. i just pointed out the underlying nonsense in response to someone sort of reprobating someone else for the pun word "usians". of course it was a pun, but you guys should expect that (and hopefully with a tiny bit of humor) from the moment on you mangle meanings in such a way. not a problem at all but it's just natural that other people might get confused.
btw, both [sic]'s i assume were also a joke. just for the record, i didn't get it. i hate missing jokes.
no, you were wrong. you said:
I only speak four, and here are the words they use:
Spanish: americano
Italian: americano
French: américain
German: Amerikaner
which implies that's the only form. it isn't. at all. its adoption varies but other forms are actually more prevalent in several instances, probably most. spanish language academy, for instance, expressly states that "americano" in lieu of "estadounidense" is incorrect, and should not be used. that's a board of over 40 phylologists and i'd say they have a point. of course if you disagree (or think they're just being arrogant), you can go argue with them.
while I have been making an impartial observation on their actual prevalence in usage
wrong again. see above.
I chuckle that you have the hubris to think you can speak for the personal life experience of someone you don't even know
i didn't. i'm speaking for my personal experience. it's obviously different from yours.
and adopt an arrogant tone while doing it.
oh, did i? come on, i just played your words, why so stiff?
If you wish to continue trying to dictate what I know from own experience, you may carry on the conversation with my hand, as I have no interest in you telling me your "facts."
the "offensive word" ((c) monkeyzoo) has different penetration. it is more common in germany as in spain, more common in casual speech as formal, written or media, and it was also more common some decades ago. i guess it depends on the context but fact is it isn't at all universal, so ...
yes, but since english has become a de-facto common language on the internet, which is a good thing for us all, the scope is significantly broader, and there is no actual consensus on the meaning of 'american' in that context.
As others have pointed out in their replies, that's not the case
it's indeed the case, at least for the languages i cited. monkeyzoo (not 'others', he's the only one making this incorrect statement) is actually wrong and you can check that easily out.
is there anything (again, non-contrived) we could discuss that would apply to people in Seattle and Sao Paolo but not to people in Stuttgart and Sydney?
dunno. are you sure there isn't? anyway, what if i tell you that people in several countries call themselves "americanos" too? will you then spot the basic contradiction?
Really, it sounds like this is just a proxy for resentment of the US.
absolutely not. i just pointed out a fact. i had no idea it would have such an impact. but i've been moded troll (wow!) and even had someone declare me his "foe" (lolololol). this wasn't expected but i have to say i do find this fortuitous trolling incident quite funny.
it's still silly and incorrect, but i do understand it is difficult to overcome cultural impregnation even if it's wrong. every language and variation has plenty of those, anyway. i have really no hard stance in this and realize it will not be easy to come along on such, er ... sensible? matters. thank you for your time and informative comments, anyway!
even though "america" doesn't mean what you think it means
...the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
thank you, so it logically follows that "american" should apply to what? thank you for demonstrating my point.
What did you think, pedant?
same as you, apparently!
As you said, "among native English speakers this usage is almost universal".
So should all of us native speakers re-learn our language
not at all. you can call yourselves whatever you like. i'm just pointing out it is incorrect.
from a bunch of people who can't pronounce "h" or "th"?
sorry? don0t get what's your problem here.
Most European languages???
I only speak four, and here are the words they use:
Spanish: americano
Italian: americano
French: américain
German: Amerikaner
I can go just about anywhere in the world and use one of these languages (or English). So, I'm gonna call B.S. on your statement.
In fact, I find that in Europe, Europeans are more likely than US citizens to use the "offensive" word, because we Americans know we have neighbors to the south and north who don't always like it.
you're wrong.
in spanish "estadounidense" is the official term, while "norteamericano" is also used, and ocassionally "americano" but you will never hear that in the media. portugese also say "estadunidense".
in german it's "Nordamerikaner", "Amerikaner" and "US-amerikanisch" can also be heard. french indeed say "étasunien" and "américain". italian say either "nordamericano" or simply "americano"
it seems you can go just about anywhere in the world and still not learn anything from it.
which is the "offensive" word, btw? (not that i'm wanting to use it, just curious :D)
it's still silly. what's wrong with "north americans"? "south americans" seems accepted too.
i meant appropiaton in a linguistic sense. in the end it might just be you just have a silly name for your country, i admit that "united staters" or "usians" sounds weird (though that's exactly how you are referred to in most european languages), but that's no reason to disregard the meaning of a reference for all people in america to the point to, ... yes, appropiate it. or else, how would you actually refer properly to that group (assuming you wanted to)? you could'nt, you'd have to use a periphrase because you gave an arbitrary meaning to the only word that would make sense.
Most people think of their location in terms of political entities rather than geography.
there are examples of the opposite. people in canary islands, for example, refer to themselves as "canarios", not "spanish". that makes sense, however, because the term isn't inaccurate.
That's not just an American thing.
can you remember any other instance where the name of a whole continent is appropriated by a single country as "nationality"? thought so. you should be able to understand how nonsensical this looks from anywhere outside united states. i know that this is customary in the states, but you guys should also note that this is the internets where you are being read.
It doesn't matter what she says or does she'll continue to get elected.
it's called "professional politicians" and happens all over the world (where there's some sort of elections, that is)
The accepted noun for a citizen of the United States is "American." It is used in sources ranging from Wikipedia to Websters to CIA's World Factbook.
quoted from the wiki (emphasis mine):
In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.[1] However, this default use has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it.[2][3] They argue instead that "American" should denote persons or things from anywhere in North, Central or South America, not just the United States, which is only a part of North America.
and who would give a fuck about the cia's world factbook (besides some really stubborn usian :D)
if you don't mind, i will continue to use "american" as related to anything in "america", even though "america" doesn't mean what you think it means.
trying to slow down the fragmentation of the language into dialects
"dialect" is a term used for arbitrary classification. there is absolutely no linguistic difference between what you call a "language" and a "dialect", both are the exact same thing.
language fragmentation is inherent to geographic distribution. there is no such thing as "proper english" unless maybe you are referring to a particular form of english dominant in england at a given time, which is a pretty useless definition in the current world.
dominant languages today have become such through military/economic/cultural expansion, and expansion naturally implies fragmentation. there is no more "english" to speak of, but "englishes" or whatever the plural of english would be in your particular english.
it stops new versions of Chrome from running, which is a security concern.
if old versions of chrome become a security concern it's google's responsibility to either provide a fixes or at least effectively warn users, period. has nothing to do with any aspect of any os chrome happens to run on.
So really what's going on is a conflict between organizations. Google wants to move faster than Debian does, and Debian (or at least Ben) doesn't want to give Google special concessions.
it's much like you say but i see no conflict, really. google can have its way, and debian (ben) is just being consistent with being debian. users can have their pick so no problem. responsibility is still clearly outlined and any rogue chrome versions causing havoc will be chrome's fault, regardless of kernel. so google should at least inform the user that they dropped support for platform x so he could pick a different browser. they have done so in the past.
i made this reflection because of you mentioning "security concerns", but i don't know of any in this context. i understand now that tsync allows for cleaner implementation of sandboxing, but if you deliver a sandboxed browser for a platform you better make sure it's indeed properly sandboxed with the api available for that platform at that moment. IF chrome had known security issues with that then debian, being debian, should of course hold it back.
Link: Suicide Linux
lol.
Things Of Interest Blog
Suicide Linux
You know how sometimes if you mistype a filename in Bash, it corrects your spelling and runs the command anyway? Such as when changing directory, or opening a file.
no. never. really?
any time - you type any remotely incorrect command, the interpreter creatively resolves it into rm -rf / and wipes your hard drive.
freaky idea anyway, can't say i don't like it.
ubuntu has always been linux for casual users.
well, the initial motto was "linux for human beings" but, well, it's just a catchy motto.
now if you consider what it really means to be "an operating system for casual users" you realize that ubuntu is not at all far from windows or macos on that level, don't expect too much. however, it's free, and it's an entrypoint to more advanced distros. it's still not irrelevant.
No, it isn't, and it never has been. You utterly fail to understand the 'integration' issue with IE.
yes, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
you fail to understand the single point of failure issues with ms components in general, not just ie. ie is just an example of having such vulnerable crap open to external access.
granted, i don't know if this still exists in windows 8. i very much guess so, but i don't really care. if you use windows, you should.
> "We needed a plan to make it easy for Web developers to build compatible sites regardless of which browser they develop first for."
Can you even IMAGINE Microsoft saying that 15 years ago?
yes. it's old. ms has been lying and spreading bs and fud since day one. an egregious and sick example of their cynicism in this area is "compatibility mode".
bullshit.
gorgeous.
however, given just an expected output there will be lots of conforming inputs. you still need to figure out which of those randomly generated functions not only produces the same output by chance, but actually conveys the expected operation. in short, you would have to run the test for all possible inputs.
that's for a single unit test. imagining integration test just gave me a shudder :)
the demand of functionality however is also getting more. did you expect anyone to ask you to do elgamal encryption on a cell phone browser back in the day?
there will be always problems to be solved. the trivial stuff you can give to 'key punchers'. or robots, for that matter, once we have created the right tools. i don't think we have. article is bs (if it is even remotely related to the summary. didn't bother to read)
hey, we will have to invent some sort of agilatronics to plot the value of that onto our powerpointatrons!
yeah but his signature is cool!
We already have robots who develop that way, they're called average software engineer (aka monkey)
there, FTFY
you can, just don't expect it to be widely adopted. plus your niche shouldn't have security and usability concerns.
also, be aware that applet support isn't likely to last much longer. several plugins aren't supported anymore on the desktop, and there aren't any at all for mobile devices or tablets. since java 1.7ish even running signed privileged applets on supported browsers on desktop is a pain. in short: maintaining applet support is problematic and nobody seems to bother anymore, specially since there is no benefit: js can now handle most of what applets did in the browser in the past, right out of the box and better.
there still are a few very specific usecases for applets like, for example, to access smartcard readers from a webapp. but even then, applet maintenance and deployment is hardly optimal and you'd probably will end up ditching the whole idea and lookig for a workaround.
and of course you don't have to learn "every language out there" if you don't want. however, if you want to do stuff for the web today (that's what applets were for) you simply won't get away without learning js. it's not optional.
"did you just say lisp?" XDDDD