That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every individual contributes to the affect of the whole. Besides which, "society" speaks about a million different dialects of English. I was using my local dialect (South East Australian). The ebb and flow of language change is directly related to individual actions. The affect of the internet on the English language has made an even greater effect.
If you still don't believe that individual usage has an effect on language, go back and look at my previous posts in this thread. I have not capitalized 'English' once but in reply to you post I have mimiced your usage of it. I have also use a mixture of american and british spelling (and some bastardisations of my own).. all of this has an effect on the language. To say otherwise is to ignore what is in front of your face. None of it is "wrong", it's simply to accomodate our communication better. And as a result of one troll who didn't understand that we're having a conversation completely off topic and negating that communication. Thanks for contributing.
I was actually having a discussion today about people using 'her' instead of 'him' to avoid appearing sexist instead of trying to use gender neutral pronouns like 'their' and 'them'.
You're completely free to speak that way. Indeed if you were to systematically introduce all your suggestions over a period of time such that others adopted them and they fell into common usage they would be picked up by linguists and put into dictionaries and grammar guides. The troll replying to my post had an issue with my usage of the word 'learnt' because obviously, when he was a boy, people spelt it 'learned'. The oxford english dictionary has already recognised my usage of the word as it is already in common usage. That, however, makes it no more "correct", it's simply an acknowledgement that common usage has changed since the troll above learnt when to use 'learned' over 'learnt'. Language changes, and that's a good thing. You shouldn't chastize people for using their language their way.
See it's this bullshit that is the problem. The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. Use the dictionary if you don't understand what someone has said, not to figure out what is "correct" and what is not. Language is perhaps the only free thing we have left.
You don't seem to get that I started programming when I was 7 and I havn't stopped since (I'm now 27.) I'm not saying you have to be an early starter, I'm simply saying that you have to have a passion for programming to be a good programmer.. no university is going to teach you that. Now maybe I'm just being a bigot but I don't think you have to have a passion for the law to be a good lawyer, you just need to have a passion for money.
I have a lot of other interests, some of which could well be a career path (computational biology is a major one) but programming and computer science in general so permeate my soul that I can't imagine my life without it. I suppose one day, if I were to transcend programming, I could move onto something else.
I'm a native speaker of english, *I* define what is valid and correct usage of the language. It is the duty of linguists to document and and record the change in common usage of the language over time, not to specify what is and isn't "correct" usage. So if you were attempting to imply that I had somehow incorrectly used my native language you are incorrect, in that it is impossible for a native speaker to incorrectly use their own language. If this were not so we'd all still be speaking like Shakespeare.
When I went to uni there were a lot of people who were taking the IT degree to "learn how to program" so they could "make big bucks". Much the way law students take up law to join a law firm. Well sorry, software development isn't a summer training course. You need to actually feel some passion for the subject. I knew I wanted to be a computer programmer when I was 7 years old. I learnt to program in assembler when I was 9. That's the kind of drive you should have for your work, otherwise go do an MBA and become a manager.
I own all of DS9 on DVD for some reason. Unfortunately I can't watch any of it. It's simply not a rewatchable show. There are perhaps a few good episodes in the early seasons that one can rewatch (escaping from the cardasian ore refiner when an old command routine is accidently triggered. The time sisko builds himself a bejorian solar sailer.) But mostly it's just this big long boring plotline. Buffy and Angel on the other hand are enjoyable to watch every episode as they consistently have humour and action and the plotline is just the vehicle for delivering that stuff (instead of like ds9 which was the other way around).
The report, which will appear in the June 20-26 edition of TV Guide, cites industry sources as reporting that Paramount renewed ENTERPRISE, which had struggled in the ratings during its third season, on the offer that the fee UPN pays would be reduced from $1.7 million per episode to $800,000 per episode
2.5 million viewers is more than enough to support a subscription model for the show (that's less than 20c per viewer). And remember, we're ignoring the rest of the world in that equation. StarTrek actually has a history of fans joining together to fund it. Vast numbers of people are already downloading Enterprise off the net, if only Paramount would legitimize the activity and use the subscriptions to fund the development.
With all those extremely fast moving charged particles at a relatively low orbit, you'd think us humans would have figured out a way to hitch a ride into higher orbits using it.
There's no reason why people couldn't colaborate together and produce a proprietary game that is community funded.. it just doesn't seem to actually happen.
I wonder what will happen when the GPL MMORPGs take off. Presumably people will eventually figure out that they can get a better game if 100% of their money is being used to maintain the server and develop content (instead of increasing shareholder value and paying fatcat managers). When players start actively participating in these "co-op" game systems we're going to see some real democratic process, and unlike the real world, where refusing to pay your "taxes" will land you in jail, it's the system that will fail if vast amounts of people refuse to pay their subscription until an issue like this one is resolved.
With FireFox you can just use multiple profiles if you really want that behaviour. So not only is this a feature request, it's a feature request that has already been implemented.. people are just bitching cause they don't understand why it is implemented that way and they think their suggestion to implement it a different way is acceptable because they've never looked at the code.
Open source desktop platforms are wide open. There has been one innovation in software installation and that is the ROX Desktop. The concept being zero-install. You don't need to have root to install an application (any application) and you don't need any special privledges to run it. You simply can't run an app that doesn't come from a trusted source. The only part of the disk that applications need to be able to write to is a directory to store the user's preferences for that application and a directory to store documents created by that application. Maybe when we have more innovation on the desktop we'll get to this ideal where an application simply can't "spread" like a virus, be it by maliciously modifying other applications or by maliciously modifying documents used by users on other machines.
Switch it off (it is possible, but not straightforward) and see what breaks; it's an essential component, right or wrong.
That's not an argument at all. You wanna know what's fucked. Try debugging an application that is in no way network related on a machine that has Microsoft's firewall software enabled. It doesn't work. Why? Cause to initiate a debugging session visual studio actually sends packets out to the network adapter and back onto the machine. If you're blocking the remote debugging (say, because you don't want people brute forcing the trivial security that stops them from debugging processes on your machine) you can't even do local debugging. That's fucked behaviour and demonstrates that Microsoft really doesn't give a shit about security at all.
Think you could send me an email? Love to chat with you more sometime.
Re:Limit Scope of Session Cookies - 117222
on
Firefox Roadmap Update
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Blah. It's a matter of opinion.
Feature Request: Multiple logins on the same web site (that use session cookies).
Bug: FireFox makes user log into unnecessarily when using multiple logins on the same web site (that use session cookies).
Frankly I think it's a bug with the whole concept of session cookies. If you're a web developer and you want to fix this for your users it's really simple, use a session variable for username/password that is different for every app that you run on your website.
For example, say you run bugzilla and phpmail on the same web site (assume also these both use session cookies, they probably don't). For bugzilla use the session variables bugzilla-login and bugzilla-password. For phpmail use the session variables phpmail-login and phpmail-password. Now configure both apps so they check for a session cookie on the login page instead of just assuming that a new login implies a new session.
The browser is doing the right thing, the webapp developers just arn't playing nice together. Fixing the browser to fix these webapps is just plain bad mojo. In the mean time, if you want a work around, use different profiles.
Oh, and the "security concern" about needing to close all FireFox windows to successfully log out of a webapp. That's such a load. You clear the session cookie in one window (say by the user pressing "logout") and it is cleared in all windows. If this feature were implemented this wouldn't be the case - less security, not more.
Slashdot Mirror
The Torvalds article is waste of bits anyway. He basically says he doesn't understand any of the issues and doesn't care what happens to the license.
If you still don't believe that individual usage has an effect on language, go back and look at my previous posts in this thread. I have not capitalized 'English' once but in reply to you post I have mimiced your usage of it. I have also use a mixture of american and british spelling (and some bastardisations of my own).. all of this has an effect on the language. To say otherwise is to ignore what is in front of your face. None of it is "wrong", it's simply to accomodate our communication better. And as a result of one troll who didn't understand that we're having a conversation completely off topic and negating that communication. Thanks for contributing.
I was actually having a discussion today about people using 'her' instead of 'him' to avoid appearing sexist instead of trying to use gender neutral pronouns like 'their' and 'them'.
You're completely free to speak that way. Indeed if you were to systematically introduce all your suggestions over a period of time such that others adopted them and they fell into common usage they would be picked up by linguists and put into dictionaries and grammar guides. The troll replying to my post had an issue with my usage of the word 'learnt' because obviously, when he was a boy, people spelt it 'learned'. The oxford english dictionary has already recognised my usage of the word as it is already in common usage. That, however, makes it no more "correct", it's simply an acknowledgement that common usage has changed since the troll above learnt when to use 'learned' over 'learnt'. Language changes, and that's a good thing. You shouldn't chastize people for using their language their way.
Well actually I'm Australian :)
See it's this bullshit that is the problem. The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. Use the dictionary if you don't understand what someone has said, not to figure out what is "correct" and what is not. Language is perhaps the only free thing we have left.
You don't seem to get that I started programming when I was 7 and I havn't stopped since (I'm now 27.) I'm not saying you have to be an early starter, I'm simply saying that you have to have a passion for programming to be a good programmer.. no university is going to teach you that. Now maybe I'm just being a bigot but I don't think you have to have a passion for the law to be a good lawyer, you just need to have a passion for money.
I have a lot of other interests, some of which could well be a career path (computational biology is a major one) but programming and computer science in general so permeate my soul that I can't imagine my life without it. I suppose one day, if I were to transcend programming, I could move onto something else.
fair enough. In trying to be flippant I was probably being ignorant.
Now piss off grammar nazi.
When I went to uni there were a lot of people who were taking the IT degree to "learn how to program" so they could "make big bucks". Much the way law students take up law to join a law firm. Well sorry, software development isn't a summer training course. You need to actually feel some passion for the subject. I knew I wanted to be a computer programmer when I was 7 years old. I learnt to program in assembler when I was 9. That's the kind of drive you should have for your work, otherwise go do an MBA and become a manager.
I own all of DS9 on DVD for some reason. Unfortunately I can't watch any of it. It's simply not a rewatchable show. There are perhaps a few good episodes in the early seasons that one can rewatch (escaping from the cardasian ore refiner when an old command routine is accidently triggered. The time sisko builds himself a bejorian solar sailer.) But mostly it's just this big long boring plotline. Buffy and Angel on the other hand are enjoyable to watch every episode as they consistently have humour and action and the plotline is just the vehicle for delivering that stuff (instead of like ds9 which was the other way around).
2.5 million viewers is more than enough to support a subscription model for the show (that's less than 20c per viewer). And remember, we're ignoring the rest of the world in that equation. StarTrek actually has a history of fans joining together to fund it. Vast numbers of people are already downloading Enterprise off the net, if only Paramount would legitimize the activity and use the subscriptions to fund the development.
With all those extremely fast moving charged particles at a relatively low orbit, you'd think us humans would have figured out a way to hitch a ride into higher orbits using it.
There's no reason why people couldn't colaborate together and produce a proprietary game that is community funded.. it just doesn't seem to actually happen.
It's in everyone's interest that the game be balanced. It seems strange to think that people would vote against their own interest.
I wonder what will happen when the GPL MMORPGs take off. Presumably people will eventually figure out that they can get a better game if 100% of their money is being used to maintain the server and develop content (instead of increasing shareholder value and paying fatcat managers). When players start actively participating in these "co-op" game systems we're going to see some real democratic process, and unlike the real world, where refusing to pay your "taxes" will land you in jail, it's the system that will fail if vast amounts of people refuse to pay their subscription until an issue like this one is resolved.
With FireFox you can just use multiple profiles if you really want that behaviour. So not only is this a feature request, it's a feature request that has already been implemented.. people are just bitching cause they don't understand why it is implemented that way and they think their suggestion to implement it a different way is acceptable because they've never looked at the code.
Open source desktop platforms are wide open. There has been one innovation in software installation and that is the ROX Desktop. The concept being zero-install. You don't need to have root to install an application (any application) and you don't need any special privledges to run it. You simply can't run an app that doesn't come from a trusted source. The only part of the disk that applications need to be able to write to is a directory to store the user's preferences for that application and a directory to store documents created by that application. Maybe when we have more innovation on the desktop we'll get to this ideal where an application simply can't "spread" like a virus, be it by maliciously modifying other applications or by maliciously modifying documents used by users on other machines.
Hehe, Cole asked Bill about "longhaul" about 3 times and Bill didn't get it. You can see Cole smile just as the camera pulls away.
Man, it really does lose something in transcription. You've gotta hear Bill squirm to really get what he is saying.
your definition of kernel code must be different to mine.
That's not an argument at all. You wanna know what's fucked. Try debugging an application that is in no way network related on a machine that has Microsoft's firewall software enabled. It doesn't work. Why? Cause to initiate a debugging session visual studio actually sends packets out to the network adapter and back onto the machine. If you're blocking the remote debugging (say, because you don't want people brute forcing the trivial security that stops them from debugging processes on your machine) you can't even do local debugging. That's fucked behaviour and demonstrates that Microsoft really doesn't give a shit about security at all.
Think you could send me an email? Love to chat with you more sometime.
Feature Request: Multiple logins on the same web site (that use session cookies).
Bug: FireFox makes user log into unnecessarily when using multiple logins on the same web site (that use session cookies).
Frankly I think it's a bug with the whole concept of session cookies. If you're a web developer and you want to fix this for your users it's really simple, use a session variable for username/password that is different for every app that you run on your website.
For example, say you run bugzilla and phpmail on the same web site (assume also these both use session cookies, they probably don't). For bugzilla use the session variables bugzilla-login and bugzilla-password. For phpmail use the session variables phpmail-login and phpmail-password. Now configure both apps so they check for a session cookie on the login page instead of just assuming that a new login implies a new session.
The browser is doing the right thing, the webapp developers just arn't playing nice together. Fixing the browser to fix these webapps is just plain bad mojo. In the mean time, if you want a work around, use different profiles.
Oh, and the "security concern" about needing to close all FireFox windows to successfully log out of a webapp. That's such a load. You clear the session cookie in one window (say by the user pressing "logout") and it is cleared in all windows. If this feature were implemented this wouldn't be the case - less security, not more.