Still, at least it's amusing when I deliberately make a word choice (such as selecting a non-standard nominalization of "stupid"), as I did in my original post, and stupid people assume it's a spelling mistake.
I didn't want to say that the internet makes it easier for them "to display that they are stupid" which is the paraphrase for your "correction." I was using "their stupid" as a replacement for "their stupidity." I'm making use of a language in a slightly non-standard way, as a conscious decision.
The internet just makes it easier and faster for morons to display their stupid. In the old days, that same jackass who just had to twitter about the trial he's on would have been knocking back beer in a local bar and going on about the trial.
Yeah, holy shit. Marketing a product as being cool and hip is the least cool, most deeply unhip thing they could have done. Fuck firings, I'm surprised there haven't been any suicides.
I mean, I watched the promotional video and frankly the thing doesn't look particularly nice.
Of course, that might be a reaction to 4+ minutes of being told what a premium product it is, and how people will look at me when I'm using it, which basically made it sound like it's marketed to overpaid IT executives going through a midlife crisis.
Well, to be pedantic (and who can resist an opportunity like that?), the indefinite article indicates the object noun "developer", not "software" (which is just an adjective in your example).
I love it when people are pedantic without knowing what they're talking about.;-) I've already written this up once, so have a look:
Software is an adjective modifying the word developer. Similarly the article 'a' is a modifier of the word developer.
No, actually - "software" in "software developer" is a noun modifying another noun. In traditional grammar they're called attributive nouns.
Consider some evidence to support that conclusion:
In English, adjectives are usually able to express degree (comparative, superlative, equitative) - "Dave is a big developer, but Steve is a bigger developer; Matt, however, is the biggest developer." You can't do that with "software," and not just as a result of morphological deficiency (neither "softwarer" or "more software" are possible as adjectivals). There are adjectives that can't (or usually don't) express degree - "extinct," is a common example (you can't say one species is more extinct than another), but those tend to be adjectives that semantically relate to binary states.
Most English adjectives have corresponding adverbs, and it's typically easy to convert an adjective to an adverb by appending the -lysuffix - "happy" => "happily," etc. Again not possible with "software." But not a 100% certain thing - you can't really do that with "extinct" either.
Also, consider some distributional facts about the word software. If "software" were an attributive adjective, you'd be able to make paraphrases with copular be - e.g., "The happy developer," can be transformed to "the developer is happy," or "the extinct species" becomes "the species is extinct." Not so with software in the sentence above - "The software developer" can't be changed to "the developer is software" without entirely changing the meaning (and producing a semantically aberrant sentence).
There's also an issue with adverbial modification of "software." You could say "The totally extinct species," or "the probably extinct species;" you can't modify "software," though, except via an adjective or another word (noun) with the same morphological and distributional characteristics. So, "the probably software developer" is bad, but "the probable software developer," (i.e., you're not sure if he is or not) is OK. Similarly, "The database software developer," where database has the morphological and distributional characteristics that I've claimed for "software," here.
"Software" is not being used as a noun in your example. "Software" is an adjective modifying "developer". "Developer" is the noun that the article you use applies to.
Actually, I don't think it's an adjective in my example - I think it's still a noun, but part of a compound noun phrase that has a count noun as it's head (which is why it can take an indefinite article in my example). Potato, po-tah-to, I guess.
Where'd you learn to parse English?
Like all native speakers, I learned from those that raised me (and from others around me, though in a more passive capacity). It's debatable how much influence coursework and reading in syntax has influenced my parsing - given that it was largely in the generative/GB/minimalist tradition, one could say it had nothing to do with parsing;)
Yeah, I know. I was using software as part of a noun phrase where it can take an indefinite article, unlike the OP where he was using the bare noun where it can't. I was just picking on the overly broad statement of the issue.
It's an interesting word, actually - many non-count nouns can be used with an indefinite article, but only in the context of a generic class, e.g., "Beef is a meat that's very popular in Brazil," or "Evian is a water that's bottled in France." However true it might be, I don't think you could say something like "Oracle is a software that costs far too much for what it does," and have it be grammatically acceptable to (most?) native speakers of English. I'd be curious if that is possible for any native speakers, though.
Leave the PC on 24/7 and don't use it late at night(like my last customer)? Then I set everything up to take care of itself at 3AM so by the time you come into work it is ready when you are.
Sorry, I have to ask - what kind of freaky weirdo wasn't using his computer at 3AM? Takes all kinds, I guess.
It's possible ATT requires it, but I think it's mostly about 1) apple maintaining control over the "user experience," 2) reducing the likelihood of iPhone viruses running rampant, and 3) getting a cut of app sales. That last one is probably a big consideration - the iPod was a runaway success, not because of the hardware, but because of the iTunes store, which makes several metric shitloads of money a year for Apple.
The video store has the same issues that the music store had - the content providers. That's not a product issue. What's more, the tone of the original post was that somehow Apple is fucking in love with the DRM and wouldn't ever leave it out of their products given the choice - something that seems unlikely given the change to the music store.
As for the app store, well, that's not really DRM. That's a closed platform, something which Apple does appear to have some affection for.
Your other choice would be T-Mobile, which has crappier service than ATT. Anything else would require a significant redesign of the product.*
*yes, I'm aware there are other, smaller GSM carriers in the US; realistically speaking, you're still tied to ATT or T-Mobile for most population centers in the US.
Are you proposing they remove the DRM support in hardware, so people who bought DRM'd media can't play those files? Or are you just bitching about something that's sure to get a bunch of other putzes to agree with you?
Every single thing we read, no matter how small and inconsequential, must be read as IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!1! that Obama is a liar! He said he was for change, and that change didn't happen everwhere, all at once, and in every single nook and cranny of the government! Sure there's the changes at Justice and the release of various memos a docs there. And, ok, fine, the Gitmo thing and probably some other stuff.
But this one thing didn't change, and that means it's all 100% bullshit! Fascism and censorship!
I don't think it's that reasonable - I'd prefer that libel and slander laws deal exclusively with false statements, as opposed to opening the door to suing someone because they were a dick to you. Legislation that bars you from lying about people is one thing; legislation that opens you up to liability because you're not nice to them is entirely another.
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
While we're at it, we should also do something about all the precious energy and attention we're currently exerting in our continued efforts to clothe and feed ourselves, as well as that silent thief of time, breathing.
The summary makes it seem like the court just arbitrarily decided that truth didn't count as a defense for libel in this case. But that's not at all what happened; FTFA:
Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 state law.
The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.
In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan....
But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.
So, this ruling is actually abouta quirk in state law, and only permits the case to move forward because under that law, there are possibly legitimate grounds to sue for libel in this case. The law is a shitty one, and needs fixing - but that's not this court's job.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, indeed.
Still, at least it's amusing when I deliberately make a word choice (such as selecting a non-standard nominalization of "stupid"), as I did in my original post, and stupid people assume it's a spelling mistake.
Their stupid. I deliberately used a non-standard nominalization of "stupid" in this instance.
Kind of like "teh stupid! it burns," or other similar phrasing you could find out there on the intertubes.
No, actually, what I meant was "their stupid."
I didn't want to say that the internet makes it easier for them "to display that they are stupid" which is the paraphrase for your "correction." I was using "their stupid" as a replacement for "their stupidity." I'm making use of a language in a slightly non-standard way, as a conscious decision.
Thanks, though.
The internet just makes it easier and faster for morons to display their stupid. In the old days, that same jackass who just had to twitter about the trial he's on would have been knocking back beer in a local bar and going on about the trial.
Yes it is.
Yeah, holy shit. Marketing a product as being cool and hip is the least cool, most deeply unhip thing they could have done. Fuck firings, I'm surprised there haven't been any suicides.
I mean, I watched the promotional video and frankly the thing doesn't look particularly nice.
Of course, that might be a reaction to 4+ minutes of being told what a premium product it is, and how people will look at me when I'm using it, which basically made it sound like it's marketed to overpaid IT executives going through a midlife crisis.
I love it when people are pedantic without knowing what they're talking about. ;-) I've already written this up once, so have a look:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1163911&cid=27231563
In a nutshell: "software" in my example was not an adjective; it's an attributive noun.
No, actually - "software" in "software developer" is a noun modifying another noun. In traditional grammar they're called attributive nouns.
Consider some evidence to support that conclusion:
In English, adjectives are usually able to express degree (comparative, superlative, equitative) - "Dave is a big developer, but Steve is a bigger developer; Matt, however, is the biggest developer." You can't do that with "software," and not just as a result of morphological deficiency (neither "softwarer" or "more software" are possible as adjectivals). There are adjectives that can't (or usually don't) express degree - "extinct," is a common example (you can't say one species is more extinct than another), but those tend to be adjectives that semantically relate to binary states.
Most English adjectives have corresponding adverbs, and it's typically easy to convert an adjective to an adverb by appending the -lysuffix - "happy" => "happily," etc. Again not possible with "software." But not a 100% certain thing - you can't really do that with "extinct" either.
Also, consider some distributional facts about the word software. If "software" were an attributive adjective, you'd be able to make paraphrases with copular be - e.g., "The happy developer," can be transformed to "the developer is happy," or "the extinct species" becomes "the species is extinct." Not so with software in the sentence above - "The software developer" can't be changed to "the developer is software" without entirely changing the meaning (and producing a semantically aberrant sentence).
There's also an issue with adverbial modification of "software." You could say "The totally extinct species," or "the probably extinct species;" you can't modify "software," though, except via an adjective or another word (noun) with the same morphological and distributional characteristics. So, "the probably software developer" is bad, but "the probable software developer," (i.e., you're not sure if he is or not) is OK. Similarly, "The database software developer," where database has the morphological and distributional characteristics that I've claimed for "software," here.
That's really an awful pun. Thanks for the chuckle.
Actually, I don't think it's an adjective in my example - I think it's still a noun, but part of a compound noun phrase that has a count noun as it's head (which is why it can take an indefinite article in my example). Potato, po-tah-to, I guess.
Like all native speakers, I learned from those that raised me (and from others around me, though in a more passive capacity). It's debatable how much influence coursework and reading in syntax has influenced my parsing - given that it was largely in the generative/GB/minimalist tradition, one could say it had nothing to do with parsing ;)
Yeah, I know. I was using software as part of a noun phrase where it can take an indefinite article, unlike the OP where he was using the bare noun where it can't. I was just picking on the overly broad statement of the issue.
It's an interesting word, actually - many non-count nouns can be used with an indefinite article, but only in the context of a generic class, e.g., "Beef is a meat that's very popular in Brazil," or "Evian is a water that's bottled in France." However true it might be, I don't think you could say something like "Oracle is a software that costs far too much for what it does," and have it be grammatically acceptable to (most?) native speakers of English. I'd be curious if that is possible for any native speakers, though.
So, you'd prefer a sentence like "John is software developer" to "John is a software developer?" Where'd you learn to speak English?
Sorry, I have to ask - what kind of freaky weirdo wasn't using his computer at 3AM? Takes all kinds, I guess.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, and I don't own an iPod or an iPhone, nor have I plans to do so. I have no horse in this race.
But supposed it's easier to call me a fanboy than seriously address my point, making you one of the putzes whose agreement girlintraining was seeking.
It's possible ATT requires it, but I think it's mostly about 1) apple maintaining control over the "user experience," 2) reducing the likelihood of iPhone viruses running rampant, and 3) getting a cut of app sales. That last one is probably a big consideration - the iPod was a runaway success, not because of the hardware, but because of the iTunes store, which makes several metric shitloads of money a year for Apple.
Yeah good point - building out all those re-education camps takes time, too.
The video store has the same issues that the music store had - the content providers. That's not a product issue. What's more, the tone of the original post was that somehow Apple is fucking in love with the DRM and wouldn't ever leave it out of their products given the choice - something that seems unlikely given the change to the music store.
As for the app store, well, that's not really DRM. That's a closed platform, something which Apple does appear to have some affection for.
Your other choice would be T-Mobile, which has crappier service than ATT. Anything else would require a significant redesign of the product.*
*yes, I'm aware there are other, smaller GSM carriers in the US; realistically speaking, you're still tied to ATT or T-Mobile for most population centers in the US.
The Apple music store is DRM free now.
Are you proposing they remove the DRM support in hardware, so people who bought DRM'd media can't play those files?
Or are you just bitching about something that's sure to get a bunch of other putzes to agree with you?
Every single thing we read, no matter how small and inconsequential, must be read as IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!1! that Obama is a liar! He said he was for change, and that change didn't happen everwhere, all at once, and in every single nook and cranny of the government! Sure there's the changes at Justice and the release of various memos a docs there. And, ok, fine, the Gitmo thing and probably some other stuff.
But this one thing didn't change, and that means it's all 100% bullshit! Fascism and censorship!
Pardon my lack of clarity; I see nothing reasonable about legislating civility between parties under the guise of libel.
I don't think it's that reasonable - I'd prefer that libel and slander laws deal exclusively with false statements, as opposed to opening the door to suing someone because they were a dick to you. Legislation that bars you from lying about people is one thing; legislation that opens you up to liability because you're not nice to them is entirely another.
Yes, you're right. The fact that the economy is in the shitter is clearly the only important thing in the world, and all activity not specifically directed at correcting it should be stopped immediately. We'll begin with shutting the police and fire services, then dismissing all court cases in all courts in the US, and finally we'll halt all work on any construction or repair projects.
While we're at it, we should also do something about all the precious energy and attention we're currently exerting in our continued efforts to clothe and feed ourselves, as well as that silent thief of time, breathing.
Jackass.
The summary makes it seem like the court just arbitrarily decided that truth didn't count as a defense for libel in this case. But that's not at all what happened; FTFA:
So, this ruling is actually abouta quirk in state law, and only permits the case to move forward because under that law, there are possibly legitimate grounds to sue for libel in this case. The law is a shitty one, and needs fixing - but that's not this court's job.