Technically, your own grammar here is also incorrect, and your sentence is illogical. For the sentence to be logical, you must intend either "did any" or "didn't any." Otherwise, you are inexplicably and precisely addressing 'none,' which here can only be a pronoun meaning 'no body' or 'no one.'
Rubbish. The question doesn't mention its intended audience; it's perfectly valid and logical, and equivalent to "Is it true that none of you paid attention in English class?". If someone asks, "Did none of them arrive?", it's not addressed to "none", "none of them", nor to "them" - and nor is this question addressed to "none".
superlative of you
Superlatives of personal pronouns? If such a thing exists, it wasn't in the sentence in question...
Put the laptop on a table, out of arms reach and hold the child on your lap. There. Problem solved. No need for restraining of hands, you just hold the child on your lap
Something tells me you've never actually tried this with a live toddler. That, or you were using a different model of toddler to the ones I've encountered...
After all, source code can be patched and re-built... just like passwords and keys changed...
It can... but the difference is that, once I know my password is compromised, changing my password takes seconds—whereas analysing a code problem, coding a fix, testing it, distributing it to customers and having them deploy it can take months or even years.
and if you don't have the support to get the code changes completed and implimented, you'll still be affected by security related bugs weather the software is open or closed source. There is lots of out of dat open source software with major holes floating around in the wild...
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Sure, open and closed source software may both have security bugs - which may or may not get fixed. But this doesn't change the fact that there is a significant difference between security by obscurity and using passwords/keys.
Passwords/public key encryption etc. are all "security by obscurity" as well...
No they're not. Sure, you have to keep them secret, but the key thing is that the security of the whole system doesn't pivotally depend on just your password: if you suspect your password has been compromised, you can very quickly and easily change it, and the system is then no less secure than it was before (give or take any damage done while your password was known). On the other hand, if security depends on your source code not being available (because it does uber-secret stuff), and it then gets leaked, there's nothing you can do to put the genie back in the box, short of rewriting your entire software...
And 3 also follows from 1 since a machine instruction set is easy to make secure (much more easy than, say, the enormous and "hairy" javascript and html standards).
... which is presumably why C - probably the closest of the widely-used languages to machine language - has such a stellar reputation for security?;-)
The company tells the conference runners who they are sending and the person's identity is checked based on an agreed upon Form of ID.
I'm with you so far, but I still don't see how you distinguish between bona fide companies sending real employees, and scam companies sending "employees" (with genuine id!) who have paid over the odds for their tickets.
This is a long solved problem.
The solution you describe has existed for a long time - unfortunately it's the solution to a different problem. It does stop gatecrashers getting in to a conference they haven't paid for, but that's almost the opposite problem - these people have paid too much!
Link the ticket to the company and have the employee provide credentials to show they are a current employee. How was that hard to come up with?
"Yes, I do work for ScamScum Ticketing Inc. It says so right here in this letter - on their company letterhead! - which they conveniently sent me along with my overpriced ticket".
The problem isn't taking care of itself. We are seeing Apple, Google and Facebook doing rearguard actions because they are afraid of regulation and lawsuits.
Lawsuits perhaps, but they are more afraid of CUSTOMERS. They want to serve CUSTOMERS better (and also avoid lawsuits).
There's one small problem there. Who are Google's customers? Who are Facebook's customers? I'll give you a clue: it's not their users, who (by and large) don't pay them any money at all. Their customers are their advertisers, and serving their customers better is usually in direct conflict with preserving the privacy of users.
Huh? When Haskell came out it was a replacement to Gopher,
I think you mean Gofer - which was an implementation of (an early draft of) the Haskell language. NB most of the innovations you mention (e.g. lazy data structures) were around before Haskell came on the scene:)
This is true, but I haven't yet discovered a good way of automatically sorting pieces of paper based on what I wrote on them:) When naming files, I always use the YYYY-MM-DD format, but when filling in forms for humans to read (especially non-technical ones of unknown nationality) I usually go with DD/MMM/YYYY.
Compiling functional languages down to C is extremely simple. Functional code is imperative, it's just accepting the rule that you can never reassign a variable.
No it's not. There's also the small matter of first-class functions (e.g. being able to return a function as a result from your function, where the returned function still has access to the local variables of your called function.) C doesn't natively support this. It can be simulated, of course, but it's certainly not easy, because (roughly speaking) the lifetime of locals is no longer tied to the lifetime of the stack frame for that function.
And then there's laziness - being able to define a function that contains an infinite loop (say, calculating all the prime numbers one by one), and then applying another function to it to ask for the first 100 results - and having it do what you want (e.g. returning the first 100 primes) without looping forever.
This can certainly all be achieved with translation to C - as the existence of ghc proves - but it is far from "extremely simple".
The same fuck that doesn't understand that the name should be "FireFox/Gnome/X11/GNU/Bash/Linux".
Bash is the GNU implementation of the Bourne shell. And the name Gnome comes from "GNU Object Model Environment". Perhaps GNU is responsible for more than you realise?
True, but that is 4 TeV per proton. With trillions of those things going around the ring at the same time, the energy gets to be rather significant.
One trillion times 4 TeV gives... about enough energy to boil four pints of water (depending on starting temperature, US vs UK pints, etc...). Anyone for tea?:)
It's non-obvious what the code does, even if you're familiar with jQuery.
It's clear enough to me (not a jquery expert by any means, though I have used it before now), though perhaps I'm more used to that style from other environments I've used in the past.
(Oh, and if you let me make my own versions of the before and toggleClass functions I can do that in javascript in well under 30 lines of much more readable code.)
Could you post it? I'd be very interested to compare the two styles:)
when it's 32F outside, I don't wear my gloves or zip up my jacket. It's right balmy.
The trouble is that the "scarf point" is extremely variable, due to factors like air humidity and wind strength - not to mention personal preference and what people are used to. Arguing that one temperature scale or other is better because it's good for your personal preferences where you happen to live doesn't really take into account the "bigger picture"...
That's proper American English to be sure, but you never can tell with those Brits.
Actually British English preserves the s/c distinction in such pairs more often that US English - both in advise(verb)/advice(noun), where there is a sound distinction, but also where there isn't, e.g. practise(verb)/practice(noun) - where US English usually uses the "c" form (practice) in both cases.
despite that sounding far more like Southern American English ("I learnt me some o' them there fancy words!") than the Queen's English.
You seem to have some strange ideas about how the Queen speaks:) Try listening to how she pronounces the final consonant of "learnt" in this speech (start listening at about 5:50) - it's most distinctly a "t"...
We know that all of the natural languages come from one common root because they have a lot of words that are related.
I'm not sure that we do know that. See for instance the paragraph beginning "the first problem" in this Language Log post; also this page from the site you referred to has a good explanation as to why seemingly related words don't necessarily imply any connection.
Some guy on the usenet agreeing with you is not evidence.
No, you're quite right. Unless that guy happens to go through in detail all the available evidence from the Oxford English dictionary.
Maybe the evidence is not conclusive, but it is strongly suggestive—do you have any evidence for your point of view? Can you point to any uses of "carrot on a stick" in the way you describe that predate the "carrot and stick" uses from the OED? That's what it would take to demonstrate that that was the original phrase.
And as for your assertion that the metaphor is stupid—well, that's a matter of opinion, of course, but language is a funny thing and many metaphors are indeed daft. But as for saying that "carrot" is only a reward for mules and rabbits—the point of a metaphor is that it draws a parallel between one situation and another (carrot=desirable reward, donkey=potential recipient of reward). The point is that the carrot is desirable to the donkey. Just because you wouldn't like a carrot doesn't invalidate the metaphor, any more than pointing out that the good aspect of a bad situation isn't actually made of silver would invalidate "every cloud has a silver lining" (nor indeed would pointing out the fact that clouds do not, as a rule, have linings made of precious metals).
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, your own grammar here is also incorrect, and your sentence is illogical. For the sentence to be logical, you must intend either "did any" or "didn't any." Otherwise, you are inexplicably and precisely addressing 'none,' which here can only be a pronoun meaning 'no body' or 'no one.'
Rubbish. The question doesn't mention its intended audience; it's perfectly valid and logical, and equivalent to "Is it true that none of you paid attention in English class?". If someone asks, "Did none of them arrive?", it's not addressed to "none", "none of them", nor to "them" - and nor is this question addressed to "none".
superlative of you
Superlatives of personal pronouns? If such a thing exists, it wasn't in the sentence in question...
Put the laptop on a table, out of arms reach and hold the child on your lap. There. Problem solved. No need for restraining of hands, you just hold the child on your lap
Something tells me you've never actually tried this with a live toddler. That, or you were using a different model of toddler to the ones I've encountered...
I have seen dogs take quite the intrest in TV. useually barking at other dogs on it.
Or meerkats.
After all, source code can be patched and re-built... just like passwords and keys changed...
It can... but the difference is that, once I know my password is compromised, changing my password takes seconds—whereas analysing a code problem, coding a fix, testing it, distributing it to customers and having them deploy it can take months or even years.
and if you don't have the support to get the code changes completed and implimented, you'll still be affected by security related bugs weather the software is open or closed source. There is lots of out of dat open source software with major holes floating around in the wild...
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Sure, open and closed source software may both have security bugs - which may or may not get fixed. But this doesn't change the fact that there is a significant difference between security by obscurity and using passwords/keys.
Passwords/public key encryption etc. are all "security by obscurity" as well...
No they're not. Sure, you have to keep them secret, but the key thing is that the security of the whole system doesn't pivotally depend on just your password: if you suspect your password has been compromised, you can very quickly and easily change it, and the system is then no less secure than it was before (give or take any damage done while your password was known). On the other hand, if security depends on your source code not being available (because it does uber-secret stuff), and it then gets leaked, there's nothing you can do to put the genie back in the box, short of rewriting your entire software...
And 3 also follows from 1 since a machine instruction set is easy to make secure (much more easy than, say, the enormous and "hairy" javascript and html standards).
... which is presumably why C - probably the closest of the widely-used languages to machine language - has such a stellar reputation for security? ;-)
A guy who shot his own face off is a deserving recipient of hundreds of surgeon-hours of reconstructive effort, right?
That's great news: I presume that it means that we've already fixed every birth defect in every innocent infant, yes?
So... you're saying that experimental surgical procedures should only be carried out on certified-100%-deserving angels?
The company tells the conference runners who they are sending and the person's identity is checked based on an agreed upon Form of ID.
I'm with you so far, but I still don't see how you distinguish between bona fide companies sending real employees, and scam companies sending "employees" (with genuine id!) who have paid over the odds for their tickets.
This is a long solved problem.
The solution you describe has existed for a long time - unfortunately it's the solution to a different problem. It does stop gatecrashers getting in to a conference they haven't paid for, but that's almost the opposite problem - these people have paid too much!
Link the ticket to the company and have the employee provide credentials to show they are a current employee. How was that hard to come up with?
"Yes, I do work for ScamScum Ticketing Inc. It says so right here in this letter - on their company letterhead! - which they conveniently sent me along with my overpriced ticket".
The problem isn't taking care of itself. We are seeing Apple, Google and Facebook doing rearguard actions because they are afraid of regulation and lawsuits.
Lawsuits perhaps, but they are more afraid of CUSTOMERS. They want to serve CUSTOMERS better (and also avoid lawsuits).
There's one small problem there. Who are Google's customers? Who are Facebook's customers? I'll give you a clue: it's not their users, who (by and large) don't pay them any money at all. Their customers are their advertisers, and serving their customers better is usually in direct conflict with preserving the privacy of users.
I had a woman boss who could chat-up a storm, but I wasn't getting any work done during that ~3 hours wasted per week.
Much as I hate meetings, those 3 hours aren't wasted if they help ensure that the other 37+ hours in everyone's week are spent doing the right work.
Huh? When Haskell came out it was a replacement to Gopher,
I think you mean Gofer - which was an implementation of (an early draft of) the Haskell language. NB most of the innovations you mention (e.g. lazy data structures) were around before Haskell came on the scene :)
Have you really never heard of Philips?
The problem with Tau is that it will always be associated with Pooh thanks to the book the "Tau of Pooh".
I think you mean the "Tao of Pooh". Tau = Greek letter; Tao = (roughly) way/path/nature, associated with the Chinese philisophical system of Taoism.
It sucks for sorting.
This is true, but I haven't yet discovered a good way of automatically sorting pieces of paper based on what I wrote on them :) When naming files, I always use the YYYY-MM-DD format, but when filling in forms for humans to read (especially non-technical ones of unknown nationality) I usually go with DD/MMM/YYYY.
Compiling functional languages down to C is extremely simple. Functional code is imperative, it's just accepting the rule that you can never reassign a variable.
No it's not. There's also the small matter of first-class functions (e.g. being able to return a function as a result from your function, where the returned function still has access to the local variables of your called function.) C doesn't natively support this. It can be simulated, of course, but it's certainly not easy, because (roughly speaking) the lifetime of locals is no longer tied to the lifetime of the stack frame for that function.
And then there's laziness - being able to define a function that contains an infinite loop (say, calculating all the prime numbers one by one), and then applying another function to it to ask for the first 100 results - and having it do what you want (e.g. returning the first 100 primes) without looping forever.
This can certainly all be achieved with translation to C - as the existence of ghc proves - but it is far from "extremely simple".
wtf? shur -> shure sub at sub atomic -> at sub atomic
Actually you want "sure" and "at subatomic" (or "at sub-atomic") :-)
The same fuck that doesn't understand that the name should be "FireFox/Gnome/X11/GNU/Bash/Linux".
Bash is the GNU implementation of the Bourne shell. And the name Gnome comes from "GNU Object Model Environment". Perhaps GNU is responsible for more than you realise?
True, but that is 4 TeV per proton. With trillions of those things going around the ring at the same time, the energy gets to be rather significant.
One trillion times 4 TeV gives... about enough energy to boil four pints of water (depending on starting temperature, US vs UK pints, etc...). Anyone for tea? :)
It's non-obvious what the code does, even if you're familiar with jQuery.
It's clear enough to me (not a jquery expert by any means, though I have used it before now), though perhaps I'm more used to that style from other environments I've used in the past.
(Oh, and if you let me make my own versions of the before and toggleClass functions I can do that in javascript in well under 30 lines of much more readable code.)
Could you post it? I'd be very interested to compare the two styles :)
when it's 32F outside, I don't wear my gloves or zip up my jacket. It's right balmy.
The trouble is that the "scarf point" is extremely variable, due to factors like air humidity and wind strength - not to mention personal preference and what people are used to. Arguing that one temperature scale or other is better because it's good for your personal preferences where you happen to live doesn't really take into account the "bigger picture"...
That's proper American English to be sure, but you never can tell with those Brits.
Actually British English preserves the s/c distinction in such pairs more often that US English - both in advise(verb)/advice(noun), where there is a sound distinction, but also where there isn't, e.g. practise(verb)/practice(noun) - where US English usually uses the "c" form (practice) in both cases.
despite that sounding far more like Southern American English ("I learnt me some o' them there fancy words!") than the Queen's English.
You seem to have some strange ideas about how the Queen speaks :) Try listening to how she pronounces the final consonant of "learnt" in this speech (start listening at about 5:50) - it's most distinctly a "t"...
We know that all of the natural languages come from one common root because they have a lot of words that are related.
I'm not sure that we do know that. See for instance the paragraph beginning "the first problem" in this Language Log post; also this page from the site you referred to has a good explanation as to why seemingly related words don't necessarily imply any connection.
Some guy on the usenet agreeing with you is not evidence.
No, you're quite right. Unless that guy happens to go through in detail all the available evidence from the Oxford English dictionary.
Maybe the evidence is not conclusive, but it is strongly suggestive—do you have any evidence for your point of view? Can you point to any uses of "carrot on a stick" in the way you describe that predate the "carrot and stick" uses from the OED? That's what it would take to demonstrate that that was the original phrase.
And as for your assertion that the metaphor is stupid—well, that's a matter of opinion, of course, but language is a funny thing and many metaphors are indeed daft. But as for saying that "carrot" is only a reward for mules and rabbits—the point of a metaphor is that it draws a parallel between one situation and another (carrot=desirable reward, donkey=potential recipient of reward). The point is that the carrot is desirable to the donkey. Just because you wouldn't like a carrot doesn't invalidate the metaphor, any more than pointing out that the good aspect of a bad situation isn't actually made of silver would invalidate "every cloud has a silver lining" (nor indeed would pointing out the fact that clouds do not, as a rule, have linings made of precious metals).
The metaphor is "carrot on a stick"
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?