How about an intermediate computer linguistic language for translations?
Let's say there's a chatroom with a guy from Poland, a girl from Japan, and a duck (this is not a serious example, obviously, and why they are in this chatroom is left to the user's imagination). The duck sends his message, and it gets scrambled into the intermediate language. This language can now be translated directly into any local dialect, without having to translate the message for each seperate language being used, or without the user having the know the language. Just imagine - a user from Russia chatting with a user from Mexico, and neither knowing the other is anything but their native tongue. Of course it's not meant to be a cultural mask or anything - certain language / cultural barriers would of course be present, but at least this is better than having to run to Babelfish every few seconds.
I guess I'm sorta immune to that stuff, then - maybe I'm the only one, but when I see something like "lol" or "rofl", it translates in my head to more of an idea than an actual sound - in essence, a loud "heh" rather than it's own word.
i got new car radio the other day, its pretty cool. you shout soul and it plays soul, you shout rock and it plays rock. the other day some kids ran past my car and i yelled "FUCKING KIDS" and it played michael jackson.
Actually, here's a better idea - improve the default skinning mechanism of the operating system to allow for custom skins per app, in a selectable interface window somewhere as a settings window - this way you can share skins across several applications without having to rework them, and any "custom" buttons or panels can be added via this system, as opposed to a home-cooked engine.
Listen, I'm glad and all you own your own network, but let's stop being dramatic for a moment, and think this through - why exactly would Spybot need a need skinnable interface? It does about 5 things total, and that's it. My problem with skinning is not so much that I can use it to make my apps look "pretty", but when I can't use the option to turn off the "pretty" and make it go back to the default. I have a modestly slow computer, and Spybot runs like a dead paraplegic in a snow storm - I honestly doubt this is because of it's memory-intensive operation, which doesn't even begin with the app, and yet it still runs slow. Why? Because Spybot runs a skinning engine, and doesn't have to, or should. Feel free to skin your Media Player, but please, give an option to turn it off.
"Skins. Goodbye consistency. I blame Winamp for this, although Windows Media Player has taken the problem to dizzying new heights."
You think that's bad? Can you explain to me in a rational-and-well-thought-out manner why Spybot: Search and Destroy has a skinning mechanism? Why exactly would you need to skin your anti-Spyware program?
Erm, maybe it has something to do with the fact most of the worms / exploits out there are just tried-and-true for Windows, and that Linux isn't neccisarily more secure in this sense, but rather, harder to put a finger on the default configuration and thus exploit?
"Anyone else notice that only about 5% of the webpage is the actual article while the rest of it is cluttered in ads and other crap.
Also I love the fact that I read about 5 words and have to hit a next button for the next page. Imagine if magazines were like that? Read 3 paragraphs, turn page, read another 3, turn page..."
Well, it is an online version of the magazine;o
Re:6 types of email users
on
Google Tidbits
·
· Score: 1
"But the one that really caught my attention was the one about the 6 types of e-mail users. I'd really like more info on that."
Oh, yes, of course.
1) Small penis 2) Small breasts 3) Thousands into debt 4) Related to a distant Nigerian cousin 5) Happens to enjoy ROLEX watches 6) Two or more of the above
"The infamous "I feel lucky" is nearly never used. However, in trials it was found that removing it would somehow reduce the Google experience. Users wanted it kept. It was a comfort button."
Well, it makes sense if you think about it. Everyone wants to feel lucky...and I doubt a "I feel apathetic towards the world and my creator" could fit there, anyway...
Maybe because HTML at the time was a dry, boring-to-work-with language that looked awful and was incompatible with even the most current standard browsers, each using it's own little variety of HTML/Javascript to make things look "purty". That could be it.
But if there were no fraudsters, then check security wouldn't be required. Yes, I realize that the above statement is an impossibility, but it's not only that the frauds will hurry technology - many other methods are developed by those who simply work against those frauds. Besides, nothing is ever truely "secure" - aiming for the lowest common denominator will also just result in more trouble for those attempting to use a product (think user-indentifying handguns, for example). Sometimes you just need to rely on a little trust.
Lemme rephrase - it is a real word in the sense it can be recognized. That doesn't mean that it's proper grammar, of course. I mean, Scientology is a real word, but it's still a mixture of Latin and Greek roots, and thus is grammatically-crap. So a better response would be - "virii is not proper grammar, although it is a recognized varient of viruses".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole idea that a virus writer assists in securing computers just a bunch of crap? I mean, please, let's drop the facade for a minute, and think this through:
01: A virus writer releases a virus or worm, 02: A virus writer gets accused of damaging millions of computers 03: A virus writer says he did it to bring attention to X bug that could be potentially used to write a virus or worm for 04: GOTO 01
I realize that some companies are stubborn and have persued legal action against people who publish bugs in software, so a virus or worm can sometimes be the only effective way to bring public attention to a problem. However, this usually is in turned converted to bad press for the writer, and just backfires. The way I see it, this is a better argument than others for switching to OSS - no morbid fear that publishing a bug will result in a lawsuit (no matter how unfound half the time), and thus any virus/worm exploits on an open platform can be considered generally malicious, and the writer persued fully.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think the image commented out above it is more interesting. But that's just me.
My hope of having petrified wood delivered to my door in under a week is now closer to reality!
How about an intermediate computer linguistic language for translations?
Let's say there's a chatroom with a guy from Poland, a girl from Japan, and a duck (this is not a serious example, obviously, and why they are in this chatroom is left to the user's imagination). The duck sends his message, and it gets scrambled into the intermediate language. This language can now be translated directly into any local dialect, without having to translate the message for each seperate language being used, or without the user having the know the language. Just imagine - a user from Russia chatting with a user from Mexico, and neither knowing the other is anything but their native tongue. Of course it's not meant to be a cultural mask or anything - certain language / cultural barriers would of course be present, but at least this is better than having to run to Babelfish every few seconds.
The smell should be enough to get you out of work for the rest of the day. Of course you have to wait half a decade for it to work...
I comma for number one comma fail to see your point period.
You just made like 30,000 Russians shiver.
I guess I'm sorta immune to that stuff, then - maybe I'm the only one, but when I see something like "lol" or "rofl", it translates in my head to more of an idea than an actual sound - in essence, a loud "heh" rather than it's own word.
Reminds me of a Bash quote...
i got new car radio the other day, its pretty cool. you shout soul and it plays soul, you shout rock and it plays rock. the other day some kids ran past my car and i yelled "FUCKING KIDS" and it played michael jackson.
Pguppies sounds more appropriate if you ask me.
Actually, here's a better idea - improve the default skinning mechanism of the operating system to allow for custom skins per app, in a selectable interface window somewhere as a settings window - this way you can share skins across several applications without having to rework them, and any "custom" buttons or panels can be added via this system, as opposed to a home-cooked engine.
Listen, I'm glad and all you own your own network, but let's stop being dramatic for a moment, and think this through - why exactly would Spybot need a need skinnable interface? It does about 5 things total, and that's it. My problem with skinning is not so much that I can use it to make my apps look "pretty", but when I can't use the option to turn off the "pretty" and make it go back to the default. I have a modestly slow computer, and Spybot runs like a dead paraplegic in a snow storm - I honestly doubt this is because of it's memory-intensive operation, which doesn't even begin with the app, and yet it still runs slow. Why? Because Spybot runs a skinning engine, and doesn't have to, or should. Feel free to skin your Media Player, but please, give an option to turn it off.
"Skins. Goodbye consistency. I blame Winamp for this, although Windows Media Player has taken the problem to dizzying new heights."
You think that's bad? Can you explain to me in a rational-and-well-thought-out manner why Spybot: Search and Destroy has a skinning mechanism? Why exactly would you need to skin your anti-Spyware program?
Oddly enough the above got labelled "Offtopic" and not "Troll". Perhaps there is some truth to this after all...
I take it he got his free IPod.
Shouldn't have posted that..gonna get buggered outta existence..
Erm, maybe it has something to do with the fact most of the worms / exploits out there are just tried-and-true for Windows, and that Linux isn't neccisarily more secure in this sense, but rather, harder to put a finger on the default configuration and thus exploit?
"Anyone else notice that only about 5% of the webpage is the actual article while the rest of it is cluttered in ads and other crap.
;o
Also I love the fact that I read about 5 words and have to hit a next button for the next page. Imagine if magazines were like that? Read 3 paragraphs, turn page, read another 3, turn page..."
Well, it is an online version of the magazine
"But the one that really caught my attention was the one about the 6 types of e-mail users. I'd really like more info on that."
Oh, yes, of course.
1) Small penis
2) Small breasts
3) Thousands into debt
4) Related to a distant Nigerian cousin
5) Happens to enjoy ROLEX watches
6) Two or more of the above
"The infamous "I feel lucky" is nearly never used. However, in trials it was found that removing it would somehow reduce the Google experience. Users wanted it kept. It was a comfort button."
Well, it makes sense if you think about it. Everyone wants to feel lucky...and I doubt a "I feel apathetic towards the world and my creator" could fit there, anyway...
Maybe because HTML at the time was a dry, boring-to-work-with language that looked awful and was incompatible with even the most current standard browsers, each using it's own little variety of HTML/Javascript to make things look "purty". That could be it.
But if there were no fraudsters, then check security wouldn't be required. Yes, I realize that the above statement is an impossibility, but it's not only that the frauds will hurry technology - many other methods are developed by those who simply work against those frauds. Besides, nothing is ever truely "secure" - aiming for the lowest common denominator will also just result in more trouble for those attempting to use a product (think user-indentifying handguns, for example). Sometimes you just need to rely on a little trust.
Lemme rephrase - it is a real word in the sense it can be recognized. That doesn't mean that it's proper grammar, of course. I mean, Scientology is a real word, but it's still a mixture of Latin and Greek roots, and thus is grammatically-crap. So a better response would be - "virii is not proper grammar, although it is a recognized varient of viruses".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole idea that a virus writer assists in securing computers just a bunch of crap? I mean, please, let's drop the facade for a minute, and think this through:
01: A virus writer releases a virus or worm,
02: A virus writer gets accused of damaging millions of computers
03: A virus writer says he did it to bring attention to X bug that could be potentially used to write a virus or worm for
04: GOTO 01
I realize that some companies are stubborn and have persued legal action against people who publish bugs in software, so a virus or worm can sometimes be the only effective way to bring public attention to a problem. However, this usually is in turned converted to bad press for the writer, and just backfires. The way I see it, this is a better argument than others for switching to OSS - no morbid fear that publishing a bug will result in a lawsuit (no matter how unfound half the time), and thus any virus/worm exploits on an open platform can be considered generally malicious, and the writer persued fully.
"Viruses" is the proper term for the pluralization of "virus" - "virii" isn't even a real word.
Lesse - if the page is in Russian, but got approved, there are two possibilities:
/. nowadays.
1) Mike doesn't know Russian, and approved it on summary and purty pictures alone.
OR
2) Mike knows Russian, and is just gullible.
Either way, it says something kinda depressing about the state of