Who says so? do you have their address so I can write a letter of complaint about how they are defining our language? For better or worse, there ain't nobody in charge of English. Usage varies by region and it varies over time.
Note that I qualified my statement: "moderately widespread". Once an error becomes ubiquitous, it's time for le resistance to give in -- but on this one, we're not there yet. If acceptance came at the point of being merely moderately widespread, than their wouldn't be nothing to dis this sentence about. I don't doubt that usage varies by region -- but I'd argue that correct usage is substantially more constant.
There are a number of widely recognized texts which tend to be frequently referenced by educational institutions -- The Elements of Style being one example -- describing proper use of the language. Over time, as the language changes, texts with surviving authors will be updated, and those which are terminally out of date will fall out of favor. In answering your question, then, this "they" responsible for defining correct use of the English language is a large, disassociated group consisting primarily of English professors and school boards choosing which texts to recognize as authoritative, and the (overlapping) group of those who write texts which may be considered for such status.
[Moderators, btw: I think this fellow raised a legitimate point, and that (0, Flamebait) is less than warranted. Any chance of avoiding similar moderation for the rest of this thread?]
Just because an error is moderately widespread doesn't mean it's no longer an error -- and indeed, there are certainly manydissentingopinions with regard to the acceptability of using apostrophes to pluralize acronyms.
I never understood the old reasoning behind something like "PVRs." That just doesn't make any sense. "Personal Video Recorderss" eh?
The acronym is for an individual unit -- a PVR is a personal video recorder, not a "personal video recorders". "PVRs", thus, refers to the plural: "personal video recorders". Quite appropriate.
Article title got it right, link got it wrong. Incidentally, this exact same error is on a billboard outside my house -- there's a sports star prominently featured, with the text "MVP's [whatever-his-name-is] and Dahill Industries".
I suppose that if folks who are paying tens of thousands of dollars for billboard space can't get it right, why should I expect/. editors to do any better?
Where did he specify anything about attached conditions?
Sharing the US copyright with a 3rd party gives that party the ability to do anything they could do were they the sole owner of said copyright; likewise for any other copyrights which may apply.
(I'm/not/ a lawyer, but I've studied a bit of law, and find copyright law particularly interesting).
He didn't question the ethics of this fellow's move -- I didn't see "ethical" anywhere in the post. He referenced a game in which one frequent variety of mission involves arranging corporate defections. It was a joke.
Microsoft does mind when the losses start turning into billions, which is how much it would cost them to illegally leverage their desktop OS monopoly.
They're already illegally leveraging that monopoly, and in at least two cases where they were found guilty of such, they got off with penalties which arguably cost less than their profit from the actions for which they were sanctioned. It's not something I actually care about so much -- but I'm not particularly confident of competant enforcement of antitrust laws, particularly against MS, as they've got too many friends in high places. (I'm not even alleging folks in high places who take overt or improper actions on MS's behalf -- just people who have a high opinion of what's often seen as a legitimately successful and innovative company enjoying its well-earned success, and who let that opinion influence their beliefs).
Well, I'm of the opinion that on slashdot, there is no possiblity of real debate concerning guns, particularly with Americans.
That's a pity, because I'd enjoy such a debate. Would you mind taking our ongoing thread of discussion elsewhere if you're uninterested in pursuing it here? My email address is available (albiet in obfuscated form) next to my username above.
I'm not a NRA member, I don't subscribe to any magazines or newspapers for gun nuts and enthusiests, and indeed I don't even own a gun (though one of my housemates does, and I insist that he keep me informed of its location as a condition of having it in my house). I probably will buy one at some point in the future, though -- a pump-action shotgun is much better for intimidating belligerants on account of its distinctive sound (the violent asshole whose abused girlfriend I'm likely to harbor is not hypothetical), and I'll consider a handgun when the pistol-grip-based authentication mechanisms discussed in other/. stories become commercially available.
My point here is that I'm not too extreme in my views, and I'm not about to go spouting slogans or statistics at you (unless you really *want* to get into an I-can-quote-a-study-that-contradicts-you war).
So -- mind dropping an email with a refutation of the post I linked to above? I'd appreciate it.
One thing I learned about gun folks: if its not the King of England after them, its an alligator. You know how alligators come into populated areas and eat people for no good reason? Of course you need a gun.
I'm not talking about my property -- there's no alligators on my property. I live in the city (in a "populated area", as you say). Not everyone does, including some folks I know (and occasionally visit). Indeed, that not everyone lives in an area with non-marginal population density was my entire point. It's particularly true in Texas -- we have a lot of land here, and while there are lot of people, the population isn't particularly dense.
It fills my heart with ease knowing that every damn person I pass on the street is 1) carrying a gun, 2) feels that they have the right to be a judge, a jury and an executioner.
If I pull out a weapon and threaten to kill someone if they don't hand over their wallet right then, then those witnessing that (or the would-be victim) are well within their rights to defend themselves. Just because we have a judicial process doesn't mean that people should submit to be raped or murdered or have their homes invaded because it's not their place to defend themselves. The "criminal mischief at night" thing is a bit more extreme -- but then, it does keep the graffitti away from private homes.
On a serious note, the problem with guns is that if you can't trust your government with them
Huh? When did I say I didn't trust my government with arms? Providing common defense is an essential governmental function, and I have no problem with it.
how in hell can you trust your "neighbor" with them? Moreso, if you are so untrusting of everyone (isn't that a sign of instability?) then how can anyone trust YOU with a gun?
Simple. I trust my neighbor with a gun (presumably that they're eligible to own one -- no felonies, etc) because I trust myself with one. It's only when my neighbor tries to beat down my door because I'm harboring the ex-girlfriend he abused that I pull out the shotgun. Likewise -- folks can and should trust me until and unless I demonstrate myself unworthy of that trust. Is it such a hard concept?
Man, I am so sorry I got into this gun thing. I forgot how much Americans love guns. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
Don't be sorry for bringing the topic up -- I'm glad you did, as it's exposed (and allowed me to refute) your misconceptions on the topic.
2a - In a lot of cases where it otherwise would be possible, yes, it is frequently impossible (or infeasibly risky) to defend oneself without a gun.
2b - Unilateral disarmament simply isn't feasible -- or desirable. I moved to Texas several years ago, and gained a few new data points:
People in rural areas frequently need weapons for defense against wild animals. I have friends living out in the boonies who have water snakes and alligators on their property. Going out to the swimming hole implies having a friend with a shotgun standing guard. IMNSHO, this is legitimate use.
Having homeowners being largely armed, and within their rights to use those arms to defend themselves or their property, makes for a society much more respectful of property rights. When living somewhere where "criminal mischief at night" provides grounds for a property owner to use deadly force, I don't see very many TP'd homes -- even if very few homeowners would actually shoot a tresspasser for such. I expect (and have some anecdotal evidence to the effect) that this applies all the more strongly to the burglarization of private homes.
I hope he specifies as part of his bounty criteria that it be performant. Such a thing exists already as a proof-of-concept -- it's just that the update rate is measured in seconds-per-frame.
this is a one-trick program that's easily replicated
Cool, you're building your own version? Have fun!
(Not that I don't agree with you -- it is a one-trick program that I'd rather see as a Free cross-platform console app -- but without doing even a preliminary evaluation of the protocol used for communicating with the AirPort Express, and the difficulty of implementing said protocol, "easily replicated" is easier said than done).
Allofmp3.com's media comes without any DRM. I don't know what you're talking about.
Or are you asking what kind of loser puts bad content (ie. poorly encoded MP3s) on P2P networks? I don't know, exactly, but there tend to be a lot of them.
the kind of "loser" who would like to have at least some kind of respect for copyright law.
More fool you. Loser.
Possibly unlike you, I own copyright to a lot of works. I'd like folks to give the copyrights I own at least some modicum of respect; consequently, it seems appropriate to behave likewise wrt copyrights owned by others. It's this thing called the "golden rule", see -- typically they try to instill it around Kindergarten or so.
They usually have full albums for a lot of artists, and if you look just a little harder (ie. google) you can often find the more obscure ones.
Maybe so, but will they have that obscure artist's CD in 192kbps Vorbis, or FLAC? One of the nice thing about using allofmp3 was that not only do they have a nice collection w/o any need to look around (multiple bittorrent sites, Google, etc), but they'd custom-encode things to exactly your preferred spec.
I'm sure that getting a full album in good quality via peer-to-peer tools isn't as hard as it used to be -- but it's still not as easy as having a single-source website that has damn near anything and builds to order. Having the aura of reason-to-believe-it's-legal (ie. knowing with *certainly* that the RIAA and friends will go after the site, and not after the individuals using it) is useful, too.
The kind of "loser" who actually cares about consistant, quality audio, encoded in the format of their choice (which, in the case of this "loser", is generally not MP3).
Likewise, the kind of "loser" who has better things to do with their time than sift through P2P networks trying to weed out the quality from the crap, or searching and re-searching to find a complete album; or the kind of "loser" who would like to have at least some kind of respect for copyright law.
When brain of anyone but a professional food taster faces with these questions, it starts making stuff up.
Nonsense. Whether a jam has (for instance) little seeds or is smooth, and how cohesive it is (runny? thick?) is obvious and apparent to the novice.
The last jam I tasted was smooth -- if it had been any smoother, I'd think it ought to have some additional thinkening agent in it. That's a judgement of its texture.
The sound of the motorcycle or the appearance of the case, sure -- but "how the power cables are routed within the front cover" is part of the design, and it's not eligible.
That said, I was dead wrong in my claim that anything beyond a single view of the case's design wouldn't be eligible.
The appearance of the case, not the design. Design includes functional elements (how do the drive bays lock in place?); appearance is limited to visual ones.
Okay -- my last response contained a major screwup. Let's try this again.
HP has presumably already registered a trademark on their case design, whereas the MAME folks haven't registered a trademark on their name and logo. Consequently, while they'll still be able to continue using them, this fellow may well be able to get his own trademark. The only reason he wouldn't be able to use the logo as a trademark is not that he doesn't own copyright on it, but rather because the current owner won't let him use it to represent his business.
Consequently -- no, holding copyright on a logo isn't a requirement to get a trademark on that logo; representing your business with that logo (which can done w/ license from the copyright holder, as opposed to owning copyright itself) is.
(All that said -- I don't know trademark law very well; it's been at least 4 years since I took a class that covered it, and it was only a very minor part of the curiculum; and I am not a lawyer).
I was thinking mostly of the case as a functional object -- how it goes together, materials used, drive bay and power supply mounting, etc -- and only gave passing thought to appearance. Yall are quite right; the entire outside appearance of it is eligible. Sorry for posting without thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think I go to parties?
There are a number of widely recognized texts which tend to be frequently referenced by educational institutions -- The Elements of Style being one example -- describing proper use of the language. Over time, as the language changes, texts with surviving authors will be updated, and those which are terminally out of date will fall out of favor. In answering your question, then, this "they" responsible for defining correct use of the English language is a large, disassociated group consisting primarily of English professors and school boards choosing which texts to recognize as authoritative, and the (overlapping) group of those who write texts which may be considered for such status.
[Moderators, btw: I think this fellow raised a legitimate point, and that (0, Flamebait) is less than warranted. Any chance of avoiding similar moderation for the rest of this thread?]
Both forms are correct for modern usages.
Just because an error is moderately widespread doesn't mean it's no longer an error -- and indeed, there are certainly many dissenting opinions with regard to the acceptability of using apostrophes to pluralize acronyms.
I never understood the old reasoning behind something like "PVRs." That just doesn't make any sense. "Personal Video Recorderss" eh?
The acronym is for an individual unit -- a PVR is a personal video recorder, not a "personal video recorders". "PVRs", thus, refers to the plural: "personal video recorders". Quite appropriate.
Article title got it right, link got it wrong. Incidentally, this exact same error is on a billboard outside my house -- there's a sports star prominently featured, with the text "MVP's [whatever-his-name-is] and Dahill Industries".
/. editors to do any better?
I suppose that if folks who are paying tens of thousands of dollars for billboard space can't get it right, why should I expect
Yes, JNI is horrible and awful and evil. CNI, on the other hand, isn't. (Granted, it's only available for GCJ).
Where did he specify anything about attached conditions?
/not/ a lawyer, but I've studied a bit of law, and find copyright law particularly interesting).
Sharing the US copyright with a 3rd party gives that party the ability to do anything they could do were they the sole owner of said copyright; likewise for any other copyrights which may apply.
(I'm
He didn't question the ethics of this fellow's move -- I didn't see "ethical" anywhere in the post. He referenced a game in which one frequent variety of mission involves arranging corporate defections. It was a joke.
Microsoft does mind when the losses start turning into billions, which is how much it would cost them to illegally leverage their desktop OS monopoly.
They're already illegally leveraging that monopoly, and in at least two cases where they were found guilty of such, they got off with penalties which arguably cost less than their profit from the actions for which they were sanctioned. It's not something I actually care about so much -- but I'm not particularly confident of competant enforcement of antitrust laws, particularly against MS, as they've got too many friends in high places. (I'm not even alleging folks in high places who take overt or improper actions on MS's behalf -- just people who have a high opinion of what's often seen as a legitimately successful and innovative company enjoying its well-earned success, and who let that opinion influence their beliefs).
Stay in Austin, if you're afraid of the rednecks.
Well, I'm of the opinion that on slashdot, there is no possiblity of real debate concerning guns, particularly with Americans.
/. stories become commercially available.
That's a pity, because I'd enjoy such a debate. Would you mind taking our ongoing thread of discussion elsewhere if you're uninterested in pursuing it here? My email address is available (albiet in obfuscated form) next to my username above.
I'm not a NRA member, I don't subscribe to any magazines or newspapers for gun nuts and enthusiests, and indeed I don't even own a gun (though one of my housemates does, and I insist that he keep me informed of its location as a condition of having it in my house). I probably will buy one at some point in the future, though -- a pump-action shotgun is much better for intimidating belligerants on account of its distinctive sound (the violent asshole whose abused girlfriend I'm likely to harbor is not hypothetical), and I'll consider a handgun when the pistol-grip-based authentication mechanisms discussed in other
My point here is that I'm not too extreme in my views, and I'm not about to go spouting slogans or statistics at you (unless you really *want* to get into an I-can-quote-a-study-that-contradicts-you war).
So -- mind dropping an email with a refutation of the post I linked to above? I'd appreciate it.
In the case of IBM and Corel, they blew their shitty products away with better alternatives.
There was much, much more going on there -- perhaps you're unfamiliar with Microsoft's involvement in OS/2?
2b - Unilateral disarmament simply isn't feasible -- or desirable. I moved to Texas several years ago, and gained a few new data points:
I hope he specifies as part of his bounty criteria that it be performant. Such a thing exists already as a proof-of-concept -- it's just that the update rate is measured in seconds-per-frame.
this is a one-trick program that's easily replicated
Cool, you're building your own version? Have fun!
(Not that I don't agree with you -- it is a one-trick program that I'd rather see as a Free cross-platform console app -- but without doing even a preliminary evaluation of the protocol used for communicating with the AirPort Express, and the difficulty of implementing said protocol, "easily replicated" is easier said than done).
Now you're not even trying.
Please -- if you're going to troll me, at least you can come up with insults that I could maybe take seriously enough to get offended by?
Huh?
Allofmp3.com's media comes without any DRM. I don't know what you're talking about.
Or are you asking what kind of loser puts bad content (ie. poorly encoded MP3s) on P2P networks? I don't know, exactly, but there tend to be a lot of them.
They usually have full albums for a lot of artists, and if you look just a little harder (ie. google) you can often find the more obscure ones.
Maybe so, but will they have that obscure artist's CD in 192kbps Vorbis, or FLAC? One of the nice thing about using allofmp3 was that not only do they have a nice collection w/o any need to look around (multiple bittorrent sites, Google, etc), but they'd custom-encode things to exactly your preferred spec.
I'm sure that getting a full album in good quality via peer-to-peer tools isn't as hard as it used to be -- but it's still not as easy as having a single-source website that has damn near anything and builds to order. Having the aura of reason-to-believe-it's-legal (ie. knowing with *certainly* that the RIAA and friends will go after the site, and not after the individuals using it) is useful, too.
pay for mp3s? what kind of loser does that?
The kind of "loser" who actually cares about consistant, quality audio, encoded in the format of their choice (which, in the case of this "loser", is generally not MP3).
Likewise, the kind of "loser" who has better things to do with their time than sift through P2P networks trying to weed out the quality from the crap, or searching and re-searching to find a complete album; or the kind of "loser" who would like to have at least some kind of respect for copyright law.
When brain of anyone but a professional food taster faces with these questions, it starts making stuff up.
Nonsense. Whether a jam has (for instance) little seeds or is smooth, and how cohesive it is (runny? thick?) is obvious and apparent to the novice.
The last jam I tasted was smooth -- if it had been any smoother, I'd think it ought to have some additional thinkening agent in it. That's a judgement of its texture.
The sound of the motorcycle or the appearance of the case, sure -- but "how the power cables are routed within the front cover" is part of the design, and it's not eligible.
That said, I was dead wrong in my claim that anything beyond a single view of the case's design wouldn't be eligible.
The appearance of the case, not the design. Design includes functional elements (how do the drive bays lock in place?); appearance is limited to visual ones.
Okay -- my last response contained a major screwup. Let's try this again.
HP has presumably already registered a trademark on their case design, whereas the MAME folks haven't registered a trademark on their name and logo. Consequently, while they'll still be able to continue using them, this fellow may well be able to get his own trademark. The only reason he wouldn't be able to use the logo as a trademark is not that he doesn't own copyright on it, but rather because the current owner won't let him use it to represent his business.
Consequently -- no, holding copyright on a logo isn't a requirement to get a trademark on that logo; representing your business with that logo (which can done w/ license from the copyright holder, as opposed to owning copyright itself) is.
(All that said -- I don't know trademark law very well; it's been at least 4 years since I took a class that covered it, and it was only a very minor part of the curiculum; and I am not a lawyer).
Ergh -- yup, that's so.
I was thinking mostly of the case as a functional object -- how it goes together, materials used, drive bay and power supply mounting, etc -- and only gave passing thought to appearance. Yall are quite right; the entire outside appearance of it is eligible. Sorry for posting without thinking.