In the transcripts of one of the recent developer meetings, they discussed the possibility of implementing autopackage. It isn't in there yet, but they are giving it serious consideration.
"Oh, and, I won't even try to comment on the rules of pronounciation, which are as bad as the grammer. If you take the rules of pronounciation from various words, "ghoti" should be pronounced "fish" ('touGH' 'fricTIon')"
God I hate this example. It is cited almost universally by those completely ignorant of English phonology. This only works if you completely ignore the rules of English pronunciation. Yes, there are rules. English spelling is based on a historical form of the language, so yes, it is less regular than many languages, but there are still rules for pronunciation. The [f] pronunciation of/gh/ never, ever, ever occurs at the beginning of a word. Furthermore, it only occurs at all when it is part of a larger sequence like/ough/ or/augh/. The process that leads to the fricativization of the/ti/ sound pretty much only occurs when it is part of the/tion/ sequence or something similar.
This example was thought up by George Bernard Shaw (it may not have originated with him, but it is attributed to him), and it is quite clever, but it is not meant to be taken seriously. "ghoti" could only be pronounced [go-tee] or [go-tie] in English.
"Java is probably already on most desktop computers."
Most computers may have some sort of Java libs, but you have to have the Java Runtime Environment or the SDK for OOo. Most computers do not in fact have this. Microsoft packages its own Java runtimes which, as far as I know are incompatible with OOo, and many linux distros don't package it due to licensing issues. I do agree that OOo is a great office suite and the price is great, but it would be a lot more portable and easier to distribute if it did not rely on Java so much.
See, I am torn. You say "Being common doesn't mean it's correct" and as a purist of the English language, I am inclined to agree with you. Words like "irregardless" and its ilk make me shudder every time I hear them. I have also tackled the whole octopi/octopodes debate before, and I agree that octopodes is the most correct etymologically and that octopuses makes equal sense as an English plural of an imported word. Octopi is an overgeneralization by people who usually mean well and think they are using the correct pronunciation by imitating other words which end in -us (most of which do come from Latin).
As a linguist (or at least a prospective linguist), I have to disagree with you a little about your above point. Issues of "right" and "wrong" in language really have less to do with etymology and more to do with the whether or not the utterance is grammatical to those who hear it. Octopi has entered the common usage to the level that it does not sound awkward to most people. It is an accepted plural that is even listed in dictionaries. Yes, these dictionaries are descriptive, but that is really the only fair way to look at language.
Languages change. They change at a much slower rate now than they did historically because of increased travel and the need for standardized forms in order to facilitate understanding between groups that are distant from one another, but they still change. These changes are not always grammatical or accurate etymologically, but this is part of language. As much as it irks me, "irregardless" may eventually come into common enough usage that it will be a perfectly acceptable word. I will fight it tooth and nail, damnit, but it really isn't up to me.
I think your assessment of the person who posted this article to Slashdot may be a bit unfair. I doubt that the poster changed the word in an attempt to look erudite. Most people actually think that octopi is the correct plural, so he probably was just "correcting" a word that felt awkward to him. To be honest, despite the fact that I am aware of the "proper" plurals of the word, octopi still sounds more correct to me than either of the other two forms. Because I am a pedant, I don't use it, but I will acknowledge its pervasiveness.
OK, my post wasn't intended to be an attack, so sorry if it came off that way. I meant that I think you were missing the point that the parent poster was trying to make.
I am not sure why you are so insistent that there can be no connection here. You didn't actually counter my point, you just said no, so I am not sure how to respond. I think there is a parallel there, but apparently you do not. To each his own.
Regarding the last part of your post, I can see what you mean. I think that the buttons display an icon similar to that in Windows when you hover over them, but I may be mistaken, as I am not a Mac user. The icons that Windows (and Gnome and KDE, etc.) use to indicate the action of the button are (to me) easy to understand and helpful, but I don't see a problem with color-coding as well. Perhaps it would be better if the icons were always present in buttons in OS X. I used to criticize Apple for focusing too much on form over function. I think they have gotten better in this respect, but this may be an example of this still occurring. It's up for debate, I suppose.
Alright, you caught me. I am a longtime Windows user, recently converted (a few months now) almost entirely to Linux (Gnome). I was apparently mistaken about this facet, but I feel that the rest of my post still stands (I hope).
I believe you are missing the point. It's not that the buttons function exactly like traffic lights, but that it uses a paradigm that people are already somewhat familar with to help people know what to do. True, it is not a 1 to 1 correlation, but the user could at least get the idea that red indicates that you will stop using the program, yellow, that you will put the program on hold (by moving it out of the way), and green, that you will proceed with the program. It may not be a perfect system, but I do agree with the grandparent that it is at least a clever way to help convey visual clues to users who may not be familiar with the interface.
Are traffic light colors universal? I know that those colors have that connotation here in the U.S., and I think I remember them being that way in Europe too (but I didn't drive there, so I didn't pay a lot of attention to them). I suppose that even if the connotation is not present in other countries, the colors shouldn't be detrimental to people's understanding.
I was wondering when someone would mention Snoopery on/. That cartoon beagle's antics have entertained us for years. It's about time he gets some recognition.
Most of the commenters on this article so far seem to think that the MPAA is going to force the program on people. I think it is more that they are making it available as a free download so that people who aren't sure if they are infringing, or parents who don't want to get sued over what their kids download, can find and delete the stuff. The article says that the data uncovered by the program wouldn't be shared with the MPAA or anyone else. It also says that the program will be made available on a website. That is a far cry from virus behavior.
Not that I think it is a particularly useful tactic, but they may get some parents to clean out their kids pirated movies.
Not that I fully disagree with you here, but Dasani and its ilk are not JUST bottled tap water. While they are made from tap water, that water is purified and the mineral content is altered so that each bottle will taste consistently the same. They have chosen the minerals based on extensive taste test panels which determined what could be added to water to make it taste clean and fresh. Men's Health published an article earlier this year comparing different bottled waters and discussing the sources and production methods of some of the major players in the bottled water game.
Actually, the English system for pluralization is quite simple compared to many languages. We do in fact have a fairly regular pluralization scheme. There are several exceptions to the simple -s/-es pluralization, but take a look at some other languages. Latin has 5 different declensions, each with their own pluralization. Even with this many classes, there are still exceptions. German pluralization is very complex. Nouns may pluralize with -n, -en, -e, -er, or by remaining the same (there may be even more, my German is a bit rusty) based on the ending, and sometimes involves a vowel shift somewhere else in the word.
Old English, like these other languages, had several noun classes with several pluralization schemata. It is only due to the Normal conquest in the 11th century that Middle English and Modern English are as simple as they are in this regard. English during the Norman occupation was a language of the common people, with Norman French being the language of court. This led to a lot of simplification in the language.
The words that have irregular pluralization are generally the result of one of two scenarios. If the word is Germanic in origin (as are all of the examples you gave, as well as many more: child, sheep, deer, fish, ox, etc.) then generally is has kept a version of it original plural because it was so frequently used. Each successive generation could hear the "proper" plural frequently and emulate it, while being corrected by their parents if they improperly pluralized it. This would not happen as frequently if a word was not used as often. We can see this even now. We are much more likely to know that the proper plural of child is children than we are to know that the proper plural of matrix is matrices.
The other branch of irregulars are words that were imported from another language, such as octopus (Greek in this case). I don't think that the person (or persons) who corrected the pluralization of octopus were doing so to make fun of the individual who pluralized it as octopi. I know when I found out that the plural was octopodes, I was highly entertained, and told lots of people about it, because it is one of those instances where many of us (myself included, in this case) try to sound educated by using the "proper" plural instead of saying octopuses (which is a totally acceptable plural, by the way), and it turns out that octopuses would have been closer to correct. We just overgeneralized a rule that applied to Latin loan words and used it with something that is not from Latin.
Also, I disagree with your suggestion to strike all irregular plurals from the English language. Language is a free-flowing thing. For years, countless people have tried to change language to suit them and what they see as logical, it just doesn't work. If you were to succeed in your vision there, we would not really be speaking English, but rather a created language based on it. But don't worry, we seem to be moving closer to regular pluralization. A lot of the acedemic imports from Greek and Latin are at least beginning to get -s and -es endings. Children and feet are probably going to be around for quite a while, but time will probably regularize many of the less-frequently-used irregulars.
OK, now that I am done with that frightfully long and very off-topic soliloquy, let's get back to using computer parts in innovative ways.
Slashdot Mirror
In the transcripts of one of the recent developer meetings, they discussed the possibility of implementing autopackage. It isn't in there yet, but they are giving it serious consideration.
God I hate this example. It is cited almost universally by those completely ignorant of English phonology. This only works if you completely ignore the rules of English pronunciation. Yes, there are rules. English spelling is based on a historical form of the language, so yes, it is less regular than many languages, but there are still rules for pronunciation. The [f] pronunciation of /gh/ never, ever, ever occurs at the beginning of a word. Furthermore, it only occurs at all when it is part of a larger sequence like /ough/ or /augh/. The process that leads to the fricativization of the /ti/ sound pretty much only occurs when it is part of the /tion/ sequence or something similar.
This example was thought up by George Bernard Shaw (it may not have originated with him, but it is attributed to him), and it is quite clever, but it is not meant to be taken seriously. "ghoti" could only be pronounced [go-tee] or [go-tie] in English.
Want to understand why these letters represent the sounds they do, and why "ghoti" could never be pronounced [fish]? Check out http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/ling006.ht ml
tag there, please.
"Java is probably already on most desktop computers." Most computers may have some sort of Java libs, but you have to have the Java Runtime Environment or the SDK for OOo. Most computers do not in fact have this. Microsoft packages its own Java runtimes which, as far as I know are incompatible with OOo, and many linux distros don't package it due to licensing issues. I do agree that OOo is a great office suite and the price is great, but it would be a lot more portable and easier to distribute if it did not rely on Java so much.
'Twas Animaniacs. Great shows all.
As a linguist (or at least a prospective linguist), I have to disagree with you a little about your above point. Issues of "right" and "wrong" in language really have less to do with etymology and more to do with the whether or not the utterance is grammatical to those who hear it. Octopi has entered the common usage to the level that it does not sound awkward to most people. It is an accepted plural that is even listed in dictionaries. Yes, these dictionaries are descriptive, but that is really the only fair way to look at language.
Languages change. They change at a much slower rate now than they did historically because of increased travel and the need for standardized forms in order to facilitate understanding between groups that are distant from one another, but they still change. These changes are not always grammatical or accurate etymologically, but this is part of language. As much as it irks me, "irregardless" may eventually come into common enough usage that it will be a perfectly acceptable word. I will fight it tooth and nail, damnit, but it really isn't up to me.
I think your assessment of the person who posted this article to Slashdot may be a bit unfair. I doubt that the poster changed the word in an attempt to look erudite. Most people actually think that octopi is the correct plural, so he probably was just "correcting" a word that felt awkward to him. To be honest, despite the fact that I am aware of the "proper" plurals of the word, octopi still sounds more correct to me than either of the other two forms. Because I am a pedant, I don't use it, but I will acknowledge its pervasiveness.
I think this may be the yuppiest sombination I have ever heard of.
OK, my post wasn't intended to be an attack, so sorry if it came off that way. I meant that I think you were missing the point that the parent poster was trying to make.
I am not sure why you are so insistent that there can be no connection here. You didn't actually counter my point, you just said no, so I am not sure how to respond. I think there is a parallel there, but apparently you do not. To each his own.
Regarding the last part of your post, I can see what you mean. I think that the buttons display an icon similar to that in Windows when you hover over them, but I may be mistaken, as I am not a Mac user. The icons that Windows (and Gnome and KDE, etc.) use to indicate the action of the button are (to me) easy to understand and helpful, but I don't see a problem with color-coding as well. Perhaps it would be better if the icons were always present in buttons in OS X. I used to criticize Apple for focusing too much on form over function. I think they have gotten better in this respect, but this may be an example of this still occurring. It's up for debate, I suppose.
Alright, you caught me. I am a longtime Windows user, recently converted (a few months now) almost entirely to Linux (Gnome). I was apparently mistaken about this facet, but I feel that the rest of my post still stands (I hope).
I believe you are missing the point. It's not that the buttons function exactly like traffic lights, but that it uses a paradigm that people are already somewhat familar with to help people know what to do. True, it is not a 1 to 1 correlation, but the user could at least get the idea that red indicates that you will stop using the program, yellow, that you will put the program on hold (by moving it out of the way), and green, that you will proceed with the program. It may not be a perfect system, but I do agree with the grandparent that it is at least a clever way to help convey visual clues to users who may not be familiar with the interface. Are traffic light colors universal? I know that those colors have that connotation here in the U.S., and I think I remember them being that way in Europe too (but I didn't drive there, so I didn't pay a lot of attention to them). I suppose that even if the connotation is not present in other countries, the colors shouldn't be detrimental to people's understanding.
Yeah, but what happens when these robots stop being nice, and start getting real?
(Apologies to MTV and the producers of The Real World)
I was wondering when someone would mention Snoopery on /. That cartoon beagle's antics have entertained us for years. It's about time he gets some recognition.
Good point, that didn't occur to me, but it may one of their primary targets.
Most of the commenters on this article so far seem to think that the MPAA is going to force the program on people. I think it is more that they are making it available as a free download so that people who aren't sure if they are infringing, or parents who don't want to get sued over what their kids download, can find and delete the stuff. The article says that the data uncovered by the program wouldn't be shared with the MPAA or anyone else. It also says that the program will be made available on a website. That is a far cry from virus behavior.
Not that I think it is a particularly useful tactic, but they may get some parents to clean out their kids pirated movies.
Not that I fully disagree with you here, but Dasani and its ilk are not JUST bottled tap water. While they are made from tap water, that water is purified and the mineral content is altered so that each bottle will taste consistently the same. They have chosen the minerals based on extensive taste test panels which determined what could be added to water to make it taste clean and fresh.
Men's Health published an article earlier this year comparing different bottled waters and discussing the sources and production methods of some of the major players in the bottled water game.
Try using the Disable Targets For Downloads extension, I think it may be what you are after.
Sorry, this was my first post on Slashdot, didn't realize I needed to use the BR tag, so all my paragraphs ran together. I'll know for next time
Actually, the English system for pluralization is quite simple compared to many languages. We do in fact have a fairly regular pluralization scheme. There are several exceptions to the simple -s/-es pluralization, but take a look at some other languages. Latin has 5 different declensions, each with their own pluralization. Even with this many classes, there are still exceptions. German pluralization is very complex. Nouns may pluralize with -n, -en, -e, -er, or by remaining the same (there may be even more, my German is a bit rusty) based on the ending, and sometimes involves a vowel shift somewhere else in the word. Old English, like these other languages, had several noun classes with several pluralization schemata. It is only due to the Normal conquest in the 11th century that Middle English and Modern English are as simple as they are in this regard. English during the Norman occupation was a language of the common people, with Norman French being the language of court. This led to a lot of simplification in the language. The words that have irregular pluralization are generally the result of one of two scenarios. If the word is Germanic in origin (as are all of the examples you gave, as well as many more: child, sheep, deer, fish, ox, etc.) then generally is has kept a version of it original plural because it was so frequently used. Each successive generation could hear the "proper" plural frequently and emulate it, while being corrected by their parents if they improperly pluralized it. This would not happen as frequently if a word was not used as often. We can see this even now. We are much more likely to know that the proper plural of child is children than we are to know that the proper plural of matrix is matrices. The other branch of irregulars are words that were imported from another language, such as octopus (Greek in this case). I don't think that the person (or persons) who corrected the pluralization of octopus were doing so to make fun of the individual who pluralized it as octopi. I know when I found out that the plural was octopodes, I was highly entertained, and told lots of people about it, because it is one of those instances where many of us (myself included, in this case) try to sound educated by using the "proper" plural instead of saying octopuses (which is a totally acceptable plural, by the way), and it turns out that octopuses would have been closer to correct. We just overgeneralized a rule that applied to Latin loan words and used it with something that is not from Latin. Also, I disagree with your suggestion to strike all irregular plurals from the English language. Language is a free-flowing thing. For years, countless people have tried to change language to suit them and what they see as logical, it just doesn't work. If you were to succeed in your vision there, we would not really be speaking English, but rather a created language based on it. But don't worry, we seem to be moving closer to regular pluralization. A lot of the acedemic imports from Greek and Latin are at least beginning to get -s and -es endings. Children and feet are probably going to be around for quite a while, but time will probably regularize many of the less-frequently-used irregulars. OK, now that I am done with that frightfully long and very off-topic soliloquy, let's get back to using computer parts in innovative ways.