If you want a system of prosperity without working as much as Americans do, I think much of Western Europe provides a better example than an erstwhile genocidal totalitarian regime. But that's just me talking.
This is true, but there are architectural factors that influence exploits. For example, PPC processors are generally less vulnerable to stack-smashing attacks than x86.
One of the fundamental principles of economics is the scarcity of goods. If goods are no longer scarce, economics as we know it will no longer be relevant. Also, evil corporations tend to be evil in order to profit, not because they enjoy being evil and are dedicated to it. It's pretty rare that evil people will harm others at their own immediate expense.
Somehow I imagine the sort of Korean who reads/. is more likely to play Starcraft than Go. In fact, more of them play Janggi than Baduk anyway, but Westerners always hear more about Go; maybe the Hanja are too scary.
Freedom is more important than democracy, but it is rare that you can have one without the other. This, however, is one of those cases. The U.S. has shown no signs of censoring the internet at the DNS level. Many other countries would want to. If the U.S. really were exerting its power, I would be all for shifting it to the U.N., but right now countries are just trying to politicize something which shouldn't be political and has managed not to be as it is right now.
FOSS != non-commercial. I sure as hell hope an institution like a bank wouldn't use unsupported software be it open or proprietary. But the author apparently hasn't heard of such obscure companies as "Red Hat" and "Novell" and "IBM."
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to publish things others might find stupid or distasteful or unpatriotic. Popular speech doesn't need protection--unpopular speech does.
Give him a break, it can be confusing. After all the ROK is worried about what the DPRK will do, and even the PRC doesn't want them to do something stupid, all while threatening to ROC. You'd think these Asian countries learned English from AOL.
Your post doesn't follow the actual rules of English, however. English has rules; it's just that these rules are not the rules your teachers taught you. In fact, native speakers are not usually consciously aware of the rules, myself included. You can even say something that follows prescriptive rules but is incorrect, such as, "He has a green big ball."
The only extremist and silly thing is that people always assume that language change is bad. I'm not going to say it's good, because that would be just silly. It is what it is. It's funny that people often consider adaptive change to be "progress" until it comes to language, in which case we must always strive for the language of the past which was better and more pure and is being corrupted today.
Saying that "He was like..." is illogical makes as much sense as saying that the French are crazy for calling bread pan. "Don't they know it's really called bread?" The particulars of any language are arbitrary, and saying that one instance is objectively better than another is like saying that red is a better color than blue. They're both just colors.
"Technically?" The article is about linguistics, not about composition. You are using the word "wrong" in the sense of "not accepted by convention." I am talking about wrong in the sense of "not following the rules of a language." Rules are not invented by writers and teachers, but rather are internalized by the speakers of a language. "Rules" and "grammar" do have different meanings when it comes to composition, but trying to apply those meanings here would be like saying that this post has bad syntax because I don't end every logical statement with a semicolon.
The article is about studying the grammar of languages as they are spoken, not the prescriptive rules of formal language. All the examples you gave are bad examples of formal English, but they are not "wrong" in any meaningful sense of the word. "Man, like, he ain't got it," is just as valid English as, "He doesn't have it." Wrong would be something like, "He doesn't has it."
RTFA mods. For that matter, RTFA editors. How is the parent post a troll? Frankly the article is troll. This comment is definitely offtopic, but the parent seems to be the only person posting who has read the article.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want a system of prosperity without working as much as Americans do, I think much of Western Europe provides a better example than an erstwhile genocidal totalitarian regime. But that's just me talking.
This is true, but there are architectural factors that influence exploits. For example, PPC processors are generally less vulnerable to stack-smashing attacks than x86.
One of the fundamental principles of economics is the scarcity of goods. If goods are no longer scarce, economics as we know it will no longer be relevant. Also, evil corporations tend to be evil in order to profit, not because they enjoy being evil and are dedicated to it. It's pretty rare that evil people will harm others at their own immediate expense.
Somehow I imagine the sort of Korean who reads /. is more likely to play Starcraft than Go. In fact, more of them play Janggi than Baduk anyway, but Westerners always hear more about Go; maybe the Hanja are too scary.
Freedom is more important than democracy, but it is rare that you can have one without the other. This, however, is one of those cases. The U.S. has shown no signs of censoring the internet at the DNS level. Many other countries would want to. If the U.S. really were exerting its power, I would be all for shifting it to the U.N., but right now countries are just trying to politicize something which shouldn't be political and has managed not to be as it is right now.
FOSS != non-commercial. I sure as hell hope an institution like a bank wouldn't use unsupported software be it open or proprietary. But the author apparently hasn't heard of such obscure companies as "Red Hat" and "Novell" and "IBM."
Really.
Also, FDR died in office.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to publish things others might find stupid or distasteful or unpatriotic. Popular speech doesn't need protection--unpopular speech does.
Give him a break, it can be confusing. After all the ROK is worried about what the DPRK will do, and even the PRC doesn't want them to do something stupid, all while threatening to ROC. You'd think these Asian countries learned English from AOL.
I'm sure that you're well trained to identify hostile military threats. The same cannot be said of you and irony.
Your post doesn't follow the actual rules of English, however. English has rules; it's just that these rules are not the rules your teachers taught you. In fact, native speakers are not usually consciously aware of the rules, myself included. You can even say something that follows prescriptive rules but is incorrect, such as, "He has a green big ball."
Saying that "He was like..." is illogical makes as much sense as saying that the French are crazy for calling bread pan. "Don't they know it's really called bread?" The particulars of any language are arbitrary, and saying that one instance is objectively better than another is like saying that red is a better color than blue. They're both just colors.
"Technically?" The article is about linguistics, not about composition. You are using the word "wrong" in the sense of "not accepted by convention." I am talking about wrong in the sense of "not following the rules of a language." Rules are not invented by writers and teachers, but rather are internalized by the speakers of a language. "Rules" and "grammar" do have different meanings when it comes to composition, but trying to apply those meanings here would be like saying that this post has bad syntax because I don't end every logical statement with a semicolon.
The article is about studying the grammar of languages as they are spoken, not the prescriptive rules of formal language. All the examples you gave are bad examples of formal English, but they are not "wrong" in any meaningful sense of the word. "Man, like, he ain't got it," is just as valid English as, "He doesn't have it." Wrong would be something like, "He doesn't has it."
There are people what use slightly different grammar, however. They speech is understandable, but it's different.
Foot, say hello to mouth.
I can understand the occasional typo slipping through, but three? Come on; dupe or don't proofread, but don't do both.
That wasn't too painful, was it?
RTFA mods. For that matter, RTFA editors. How is the parent post a troll? Frankly the article is troll. This comment is definitely offtopic, but the parent seems to be the only person posting who has read the article.
Sometimes people start to say a curse word but reconsider and say something worse, oddly enough. I'm sure we've all seen this.
There is no working Vorbis component for QuickTime 7 at this time.
LaForge: Let's try reversing the polarity.
Nintendo much more than Sony and Microsoft, however, produces excellent first party games.
Such short-sighted people.