I was a linguistics major for a while, but I think the problem with expecting people to use terms like aspirated or tense is that most people don't know what those terms mean (really, they're linguistic jargon). Thus even if the speaker learned, the hearers wouldn't understand.
What you're wishing for is for everyone to become more educated, and while it's certainly a noble wish, it's also not entirely realistic.
Also, I've never heard anyone saying a soft c to mean anything other than a c that sounds like an s, so I don't see what benefit there'd be to saying the latter. (I'm not sure what a soft t would be in contrast to a hard t, perhaps a th sound?)
Batman Begins isn't really a prequel at all, as I understand it. It's just a restart of the movie continuity (and a badly needed one at that). I have little doubt that there will be sequels which cover similar ground as the previous Batman movies (such as the origin of the Joker) which will likely be quite different than those other movies.
Like many things, it's a little of both. Sure, people have favorite songs and artists they listen to a lot (to stick to the music analogy) but I don't think I'm totally weird in my desire to also find new music to enjoy. Furthermore, if what you say is true, why do artists bother putting out new music? A number of reasons, to be sure, but fans like to hear new material.
There was SOME real stuff in the article, i.e. the various notes on the movie.
I found this one particularly interesting: "Batman Begins" Production NotesBefore Christian Bale was cast as Batman, many other actors were considered or read for the role. These actors include Guy Pearce, David Boreanaz, John Cusack, David Duchovny, Hugh Dancy, Joshua Jackson, Eion Bailey, Billy Crudup, Cillian Murphy, Henry Cavill and Jake Gyllenhaal.
Um, what's wrong with "discreet" that you had to put [sic] next to it?
Re:Only going to work if it became standard
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
What's the point of saying exponential if you don't really mean it? I mean, technically, an exponential increase could in fact amount to a decrease in speed (fractional exponents or what have you).
But if the actual inventor can prove that he invented it first, he can fairly easily challenge the offending patent within the 9 months, or any time the offending patent is used against him.
Except it's not really a dupe. It has pretty much the same title, but it's about Symphony OS and has (next to) nothing to do with the article that was posted yesterday.
I'm not sure I understand what's going on though. Is posting a fake dupe some kind of reverse psychology or what?
And because I forgot to address Dvorak's real argument (should have previewed!), here's a little more:
If he thinks that it will hurt Linux as OSS developers focus on the Mac platform (now that it will be running on x86), well he's still not making much sense. If writing OSS apps for Mac will suddenly be easier, well writing apps that are cross-platform between Linux and Mac will be easier too.
We'll still have plenty of Linux users, and if some OSS developers decide to focus too much (in the viewpoint of Linux users) well, it's open source! The people who want that app on their platform can take the source and make it happen.
People listen to [Dvorak] because he has an amazing grasp and understanding of the computer industry. He was able to call this one years ago. Indeed, he was correct.
I can't help but wonder if this is a joke, but here goes anyway.
No, to call his grasp on the industry amazing is quite a stretch. For one thing, he wasn't really right. He predicted Apple would move to Itanium within 18 months, and that was over two years ago.
In any case, his latest prediction doesn't seem any more likely than most of his previous ones. This move by apple will have little direct effect on Linux at all. Please, people, get this through your heads: Apple is going to continue selling their computers at premium prices and not allow OS X to run on beige boxes. The only change will be a slight speed bump and maybe some slightly lower prices. Laptops will probably see the biggest benefit.
The point is, this will not change anything. People run Linux for a number of reasons, and one of them is the pricetag. Few people running Linux are thinking, "I would love to buy a Mac if only it were using the x86 architecture." They might think, "I would love to run OS X if only it would run on this computer I built," but that's not what's happening. At least not yet.
Sure, it might be a little easier to run Linux binaries on OS X x86, but it's easy enough to run your Linux programs on OS X now. The bottom line is that if you want a Mac, even after Apple has switched to Intel chips you'll have to shell out for Apple hardware and a largely proprietary OS.
Dvorak says things to get people to read his columns. Period.
It's an ideological shift because for years the Mac Zealots have pulled the Apple line about why the PPC is superior to x86. Now they are forced to admit that PPC was a mistake.
Either that, or that Jobs has made a mistake in going to Intel.
No sir, I believe the numbers I've recorded myself... not such obviously inflated numbers that came from who knows where.
So you prefer to believe your very anecdotal numbers which most certainly don't take into account many factors over an actual study which doesn't, for instance, base most of its numbers on a link that refers to games (something which Macs aren't used for nearly as much as PCs)? To each his own I guess.
By the way, I'm on a Mac right now and I didn't click your link, so there's another little bit of inaccuracy in your numbers.
Your brain sort of does know actually. You can get persistance of vision at a pretty low refresh rate, but things will look a lot smoother if the rate is higher (to a point).
Webcore at this point is a khtml fork that is about two years old. The khtml devs might as well be asked to merge Gecko code for all of the similarity they have at this point.
I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but this last line is clearly exaggeration. If it were true, they wouldn't have been able to use a full half of the code Apple gave them.
Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard distributes World of Warcraft patches via a custom Bittorrent client, and a number of game demos now are released via torrents.
Lots of other stuff is and can be distributed through Bittorrent.
Is it really that hard to go to dictionary.com and look it up before you say things like this?
You can set it in your preferences to always format as plain text.
I was a linguistics major for a while, but I think the problem with expecting people to use terms like aspirated or tense is that most people don't know what those terms mean (really, they're linguistic jargon). Thus even if the speaker learned, the hearers wouldn't understand.
What you're wishing for is for everyone to become more educated, and while it's certainly a noble wish, it's also not entirely realistic.
Also, I've never heard anyone saying a soft c to mean anything other than a c that sounds like an s, so I don't see what benefit there'd be to saying the latter. (I'm not sure what a soft t would be in contrast to a hard t, perhaps a th sound?)
Batman Begins isn't really a prequel at all, as I understand it. It's just a restart of the movie continuity (and a badly needed one at that). I have little doubt that there will be sequels which cover similar ground as the previous Batman movies (such as the origin of the Joker) which will likely be quite different than those other movies.
Like many things, it's a little of both. Sure, people have favorite songs and artists they listen to a lot (to stick to the music analogy) but I don't think I'm totally weird in my desire to also find new music to enjoy. Furthermore, if what you say is true, why do artists bother putting out new music? A number of reasons, to be sure, but fans like to hear new material.
"Discrete" and "discreet" are two different words.
There was SOME real stuff in the article, i.e. the various notes on the movie.
I found this one particularly interesting:
"Batman Begins" Production NotesBefore Christian Bale was cast as Batman, many other actors were considered or read for the role. These actors include Guy Pearce, David Boreanaz, John Cusack, David Duchovny, Hugh Dancy, Joshua Jackson, Eion Bailey, Billy Crudup, Cillian Murphy, Henry Cavill and Jake Gyllenhaal.
Imagine John Cusack as Batman!
Um, what's wrong with "discreet" that you had to put [sic] next to it?
What's the point of saying exponential if you don't really mean it? I mean, technically, an exponential increase could in fact amount to a decrease in speed (fractional exponents or what have you).
The great grandparent was exaggerating.
This may all very well be true. I think the law is pretty dumb for the same reasons you list. However, that's not the ACLU's argument at all.
The ACLU's argument seems to be based on some kind of misrepresentation of what the law actually is.
No one who didn't like Hudson Hawk should be allowed to review movies.
I would expect something a little more realistic than that. No one but cheesy fictional characters ever shouts "NOOOOOOO" in a non-ironic manner.
But if the actual inventor can prove that he invented it first, he can fairly easily challenge the offending patent within the 9 months, or any time the offending patent is used against him.
Not really, because this only applies to a small subset of Jews, not all of His chosen people.
... and a dupe on top of that.
Except it's not really a dupe. It has pretty much the same title, but it's about Symphony OS and has (next to) nothing to do with the article that was posted yesterday.
I'm not sure I understand what's going on though. Is posting a fake dupe some kind of reverse psychology or what?
And because I forgot to address Dvorak's real argument (should have previewed!), here's a little more:
If he thinks that it will hurt Linux as OSS developers focus on the Mac platform (now that it will be running on x86), well he's still not making much sense. If writing OSS apps for Mac will suddenly be easier, well writing apps that are cross-platform between Linux and Mac will be easier too.
We'll still have plenty of Linux users, and if some OSS developers decide to focus too much (in the viewpoint of Linux users) well, it's open source! The people who want that app on their platform can take the source and make it happen.
People listen to [Dvorak] because he has an amazing grasp and understanding of the computer industry. He was able to call this one years ago. Indeed, he was correct.
I can't help but wonder if this is a joke, but here goes anyway.
No, to call his grasp on the industry amazing is quite a stretch. For one thing, he wasn't really right. He predicted Apple would move to Itanium within 18 months, and that was over two years ago.
In any case, his latest prediction doesn't seem any more likely than most of his previous ones. This move by apple will have little direct effect on Linux at all. Please, people, get this through your heads: Apple is going to continue selling their computers at premium prices and not allow OS X to run on beige boxes. The only change will be a slight speed bump and maybe some slightly lower prices. Laptops will probably see the biggest benefit.
The point is, this will not change anything. People run Linux for a number of reasons, and one of them is the pricetag. Few people running Linux are thinking, "I would love to buy a Mac if only it were using the x86 architecture." They might think, "I would love to run OS X if only it would run on this computer I built," but that's not what's happening. At least not yet.
Sure, it might be a little easier to run Linux binaries on OS X x86, but it's easy enough to run your Linux programs on OS X now. The bottom line is that if you want a Mac, even after Apple has switched to Intel chips you'll have to shell out for Apple hardware and a largely proprietary OS.
Dvorak says things to get people to read his columns. Period.
It's an ideological shift because for years the Mac Zealots have pulled the Apple line about why the PPC is superior to x86. Now they are forced to admit that PPC was a mistake.
Either that, or that Jobs has made a mistake in going to Intel.
It's more of a typo actually!
But I knew I was going to do something like that. Heh.
No sir, I believe the numbers I've recorded myself... not such obviously inflated numbers that came from who knows where.
So you prefer to believe your very anecdotal numbers which most certainly don't take into account many factors over an actual study which doesn't, for instance, base most of its numbers on a link that refers to games (something which Macs aren't used for nearly as much as PCs)? To each his own I guess.
By the way, I'm on a Mac right now and I didn't click your link, so there's another little bit of inaccuracy in your numbers.
Your brain sort of does know actually. You can get persistance of vision at a pretty low refresh rate, but things will look a lot smoother if the rate is higher (to a point).
I hate to be a spelling nazi (kind of ;) but yaa? Is that supposed to be yay? Or yeah maybe?
Seriously, I can understand mispelling complicated words, but how do you not know how to spell yay?
(To be fair, "yea" is a different valid spelling that means something else.)
Webcore at this point is a khtml fork that is about two years old. The khtml devs might as well be asked to merge Gecko code for all of the similarity they have at this point.
I think I agree with what you're trying to say, but this last line is clearly exaggeration. If it were true, they wouldn't have been able to use a full half of the code Apple gave them.
That's pretty strange, because Google definitely has a sandbox that they keep sites in for 6-8 months.
Maybe you had few competitors and those competitors (for the search result) were also new.