I like your suggestions very much. However, in my experience, there's a lot of C voodoo that might make it unsuitable as a first language unless one has personal instruction. I'm referring to the comiler chain, libraries, and other technologies that mighting appear to be unduly important to the novice. Indeed, when I first tried to learn C, I ended up trying to read through the gcc documentation because K&R suggested that I should get to know my compiler. Obviously, at that stage, it was a tremendous waste of time.
My suggestion is that an autodidact should learn the basics of a scripting language first. I abandoned my initial efforts to learn C and picked up a copy of "Learning Perl." There's a minimum of "black magic" -- just a line at the start of your program telling your operating system where to find perl. It takes about a week to get through Learning Perl at a relaxed pace. Granted, it does not cover the entire language. But it does cover Perl's procedural fragment in depth. From here it is straightforward to move on to more advanced Perl, or laterally to C and other procedural languages. I would image Python and other scripting languages would be similar.
Frankly, North Korea's human rights violations are far worse than the US's violations in Iraq. It's fair to point out hypocrisy, but my point remains. Claiming that GNU nerds should support Microsoft's version of freedom is just as absurd as claiming that the US should support North Korea's. The notions of freedom involved are fundamentally different and ideologically incompatible.
North and South America are separate continents that happen to share a name. They only have the same name because the Europeans that travelled over there and gave them those names didn't realise they were two different and distinct continents.
This is nonsense. Europeans originally considered North and South America to be a single continent. Claiming that they did so because they didn't realize it was "two continents" is just absurd. Keep in mind, America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian merchant and cartographer who explored and mapped South America.
I presume you've read the wikipedia article on continents since you're familiar with the term "Afrasia." I don't mean to argue with your experiences, and indeed, they sound reasonable. But more than just a few people consider America a single continent. People in Japan, Iran, and most importantly Canada and Latin America are taught that America is a single large continent. I understand their feelings about the term becoming tainted.
My position is just that there is enough room for "American" to refer to US citizens and to "generic inhabitants of North or South America." This appears to be a very unpopular position on slashdot, and I think a lot of people arguing against it need some perspective. Even 100 years ago, "American" referring to "generic Americans" was common usage in the US. There is historical evidence that suggests that the founding fathers did not intend the US to be called "America." The US constitution was seen as a treaty fiscally uniting sovereign nations, much like the current European Union. That is, the term "United States of America" literally refered to the American nations united under the constitution. "United" was meant to modify "States of America," not simply "States."
Language evolves and all that. But the slashbots arguing against my claim share a ridiculous etymology of the term and no sense of history. And so they argue an intolerant position out of ignorance.
The original point of this thread was that some people object to United States Citizens defining themselves Americans since by their (IMHO wrong) reasoning every resident of North & South America is an American.
You mean here? Where I wrote that "Canadians are Americans too"? Please explain to me how it follows that I object to US citizens calling themselves Americans from the fact that residents of North and South America are Americans.
Oopsies! You've already accused me of being jealous of the US. Now you accuse me of not being able to follow my own thread. And you "explain" what I meant to me! A linky just for you
Again, for those who are having trouble following the thread, people can call themselves whatever they want. My only point is that American is the unique and proper term reserved for citizens of the United States of America.
If you disagree, take it Merriam Webster. I'm sure they'll throw out all their research of common English usage when you report their omission to them.
So are you saying that just because some academics call North and South America a supercontinent called "America", that the people of the not insignificant country called the "United States of AMERICA" are not allowed to call their nationality Americans?
Oh my fucking god. Are you an illiterate? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's enough room for everyone on the continent to call themselves Americans.
You do understand that a word can have more than one meaning, correct?
I am a US Citizen. Be careful whom you accuse of jealousy. In the end, one fact remains: The United States, two continents, and a supercontinent are often called America. Anyone living in any of those can legitimately be called an American. People all around the Americas call themselves Americans.
If your brain can't deal with that, tough shit dumbass.
North America is a part of the super-continent known as America. It is also sometimes referred to as "The Americas." But that isn't exactly right. "The Americas" is synonymous with "the New World," which includes Carribean islands.
A canal does not two landmasses make. Or would you claim that the Mississippi River divides the country into two distinct landmasses? (Hint: It doesn't)
You know how French people are Europeans, even though "Europe" isn't a part of their country's name? And how German people are Europeans too? And Spaniards, Italians, and Swedes are too?
Guess what: the landmass we live on is called "America."
Re:My karma can stand it
on
Homer Becomes Omar
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Your "analogy" is flawed. A person from southern Africa would be called southern African. See, "southern" is the adjectival form of "south." A person from the country could then be called either "South African" (the adjectival form of "South Africa") or southern African (in virtue of the fact that South Africa is a southern African state.
"American" is the adjectival form of "America," which refers to both a country, two continents, and a supercontinent. Anyone from any of those categories can legitimately be called an American. That includes US citizens, Canadians, Mexicans, and Argentines. And you'd better believe that people all over Latin America call themselves Americans.
It's also disingenuous to equate Iran's recent history of issuing fatwas with Egypt's long history of secularization. There is no "Muslim world." There are just Muslim countries with extremely varied politics and traditions.
The DA is indeed "deciding" that your content is obscene. But that decision is not binding, and does not carry the force of law, which is what is usually meant by "The government decided that..." His decision is analogous to the SCO's "decision" that Linux violated their copyright. His "decision" means nothing until a court of law decides the matter. In the case of criminal trials, a jury of your peers determines if the material is obscene unless you forego that right.
I didn't say the Grand Jury could decide if you have the right to read anything. What I did say is that the Grand Jury decides if the fact that you have read/distributed/produced something incriminates you.
In practice, if a District Attorney wishes to prosecute someone for obscenity, the DA presents evidence to the Grand Jury (a jury of your peers) to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. A major component of that is whether the content you're accused of producing/distributing/etc is obscene. That is, the Grand Jury decides. Even if they decide that it is obscene, you can exercise your right to trial, at which point you may submit evidence that the community at large does not find the content obscene. Typically, the ACLU takes care of the legal defense and conducts telephone surveys of the community on behalf of the defendant.
Slashdot Mirror
'Left', 'Right', 'Inner', and 'Outer' are set theory terms.
22. Caught it on those MTV retrospectives in the mid-90's.
The two categories are both (and nothing but) commentary.
I don't get this. POWER is an IBM trademark. Macs don't use POWER processors. Does the submitter mean PowerPC?
My suggestion is that an autodidact should learn the basics of a scripting language first. I abandoned my initial efforts to learn C and picked up a copy of "Learning Perl." There's a minimum of "black magic" -- just a line at the start of your program telling your operating system where to find perl. It takes about a week to get through Learning Perl at a relaxed pace. Granted, it does not cover the entire language. But it does cover Perl's procedural fragment in depth. From here it is straightforward to move on to more advanced Perl, or laterally to C and other procedural languages. I would image Python and other scripting languages would be similar.
45 centuries between 0005 and 2005 is a very rough estimate.
Frankly, North Korea's human rights violations are far worse than the US's violations in Iraq. It's fair to point out hypocrisy, but my point remains. Claiming that GNU nerds should support Microsoft's version of freedom is just as absurd as claiming that the US should support North Korea's. The notions of freedom involved are fundamentally different and ideologically incompatible.
Yeah! By the same token, it's a huge shame that the US doesn't support North Korea's ideas about freedom.
Unexpected synergy... blue chairs of death!
So sue them.
Understatement?
Check out pop-pop. It's my favorite breakout clone ever.
This is nonsense. Europeans originally considered North and South America to be a single continent. Claiming that they did so because they didn't realize it was "two continents" is just absurd. Keep in mind, America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian merchant and cartographer who explored and mapped South America.
I presume you've read the wikipedia article on continents since you're familiar with the term "Afrasia." I don't mean to argue with your experiences, and indeed, they sound reasonable. But more than just a few people consider America a single continent. People in Japan, Iran, and most importantly Canada and Latin America are taught that America is a single large continent. I understand their feelings about the term becoming tainted.
My position is just that there is enough room for "American" to refer to US citizens and to "generic inhabitants of North or South America." This appears to be a very unpopular position on slashdot, and I think a lot of people arguing against it need some perspective. Even 100 years ago, "American" referring to "generic Americans" was common usage in the US. There is historical evidence that suggests that the founding fathers did not intend the US to be called "America." The US constitution was seen as a treaty fiscally uniting sovereign nations, much like the current European Union. That is, the term "United States of America" literally refered to the American nations united under the constitution. "United" was meant to modify "States of America," not simply "States."
Language evolves and all that. But the slashbots arguing against my claim share a ridiculous etymology of the term and no sense of history. And so they argue an intolerant position out of ignorance.
Depends who you ask.
You mean here? Where I wrote that "Canadians are Americans too"? Please explain to me how it follows that I object to US citizens calling themselves Americans from the fact that residents of North and South America are Americans.
Oopsies! You've already accused me of being jealous of the US. Now you accuse me of not being able to follow my own thread. And you "explain" what I meant to me! A linky just for you
Again, for those who are having trouble following the thread, people can call themselves whatever they want. My only point is that American is the unique and proper term reserved for citizens of the United States of America.
And you're wrong. An American is (1) a citizen of the United States; (2) an inhabitant or native of North or South America. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=American&x=0&y=0
If you disagree, take it Merriam Webster. I'm sure they'll throw out all their research of common English usage when you report their omission to them.
Oh my fucking god. Are you an illiterate? No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's enough room for everyone on the continent to call themselves Americans.
You do understand that a word can have more than one meaning, correct?
If your brain can't deal with that, tough shit dumbass.
A canal does not two landmasses make. Or would you claim that the Mississippi River divides the country into two distinct landmasses? (Hint: It doesn't)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/americas
Guess what: the landmass we live on is called "America."
"American" is the adjectival form of "America," which refers to both a country, two continents, and a supercontinent. Anyone from any of those categories can legitimately be called an American. That includes US citizens, Canadians, Mexicans, and Argentines. And you'd better believe that people all over Latin America call themselves Americans.
It's also disingenuous to equate Iran's recent history of issuing fatwas with Egypt's long history of secularization. There is no "Muslim world." There are just Muslim countries with extremely varied politics and traditions.
...
Canadians are Americans too.
...
Really. Think about it.
...
No, I'm serious. Look it up.
...
I didn't say the Grand Jury could decide if you have the right to read anything. What I did say is that the Grand Jury decides if the fact that you have read/distributed/produced something incriminates you.
In practice, if a District Attorney wishes to prosecute someone for obscenity, the DA presents evidence to the Grand Jury (a jury of your peers) to determine if there is enough evidence to indict. A major component of that is whether the content you're accused of producing/distributing/etc is obscene. That is, the Grand Jury decides. Even if they decide that it is obscene, you can exercise your right to trial, at which point you may submit evidence that the community at large does not find the content obscene. Typically, the ACLU takes care of the legal defense and conducts telephone surveys of the community on behalf of the defendant.
Yeah, and an OC-1 will only cost orders of magnitude more than crappy comcast cable.