The mere fact that something annoys or disgusts me doesn't mean I have a solution ready.
However, my point isn't that this is one case of something that I find similar to slavery, only a bit worse. After all, a good slave is a valued property, and therefore greatly appreciated.
My point is that this kind of relationships is common — even prevalent in our societies despite the laws we have to prevent them.
Laws are designed to solve the problem that simply re-emerges in a different guise; my best guess is that people are built that way.
So I have no solution. I'm just annoyed.
And learning to accept the things I cannot change.
Since corporations are becoming more powerful than governments, I don't think there is much of a difference.
Both the government and your employer can pretty much ruin your life.
Both want to limit your freedoms because of their own goals.
You earn more for each of them than you earn for yourself.
Basically, corporations are not unlike feudalist rulers — privately owned states.
Throughout history, there have been many kinds of slavery. Some were at least semi-voluntary, and ended after an agreed-upon time period.
Much like contracts of today.
I'm not going to say anything against the Microsoft doc; he's pretty much absolutely right and it's a great introduction to why older formats are how they are in general to boot.
The Hungarian thing – no, I still don't see it. Hungarian should not be used in any language which has a reasonable typing system; it's essentially adding unverifiable documentation to variable names in a way that is unnecessary, in a language which can verify type assertions perfectly well. The examples in the article are just ones where good variable naming would have been more than sufficient. It's not good enough.
Oh god I've started another hungarian argument.
Hungarian notation has nothing to do with typing systems.
Hell, I'm barely a novice programmer, but even I can see that.
Hungarian notation is a good variable naming practice — as long as you use it to mirror internal program semantics, not create redundant typing information.
So far, I have tried to implement something similar to Hungarian notation in most of my programs; this article taught me a thing or two more, though some aspects touch on things way beyond my level.
Anyway, his article on Hungarian notation and — more importantly — visual code review in general reminds me of feature checking in Chomskyan syntax... easy, mechanical, and rather foolproof if implemented properly.
Also, since Firefox hasn't cut IE's install rate to below 50%, the terms "embarrass" and "decimate" might be premature, although decimate does technically apply.
Well, that depends on where you live.
In certain parts of Europe, Firefox has 40%+ market share. Count in some other alternative browsers and there you have it... IE's dominance is dwindling.
Of course, nothing Mozilla does will be enough to lower the IE install base, since IE comes bundled with Windows, but OS X and Linux are slowly making inroads there as well.
It will take time, and MS is still very strong, but things are changing.
By merely viewing any reply in this discussion, you cancel all previous agreements and agree to end all your further posts with "All your EULAs are belong to us!"
Oh, and you also agree to refuse any further agreement with anyone else, no matter the terms.
I think that's OK, since nobody ever reads through all of the EULA.
And my signature takes care of the rest.
I'm looking forward to 4th Ed, but damn that was sanitized. Straight from a marketer's mouth. I'd actually hoped for something more frank.
Ah. So I'm not the only one to notice that.
I'm looking forward to 4th Edition as well — if nothing else, because it will get me to play again.
I'd left the last campaign due to free time and other personal issues at the time, and the new game will be the perfect excuse to return;)
| The cognitive leap a simple verbing of a noun requires is beyond any other animal.
A bold statement, do you have any prove to back it up?
You must be aware that human intelligence is evolved, and that a lot of animals share characteristics like emotions and feelings; even humor and ethics can be observed.
It is logically and factually impossible to deny this, unless you define intelligence as exactly what it is to be human.
FWIW, the best definition of intelligence I've encountered is "the ability to correctly solve IQ tests".
That aside, IAALinguist.
IIRC, Tomasello argued — quite convincingly — that one of the things that separates us from the other animals is the cognitive ability to share attention and put ourselves mentally into the role of another. OK, so maybe it's two abilities, I forget.
Verbing a noun — on the cognitive side — requires use of language, which is related to those abilities, and then some: the level of abstraction high enough to abstract an action connected with the noun in question and invent a verb to signify it.
Sintactically and morphologically, it is trivial in languages such as English, but still it is quite a cognitive feat.
And all that is just for very simple word creation — what about inventing completely new words? If you have any evidence of animals devising new signs when the need arises (they've done some very interesting experiments with bees, BTW), I'd be very interested in it.
Until then, though, I'll stick to my current POV.
And BTW, I was a great believer in the language ability of animals too. Before college. Studying language made me realize it was a much more complex phenomenon.
Er, yes.:-) All the verbing of a noun is, in essence, is emphasis. Ball. Fast ball. Dogs and cats do this all the time. Want food! Food is not forthcoming. REALLY want food!
What you're really talking about is the level of abstraction; and that's not something they're going to communicate if they're not doing it in the first place.
Your examples have nothing to do with verbing of nouns.
And the level of abstraction is a part of the cognitive leap.
That kind of thing just doesn't happen on Linux. Everything is integrated into one updating service. Everything shares the same libraries as much as possible. "Start" menu entries are organized by function, not by who wrote the program. I realize no non-geek would give a crap about any of this, but I really don't like it when software does its own thing and presumes to know better.
Menu entries organized by function instead of company name is a very big thing, though, as anyone navigating it will have less problems finding what they want. Especially newbies.
I just installed Linux for my grandfather, who has never ever used a computer before; I'll be setting it up for him today.
I put Kickoff on his Kubuntu install and set up Compiz.
Kickoff sorts things rather nicely, though it would be better if it were translated completely; I may have to do something about that in the future. I'm quite certain it will help him find the desired action or program.
I have set up Compiz to burn windows as they are closed, and to slide them to the taskbar as they are minimized, so that he knows what has happened to them.
These may seem to be trivial or even superfluous things to any geek, but any kind of help or cue when you don't really know what you're doing can prove to mean a lot.
but humans are the only creature that has ever been scientifically shown to have anything like language.
That is incorrect. Language is the ability to communicate feelings, goals, results. It is not "speech." Some birds do indeed have the capability of speech, that is, they can make the same sounds we can, closely enough as to make no difference. Apes, however, have demonstrated actual communications using symbols, and even dogs have recently been found to have a consistent, though very small, vocabulary. Elephants and other animals have demonstrated the ability to think in the abstract (the "recognize one's self in the mirror and operate on the information thus provided experiments.) Lemurs use calls to communicate safety and status. Don't confuse the lack of vocal apparatus with an inability to communicate. They're not the same thing at all.
As for the rest, I think you've got it, essentially, but we disagree on scales. We'll see.
Er... no.
Language is much more than that: it is a system of symbols that can even be used to describe any other symbolic system, and which can be extended at need and at will; animal communication shows little or no indication of that.
Nobody in their reight mind would deny that animals can communicate, and even that they can communicate very well.
However, that alone does not make them capable of using a language.
The cognitive leap a simple verbing of a noun requires is beyond any other animal.
Language isn't far off at all, we just about have it already.
Not really, we don't.
Mostly, we're still dealing with syntax. Semantics is a bit trickier, and language is a much more complex phenomenon than it appears to be.
Language technology is making leaps and bounds, but still has a really really long way to go.
And solving a problem in one language may mean absolutely nothing for the solution of a similar problem in another language.
In the entire summary, "tumors in the salivary glands" (not cancer; tumors. not all tumors are cancerous) were mentioned once at the very beginning. Cancer was mentioned twice afterwards, including in the sentence about car crashes.
I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.
No, we cannot.
I am not a native English speaker, yet I found the summary text completely unambiguous.
Besides, you probably meant it the other way round: that the summary supposedly led people to believe that auto deaths are more prevalent than cancer.
Actually, it's not an infinite loop, it's just M$'s way of telling you your processor isn't suited for Vista and must be replaced by something faster...
Which is yet another proof of the superiority of Linux.
Linux did infinite loops in under five seconds years ago.
Wow. A bit elitist eh.
I should consider every usage of any device without proper level of competence wrong and stupid.
Just because people do not get injured or killed during untrained computer use doesn't mean that untrained use isn't irresponsible. How do you suggest that my aforementioned demographic educate themselves if they don't even know that they 'need' education?? Especially when the market and the media do their best to tell people that computers are 'point and click' and require no education and training?
So, how is the user at fault?
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
While this is of course related to law, I see no reason not to apply it here.
Defective by design == wrong and stupid in my book. Yeah, true. But some people have no choice. If you are required by your University or employer to access a government data repository that is Active X only, you're kinda fucked aren't you?
Again, how is the user at fault?
Did I say users were at fault? Please, do point out where I said that users were at fault in this instance.
And stop putting words in my mouth.
All I'm trying to say, is pissing on users who don't know any better, or are between a rock and a hard place is hardly helpful. You'd be more productive lobbying relevant parties, educating anyone you can, and boycotting technologies you disagree with.
I should say that those between a rock and a hard place are in a much better position to lobby than I am. Especially since I may not be on the same bloody continent.
I don't think I put anything in your mouth at all, I just interpreted your post as elitist drivel, and quite frankly so would someone who is a little insecure about their tech competence, who are also incidentally the IE using crowd.
Well, they wouldn't be reading/., now would they?
Read what is written; do not imagine stuff that isn't.
And if you draw conclusions, do try to make them follow logically from what is written.
Slashdot Mirror
The mere fact that something annoys or disgusts me doesn't mean I have a solution ready.
However, my point isn't that this is one case of something that I find similar to slavery, only a bit worse. After all, a good slave is a valued property, and therefore greatly appreciated.
My point is that this kind of relationships is common — even prevalent in our societies despite the laws we have to prevent them. Laws are designed to solve the problem that simply re-emerges in a different guise; my best guess is that people are built that way.
So I have no solution. I'm just annoyed.
And learning to accept the things I cannot change.
Since corporations are becoming more powerful than governments, I don't think there is much of a difference.
Both the government and your employer can pretty much ruin your life.
Both want to limit your freedoms because of their own goals.
You earn more for each of them than you earn for yourself.
Basically, corporations are not unlike feudalist rulers — privately owned states.
Actually, I think there are too many laws.
And I definitely dislike the nanny state.
But in corporations I see little corporate states emerging... and I don't like what I see.
Throughout history, there have been many kinds of slavery. Some were at least semi-voluntary, and ended after an agreed-upon time period.
Much like contracts of today.
You know, not everyone here is a native English speaker.
Now, why am I feeding a troll?
I just love the system where your employer is entitled to the ownership of anything even remotely related to your job.
Sounds like... slavery?
... in the Repressive Communist Regime(TM)[1] of Yugoslavia. Verbal delict anyone?
You may have freedom of speech, but it seems you are gradually losing freedom of opinion.
We've had our little wars and revolutions; when will you be coming along?
[1] Insert sarcasm tags where needed.
Even better: gravity is not yet a theory; we only have hypotheses.
So test away, skeptics... test away.
I'm not going to say anything against the Microsoft doc; he's pretty much absolutely right and it's a great introduction to why older formats are how they are in general to boot.
The Hungarian thing – no, I still don't see it. Hungarian should not be used in any language which has a reasonable typing system; it's essentially adding unverifiable documentation to variable names in a way that is unnecessary, in a language which can verify type assertions perfectly well. The examples in the article are just ones where good variable naming would have been more than sufficient. It's not good enough.
Oh god I've started another hungarian argument.
Hungarian notation has nothing to do with typing systems.
Hell, I'm barely a novice programmer, but even I can see that.
Hungarian notation is a good variable naming practice — as long as you use it to mirror internal program semantics, not create redundant typing information.
So far, I have tried to implement something similar to Hungarian notation in most of my programs; this article taught me a thing or two more, though some aspects touch on things way beyond my level.
Anyway, his article on Hungarian notation and — more importantly — visual code review in general reminds me of feature checking in Chomskyan syntax... easy, mechanical, and rather foolproof if implemented properly.
... and if there are points you do not understand, ask away.
How often people fail to follow these simple steps...
Ah. So that's why you pay for sex.
Well, that depends on where you live.
In certain parts of Europe, Firefox has 40%+ market share. Count in some other alternative browsers and there you have it... IE's dominance is dwindling.
Of course, nothing Mozilla does will be enough to lower the IE install base, since IE comes bundled with Windows, but OS X and Linux are slowly making inroads there as well.
It will take time, and MS is still very strong, but things are changing.
By merely viewing any reply in this discussion, you cancel all previous agreements and agree to end all your further posts with "All your EULAs are belong to us!"
Oh, and you also agree to refuse any further agreement with anyone else, no matter the terms.
I think that's OK, since nobody ever reads through all of the EULA.
And my signature takes care of the rest.
Ah. So I'm not the only one to notice that.
I'm looking forward to 4th Edition as well — if nothing else, because it will get me to play again. ;)
I'd left the last campaign due to free time and other personal issues at the time, and the new game will be the perfect excuse to return
A bold statement, do you have any prove to back it up?
You must be aware that human intelligence is evolved, and that a lot of animals share characteristics like emotions and feelings; even humor and ethics can be observed.
It is logically and factually impossible to deny this, unless you define intelligence as exactly what it is to be human.
FWIW, the best definition of intelligence I've encountered is "the ability to correctly solve IQ tests".
That aside, IAALinguist.
IIRC, Tomasello argued — quite convincingly — that one of the things that separates us from the other animals is the cognitive ability to share attention and put ourselves mentally into the role of another. OK, so maybe it's two abilities, I forget.
Verbing a noun — on the cognitive side — requires use of language, which is related to those abilities, and then some: the level of abstraction high enough to abstract an action connected with the noun in question and invent a verb to signify it.
Sintactically and morphologically, it is trivial in languages such as English, but still it is quite a cognitive feat.
And all that is just for very simple word creation — what about inventing completely new words? If you have any evidence of animals devising new signs when the need arises (they've done some very interesting experiments with bees, BTW), I'd be very interested in it.
Until then, though, I'll stick to my current POV.
And BTW, I was a great believer in the language ability of animals too. Before college. Studying language made me realize it was a much more complex phenomenon.
Er, yes. :-) All the verbing of a noun is, in essence, is emphasis. Ball. Fast ball. Dogs and cats do this all the time. Want food! Food is not forthcoming. REALLY want food!
What you're really talking about is the level of abstraction; and that's not something they're going to communicate if they're not doing it in the first place.
Your examples have nothing to do with verbing of nouns.
And the level of abstraction is a part of the cognitive leap.
Menu entries organized by function instead of company name is a very big thing, though, as anyone navigating it will have less problems finding what they want. Especially newbies.
I just installed Linux for my grandfather, who has never ever used a computer before; I'll be setting it up for him today.
I put Kickoff on his Kubuntu install and set up Compiz.
Kickoff sorts things rather nicely, though it would be better if it were translated completely; I may have to do something about that in the future. I'm quite certain it will help him find the desired action or program.
I have set up Compiz to burn windows as they are closed, and to slide them to the taskbar as they are minimized, so that he knows what has happened to them.
These may seem to be trivial or even superfluous things to any geek, but any kind of help or cue when you don't really know what you're doing can prove to mean a lot.
That is incorrect. Language is the ability to communicate feelings, goals, results. It is not "speech." Some birds do indeed have the capability of speech, that is, they can make the same sounds we can, closely enough as to make no difference. Apes, however, have demonstrated actual communications using symbols, and even dogs have recently been found to have a consistent, though very small, vocabulary. Elephants and other animals have demonstrated the ability to think in the abstract (the "recognize one's self in the mirror and operate on the information thus provided experiments.) Lemurs use calls to communicate safety and status. Don't confuse the lack of vocal apparatus with an inability to communicate. They're not the same thing at all.
As for the rest, I think you've got it, essentially, but we disagree on scales. We'll see.
Er... no.
Language is much more than that: it is a system of symbols that can even be used to describe any other symbolic system, and which can be extended at need and at will; animal communication shows little or no indication of that.
Nobody in their reight mind would deny that animals can communicate, and even that they can communicate very well.
However, that alone does not make them capable of using a language.
The cognitive leap a simple verbing of a noun requires is beyond any other animal.
Not really, we don't.
Mostly, we're still dealing with syntax. Semantics is a bit trickier, and language is a much more complex phenomenon than it appears to be.
Language technology is making leaps and bounds, but still has a really really long way to go.
And solving a problem in one language may mean absolutely nothing for the solution of a similar problem in another language.
I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.
No, we cannot.
I am not a native English speaker, yet I found the summary text completely unambiguous.
Besides, you probably meant it the other way round: that the summary supposedly led people to believe that auto deaths are more prevalent than cancer.
HTH. HAND.
Which is yet another proof of the superiority of Linux.
Linux did infinite loops in under five seconds years ago.
I can already see all the lolcats with "Space can has a smell" and "Smell. Space has it."
A government doing things that are wrong and stupid?
I'm positively shocked.
<snip>
Hence my interpretation.
At least you admit these were not my words, but your interpretation.
Just because people do not get injured or killed during untrained computer use doesn't mean that untrained use isn't irresponsible. How do you suggest that my aforementioned demographic educate themselves if they don't even know that they 'need' education?? Especially when the market and the media do their best to tell people that computers are 'point and click' and require no education and training?
So, how is the user at fault?
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Defective by design == wrong and stupid in my book. Yeah, true. But some people have no choice. If you are required by your University or employer to access a government data repository that is Active X only, you're kinda fucked aren't you?While this is of course related to law, I see no reason not to apply it here.
Again, how is the user at fault?
Did I say users were at fault? Please, do point out where I said that users were at fault in this instance.
And stop putting words in my mouth.
All I'm trying to say, is pissing on users who don't know any better, or are between a rock and a hard place is hardly helpful. You'd be more productive lobbying relevant parties, educating anyone you can, and boycotting technologies you disagree with.I should say that those between a rock and a hard place are in a much better position to lobby than I am. Especially since I may not be on the same bloody continent.
I don't think I put anything in your mouth at all, I just interpreted your post as elitist drivel, and quite frankly so would someone who is a little insecure about their tech competence, who are also incidentally the IE using crowd.Well, they wouldn't be reading /., now would they?
Read what is written; do not imagine stuff that isn't.
And if you draw conclusions, do try to make them follow logically from what is written.