Yes it's true that children will learn the rules and then apply them, sometimes inappropriately, until they learn the exceptions. I expect that your nieces/nephews who use "ran" have simply heard that word used more often in the right context and have therefore learned this particular irregularity.
My own son gave a classic example some time ago of a sentence showing he was part way through this learning process. I can't for the life of me remember what it was, which is very annoying, but he was using two irregular verbs, one correctly and one not. Along the lines of "The glass breaked when I ran over it"
If you ever start your own business, I hope for your sake that your potential customers don't all share the same view!
The simple reason for risking a new merchant is that their price and/or service may be better.
Of course, the more you're going to spend the more care you should be taking, and then a bit of research about the company may help. A new merchant may not have a lot of glowing reviews scattered around the web, but if they're ripping people off you can be fairly sure people will be writing about it.
Yes, there are plenty of jokes, or 'insights' here gleefully playing on the irony of explorer.exe being identified as 'malware', but out here in the real world it caused real problems.
My sister is a normal person who doesn't know a great deal about technology but bought a PC, uses it for a bit of entertainment, and a bit of home office work. Runs firewall and anti-virus and is intelligent enough not to do stupid things.
She rang me a few days ago to say she'd deleted a virus and now her PC wouldn't work.
I visited to see what I could do, and after a few minutes investigation was surprised to find that explorer.exe was missing. I copied my version onto her drive and Windows loaded fine, only for Kaspersky to fire up its warning, saying that the only thing it could do was delete explorer.exe.
My natural concern then was that something (well this "Huhk-C") was embedded in the system and I'd have to find an alternative method to remove it. That led to some googling and eventually the realisation that this was actually a Kaspersky bug.
So I skipped the deletion, let the machine reboot again, and by that time Kaspersky's update had kicked in and I was able to clear all the warnings without further incident.
I guess that's just an everyday story of 'tech support', but the fact is that this wasn't funny. My sister had half finished invoices on that machine that she couldn't get at for several days until I was able to visit (she'd had lots of advice from friends, colleagues and forums which didn't help). I was obviously inconvenienced by the time I had to spend sorting the mess out, and this situation must have been repeated in hundreds or thousands of locations around the world.
Not the end of the world, but serious enough to cause distress to users. I didn't have an opinion about Kaspersky before, but I certainly do now!
A good attitude to have, and one that I agree with. I read far too many comments here about ways to fatten your CV or climb the corporate ladder. Too few suggest that you look for rewarding work that can actually be a part of your "quality of life" rather than just a way of paying for it. Of course we (nearly) all need to earn a living, so for most of us a compromise has to be made.
Slighty back on-topic, good luck to any of the startrek.com staff who have to move on as a result of this decision.
Catch #2 is more of an issue for me, cos I hate using Microsoft software
You hate Microsoft software, so why would you even consider for a moment using some Microsoft software for a few months in order to get some free Microsoft software?
Actually, the "fit for purpose" clause in UK consumer protection law specifies durability as one of the criteria. What durability actually means is not specified though, as it will vary according to what you purchase. A £1000 TV might be expected to last at least five years, but a £10 toaster may not be expected to live much beyond its one year guarantee. I'm plucking those figures out of the air as an illustration.
In any case, I don't think trading standards or the small claims court would be very interested in this kind of "old software" issue.
You might just as well say MS Windows, Office etc have numerous problems and the solution is not to use them, and to tell your correspondents, friends, colleagues and business partners not to use them.
It could well be true, but it's not going to happen any time soon.
The pragmatic solution is to use the full URL in your email, and provide a tinyURL or similar as an alternative if you think the original risks getting broken by your correspondent's email client.
I don't know about your world domination plan, but mine contains images, photographs, maps, blueprints and a few more things that cannot really easily be expressed in text.
I'm a big Blonde on Blonde fan, but I agree that spending $20 a month to listen to it wouldn't be the wisest use of my money.
On the other hand, if that $20 also allows me to listen to the rest of Dylan's albums, along with thousands more that I could never afford to legally purchase... if, as a bonus, I get the opportunity to try out new or obscure artists and broaden my listening tastes for no extra charge... well, maybe not such a daft idea?
I have a pretty big music collection. It's all digitized now and I can't fit it on the biggest iPod, but I still want to hear more. If I can subscribe, and then download what I want when I want - can then delete tracks if I'm getting pushed for space, knowing that I can download them again anytime - that's not bad either?
If a download service shuts down and you accidentally delete or corrupt your files you could be screwed and end up buying your stuff again or illegally downloading it (feeling morally justified).
If a subscription service shuts down, you just subscribe to a new service and carry on with a small amount of inconvenience. Sounds like a bright idea to me.
I don't currently subscribe to any of these services but I consider it from time to time and I'm sure that at some point I will, because it suits my needs.
It doesn't matter to me whether I physically own 99% of my music, I just want to be able to listen to it. That other 1% is the stuff I'll still buy from time to time on CD.
If the personal information was just used to generate a hash sum then you wouldn't need to worry about data protection, but I'm still not convinced that the solution is a good one.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't knock it. I'm officially the 30th smartest person in France, and I've only visited there for 3 days in my entire life.
Yes it's true that children will learn the rules and then apply them, sometimes inappropriately, until they learn the exceptions. I expect that your nieces/nephews who use "ran" have simply heard that word used more often in the right context and have therefore learned this particular irregularity.
My own son gave a classic example some time ago of a sentence showing he was part way through this learning process. I can't for the life of me remember what it was, which is very annoying, but he was using two irregular verbs, one correctly and one not. Along the lines of "The glass breaked when I ran over it"
The good news is that as language evolves, irregular verbs are gradually being "regularized".
I assume it has an autoplay application that could be bypassed with the Shift key.
It's got one now, and it's instructive, nay, insightful to browse the other threads in this esteemed group. http://slashdot.org/tags/whatcouldpossiblygowrong
... but will they fly?
Actually it does work like that in the UK. Just choose your new name and start using it. You have to provide evidence for some purposes, like getting a passport, but this isn't a difficult process. http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/family/change_of_name.htm
Not sure about the United States.
If you ever start your own business, I hope for your sake that your potential customers don't all share the same view!
The simple reason for risking a new merchant is that their price and/or service may be better.
Of course, the more you're going to spend the more care you should be taking, and then a bit of research about the company may help. A new merchant may not have a lot of glowing reviews scattered around the web, but if they're ripping people off you can be fairly sure people will be writing about it.
Yes, there are plenty of jokes, or 'insights' here gleefully playing on the irony of explorer.exe being identified as 'malware', but out here in the real world it caused real problems.
My sister is a normal person who doesn't know a great deal about technology but bought a PC, uses it for a bit of entertainment, and a bit of home office work. Runs firewall and anti-virus and is intelligent enough not to do stupid things.
She rang me a few days ago to say she'd deleted a virus and now her PC wouldn't work.
I visited to see what I could do, and after a few minutes investigation was surprised to find that explorer.exe was missing. I copied my version onto her drive and Windows loaded fine, only for Kaspersky to fire up its warning, saying that the only thing it could do was delete explorer.exe.
My natural concern then was that something (well this "Huhk-C") was embedded in the system and I'd have to find an alternative method to remove it. That led to some googling and eventually the realisation that this was actually a Kaspersky bug.
So I skipped the deletion, let the machine reboot again, and by that time Kaspersky's update had kicked in and I was able to clear all the warnings without further incident.
I guess that's just an everyday story of 'tech support', but the fact is that this wasn't funny. My sister had half finished invoices on that machine that she couldn't get at for several days until I was able to visit (she'd had lots of advice from friends, colleagues and forums which didn't help). I was obviously inconvenienced by the time I had to spend sorting the mess out, and this situation must have been repeated in hundreds or thousands of locations around the world.
Not the end of the world, but serious enough to cause distress to users. I didn't have an opinion about Kaspersky before, but I certainly do now!
A good attitude to have, and one that I agree with. I read far too many comments here about ways to fatten your CV or climb the corporate ladder. Too few suggest that you look for rewarding work that can actually be a part of your "quality of life" rather than just a way of paying for it. Of course we (nearly) all need to earn a living, so for most of us a compromise has to be made.
Slighty back on-topic, good luck to any of the startrek.com staff who have to move on as a result of this decision.
I believe he's lying about his nudity, as the top of a sock is clearly visible in this picture.
I learned a long time ago never to completely trust an IT Manager.
I think this is the Top Gear being referred to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_(radio_show)
Actually, the "fit for purpose" clause in UK consumer protection law specifies durability as one of the criteria. What durability actually means is not specified though, as it will vary according to what you purchase. A £1000 TV might be expected to last at least five years, but a £10 toaster may not be expected to live much beyond its one year guarantee. I'm plucking those figures out of the air as an illustration.
In any case, I don't think trading standards or the small claims court would be very interested in this kind of "old software" issue.
(Of course, IANAL.)
You might just as well say MS Windows, Office etc have numerous problems and the solution is not to use them, and to tell your correspondents, friends, colleagues and business partners not to use them.
It could well be true, but it's not going to happen any time soon.
The pragmatic solution is to use the full URL in your email, and provide a tinyURL or similar as an alternative if you think the original risks getting broken by your correspondent's email client.
Or a Terrarist?
I'm a big Blonde on Blonde fan, but I agree that spending $20 a month to listen to it wouldn't be the wisest use of my money.
On the other hand, if that $20 also allows me to listen to the rest of Dylan's albums, along with thousands more that I could never afford to legally purchase... if, as a bonus, I get the opportunity to try out new or obscure artists and broaden my listening tastes for no extra charge... well, maybe not such a daft idea?
I have a pretty big music collection. It's all digitized now and I can't fit it on the biggest iPod, but I still want to hear more. If I can subscribe, and then download what I want when I want - can then delete tracks if I'm getting pushed for space, knowing that I can download them again anytime - that's not bad either?
If a download service shuts down and you accidentally delete or corrupt your files you could be screwed and end up buying your stuff again or illegally downloading it (feeling morally justified).
If a subscription service shuts down, you just subscribe to a new service and carry on with a small amount of inconvenience. Sounds like a bright idea to me.
I don't currently subscribe to any of these services but I consider it from time to time and I'm sure that at some point I will, because it suits my needs.
It doesn't matter to me whether I physically own 99% of my music, I just want to be able to listen to it. That other 1% is the stuff I'll still buy from time to time on CD.
A pen is often a convenient tool with which to poke your nemesis in the eye. A sword may be mightier in this case, but sometimes less is more.
Could you please provide a reference to back up your assertions, Mister Pot?
Is it just me, or has this discussion brought new meaning to the term "semantic web"?
If the personal information was just used to generate a hash sum then you wouldn't need to worry about data protection, but I'm still not convinced that the solution is a good one.