Well, considering that every time the prescriptivists drone on about how can can't be used to express permission. It kind of undermines their argument. What's more, I rarely, if ever, see them make the complaint without making at least one typo or grammatical error.
There aren't rules in the sense that the prescriptivists believe there to be. The "rules" that people seem to be rather fond of, are just conventions. And they change regularly. The rules themselves that people quote, are merely a recording of what people have done in the past to communicate clearly.
When all is said and done, the only grammatical rule of any value, is that speech should be clear. That's it. There's plenty of language the violates the "rules" but is nonetheless perfectly acceptable language. There's no reason, not to dangle participles, split infinitives or give the grammatical rules a work out. Just so long as the meaning is clear.
There isn't really a standard, that's mostly just an illusion. Sure there's certain language that isn't appropriate in a business setting, but for the most part that varies from place to place. What's acceptable here would never work in other parts of the US.
It's disingenuous to suggest that there isn't major language variety out there. To the extent that it might as well not have a set standard, because what's appropriate in a chemistry lab, is not going to be appropriate in a bank and so on.
Sure it is, or am I allowed to slapped the rude elderly as well? I remember standing in line in a bank behind an elderly woman bitching about the fact that the bank had cleared her check before she expected it and caused the account to become overdrawn. She went into a huge tirade about young people being irresponsible, and I don't think a single person in the bank at that time was over 40.
Respect is a two way street, and one that starts with the previous generation, if the elderly want to be treated with respect, it's probably a good idea to demonstrate it on us, because all we know about manners is what we learned from them. And considering how self entitled they are, typically, it's no wonder that the youth are taking their lead on this.
The problem with maximizing shareholder value is that it's typically done in such a superficial way. It's usually done based purely on market cap and share price. Which is to say, it rewards executives that can con a lot of people and punishes those that actually invest in the future of the company more than 6 months out.
Theoretically maximizing shareholder value should require focus on the other constituencies as well. It's just that dividend policies tend to not reward people for holding onto share for the long haul. And most investors don't hold onto their holdings long enough to get taxed as a capital gain rather than as ordinary income.
Yes, but most of the regulatory changes happened during the '80s and early '90s. A period during which the young folks didn't have a say.
If folks your age were too stupid to realize that free trade agreements were a bad idea or that the government has to actually tax people in order to pay for services, that's not really our fault. You guys will get to retire with most of the Social Security you were promised. And chances are substantially better that you'll have some sort of pension to go with it.
These days, pensions are rare, I can't remember the last time I even saw a job posting that even promised something more than a 401k match.
The whole, I got mine, now to hell with you attitude of older voters has done an incredible amount of damage to the ability of the young folks to make a decent living. We work harder than you folks did for less. And we get less and less each year as inflation continually outpaces wage improvements. And folks on social security get COLA even when the inflation is negative.
The difference is that the browser will enforce the standards or not. Whereas the only enforcement mechanisms on language are completely arbitrary, if I tell you that I'm typing this on a wazulator, as long as you understand what a wazulator is, then it's a perfectly acceptable term to use. Other considerations are more about social control than about communication.
It's always rich when they use "extremely strong work ethic" to explain away the advantages that came to living in the post war years. As if we wouldn't work hard too if we had at least some reasonable prospect of retiring or getting a holiday bonus. We'd be incredibly rich working hard, if we were competing against the 3rd world and a bunch of bombed out 1st and 2nd world nations as well.
Or the fact that they could work a summer job and pay for their college education, assuming they chose to get one in the first place. As recently as the '80s, the government was paying 90% of the cost of attending a public school. Not to mention that they shipped most of the jobs that didn't require a college degree overseas or had so many applicants that a B.A. became a standard screening filter for even the most menial jobs.
I think it was probably always like that, it's just that people didn't gripe about it.
Personally, I was born during the last bit of the Carter administration in 1980, and it irritates me to be retroactively moved to a generation that has little in common with me. I may be marginally Gen-X, but none of my friends had cell phones in high school, a few of them had beepers. And most of the kids I went to class with didn't have the internet at home.
Not that I have anything against Gen-Y or the millenials, but realistically, I was born when all 5 Beatles were still alive and there was some question that I might require a smallpox vaccination.
A lot of applications do that without warning you that they're doing it, or giving a plausible explanation for it. I don't use iOS, so I'm not sure what apps there are, but for Android, I use LBE that prevents the applications from accessing the GPS or various parts of the handheld that they don't need. If it doesn't have a reasonable reason for requiring my location, I decline, and even if it does, I make it ask for permission before it does it.
Why this is even legal is beyond me. There is no informed consent going on here. People are not being given the information necessary to consent and as such. I think most people would be shocked at how much of their information is being collected without their knowing about it.
I use LBE, it prevents applications from accessing that information without your say so. You can bar them from doing it each time or you can permanently bar them from doing. It's been quite enlightening as to which apps think they need to know where I am, or to access my contacts. Sometimes it's benign, but unexpected, like when Swype wants to see my contacts, presumably to add those names and addresses to it's library for my convenience. But, I don't let it anyways, just because they're already in my contacts, and I'll just cut and copy them in the rare case that I need to.
I'm curious as to how that doesn't violate any sort of anti-spamming regulation. Doesn't matter if your mother gives them permission to send me an email, they still aren't any more permitted to do so than if I were a complete stranger. Seems like some BS from FB to try and get away with sending unsolicited emails.
People forget about that. Despite popular belief, the internet isn't just a source of ultra-porn, it also has information about how to grow crops more efficiently and fix your own equipment.
Sort of, it's a gross simplification though. Yes, those do exist and are used, but it's not a matter of plugging the thing into the various points. It's going out and physically looking at the building. It's also an easy way of recording which areas were inspected and when.
And yes, security does lower insurance costs, but so do smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. But, we don't say that smoke detectors and sprinkler systems are for the purpose of lowering insurance costs. Same goes for security, security is there for the odd bomb threat and keeping an eye on whatever psychos might come on site. They're also the typical folks that are in charge of keeping track of where work is being done in the building and making sure that the fire doors are properly shut.
That's obviously, just a small amount of it. But, it's pretty clear that you're the expert, not the guy who has actually done the job.
That's because the purpose of security is to observe and report. Officers that go beyond that run the risk of all sorts of legal ramifications. Not to mention the bitching and moaning about overstepping of their authority. Private security has the subset of ownership rights that the property owner has chosen do delegate to them.
I realize that it's cool to hate security,but the least you could do is educate yourself before spouting off. The point of security is to observe and report in most cases. There are some exceptions, like armored car drivers, but for the most part, it's the job of law enforcement to stop crimes in progress. Security is there to make sure that the premises is properly secured and to keep track of changes day to day. And if there is a crime committed, serve as a witness in court.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that private security is supposed to be getting in the middle of crimes in progress, but that's not the case in most places. In fact, the law is very specific about what private security can and can't do. The things that you'd be required to do in order to stop a crime in progress could easily wind up with you violating the law, if you're not extremely careful. And security officers are not typically trained the way that police officers are, so it seems to me like having under trained security intervening might not be good for anybody that isn't a personal injury attorney anyways.
They are, however, the base interface should be reasonable. One of the details that a lot of developers get wrong is that the UI and all the settings should have a sane default. Realistically you're not likely to have a set up that works perfectly for everybody, but the settings should be convenient for the most common tasks. And tasks that are hard shouldn't be made nigh impossibly by hiding settings in random places.
Why on Earth should I buy a copy of Windows if I have to waste hours of my time trying to figure out how to make it work appropriately? They had a UI that worked well, and they threw it in the trash to give us this garbage. Same goes for that Ribbon monstrosity. Sure, it does make the most commonly used functions easily accessible, but it makes the things I also use extremely hard to find as they're hidden because they're not used every day.
And BTW, I'm not paid for this criticism. Usability is usability, there are some variations, and that's why users should be able to make minor tweaks to their set up.
It's not silly. It is somewhat arbitrary which side you label as being left and which is right. However, the spectrum is the same no matter where you live in the world. In no part of the world is Hitler a moderate, nor Stalin for that matter.
Obama's policies are roughly in the middle between the two extremes in general. Sure on things like security, he's on the right, but for the most part, his policies are in the middle.
In case anybody is wondering why I'm so mean to conservatives, this kind of dribble is precisely why.
Considering that the GOP Presidents spent $10tn of the national debt, mostly during good times, it's hilarious that you're singling out Obama for being a thief. What's more, the largest transfer of wealth in US history happened because the Federal Reserve decided that inflation is a good thing and then set the inflation rate higher than the interest rates. Basically adding more paper to ensure that the rate of inflation would be higher than the interbank loan rates.
Had they released 7 instead of Vista, I wouldn't be saying that it's mediocre. But, the fact of the matter is that times change, OSes get better and what would have been a brilliant OS 5 years earlier, is now just mediocre because the standards are higher. The fact that it isn't $200 better than a good Linux distro says something about the product. A commercial product should be better than the free competition, if you're going to be asked to buy it.
It is the best OS that MS has ever made, but that doesn't make it any less mediocre. Linux, OSX, PC-BSD all of them wipe the floor with Win 7, sure there are worse OSes than Win 7, even outside the stable of MS ones, but acknowledging 7 as anything more than mediocre lowers the bar a bit too much.
That being said, 7 is perfectly usable and generally competent, but it lacks anything to particularly compel me to use it. Other than the large library of software that it inherited from XP and the hardware drivers that were, again, inherited from developers that supported XP.
There are very few leftists in the US government. I know that you right wingers like to pretend like Obama is a leftist, but the fact of the matter is that he's a conservative, it's just that you folks have gone so far to the right, that you can't tell the difference between a moderate and a lefty.
You do realize that this is the result of the legislation being watered down to permit that behavior, right? Causing problems so that you can be antigovernment is not a strategy for better governance. It's a strategy to ensure that the government never functions well.
I have XP running in a Virtualbox for that, and probably in the near future, I'll have my copy of 7 running in a VM.
And yeah, Adobe applications have always been the main reason to stay with MS. Fortunately, you now have a properly functioning flash plug in, but I have yet to get Adobe Digital Editions to work on Linux.
Vista wasn't particularly bad. It mostly had serious bugs on launch and poor driver support. But, the system itself mainly suffered from the way the UAC worked.
That being said, it wasn't a particularly good OS, Win 7 is quite a bit better, and it wasn't particularly competitive with what *BSD and Linux were doing at the same time, apart from having better vendor support. In terms of the merits though, like all other MS OSes of the last decade, it's markedly behind the competition without any compelling reason for existing other than people target it for their software development.
The point here is that this is supposed to be a user setting that individual users can change to suit their preferred method of interacting with the computer. Not all settings should be locked down, some settings should be available to change by the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, considering that every time the prescriptivists drone on about how can can't be used to express permission. It kind of undermines their argument. What's more, I rarely, if ever, see them make the complaint without making at least one typo or grammatical error.
There aren't rules in the sense that the prescriptivists believe there to be. The "rules" that people seem to be rather fond of, are just conventions. And they change regularly. The rules themselves that people quote, are merely a recording of what people have done in the past to communicate clearly.
When all is said and done, the only grammatical rule of any value, is that speech should be clear. That's it. There's plenty of language the violates the "rules" but is nonetheless perfectly acceptable language. There's no reason, not to dangle participles, split infinitives or give the grammatical rules a work out. Just so long as the meaning is clear.
There isn't really a standard, that's mostly just an illusion. Sure there's certain language that isn't appropriate in a business setting, but for the most part that varies from place to place. What's acceptable here would never work in other parts of the US.
It's disingenuous to suggest that there isn't major language variety out there. To the extent that it might as well not have a set standard, because what's appropriate in a chemistry lab, is not going to be appropriate in a bank and so on.
Sure it is, or am I allowed to slapped the rude elderly as well? I remember standing in line in a bank behind an elderly woman bitching about the fact that the bank had cleared her check before she expected it and caused the account to become overdrawn. She went into a huge tirade about young people being irresponsible, and I don't think a single person in the bank at that time was over 40.
Respect is a two way street, and one that starts with the previous generation, if the elderly want to be treated with respect, it's probably a good idea to demonstrate it on us, because all we know about manners is what we learned from them. And considering how self entitled they are, typically, it's no wonder that the youth are taking their lead on this.
The problem with maximizing shareholder value is that it's typically done in such a superficial way. It's usually done based purely on market cap and share price. Which is to say, it rewards executives that can con a lot of people and punishes those that actually invest in the future of the company more than 6 months out.
Theoretically maximizing shareholder value should require focus on the other constituencies as well. It's just that dividend policies tend to not reward people for holding onto share for the long haul. And most investors don't hold onto their holdings long enough to get taxed as a capital gain rather than as ordinary income.
Yes, but most of the regulatory changes happened during the '80s and early '90s. A period during which the young folks didn't have a say.
If folks your age were too stupid to realize that free trade agreements were a bad idea or that the government has to actually tax people in order to pay for services, that's not really our fault. You guys will get to retire with most of the Social Security you were promised. And chances are substantially better that you'll have some sort of pension to go with it.
These days, pensions are rare, I can't remember the last time I even saw a job posting that even promised something more than a 401k match.
The whole, I got mine, now to hell with you attitude of older voters has done an incredible amount of damage to the ability of the young folks to make a decent living. We work harder than you folks did for less. And we get less and less each year as inflation continually outpaces wage improvements. And folks on social security get COLA even when the inflation is negative.
The difference is that the browser will enforce the standards or not. Whereas the only enforcement mechanisms on language are completely arbitrary, if I tell you that I'm typing this on a wazulator, as long as you understand what a wazulator is, then it's a perfectly acceptable term to use. Other considerations are more about social control than about communication.
It's always rich when they use "extremely strong work ethic" to explain away the advantages that came to living in the post war years. As if we wouldn't work hard too if we had at least some reasonable prospect of retiring or getting a holiday bonus. We'd be incredibly rich working hard, if we were competing against the 3rd world and a bunch of bombed out 1st and 2nd world nations as well.
Or the fact that they could work a summer job and pay for their college education, assuming they chose to get one in the first place. As recently as the '80s, the government was paying 90% of the cost of attending a public school. Not to mention that they shipped most of the jobs that didn't require a college degree overseas or had so many applicants that a B.A. became a standard screening filter for even the most menial jobs.
I think it was probably always like that, it's just that people didn't gripe about it.
Personally, I was born during the last bit of the Carter administration in 1980, and it irritates me to be retroactively moved to a generation that has little in common with me. I may be marginally Gen-X, but none of my friends had cell phones in high school, a few of them had beepers. And most of the kids I went to class with didn't have the internet at home.
Not that I have anything against Gen-Y or the millenials, but realistically, I was born when all 5 Beatles were still alive and there was some question that I might require a smallpox vaccination.
A lot of applications do that without warning you that they're doing it, or giving a plausible explanation for it. I don't use iOS, so I'm not sure what apps there are, but for Android, I use LBE that prevents the applications from accessing the GPS or various parts of the handheld that they don't need. If it doesn't have a reasonable reason for requiring my location, I decline, and even if it does, I make it ask for permission before it does it.
Why this is even legal is beyond me. There is no informed consent going on here. People are not being given the information necessary to consent and as such. I think most people would be shocked at how much of their information is being collected without their knowing about it.
I use LBE, it prevents applications from accessing that information without your say so. You can bar them from doing it each time or you can permanently bar them from doing. It's been quite enlightening as to which apps think they need to know where I am, or to access my contacts. Sometimes it's benign, but unexpected, like when Swype wants to see my contacts, presumably to add those names and addresses to it's library for my convenience. But, I don't let it anyways, just because they're already in my contacts, and I'll just cut and copy them in the rare case that I need to.
I'm curious as to how that doesn't violate any sort of anti-spamming regulation. Doesn't matter if your mother gives them permission to send me an email, they still aren't any more permitted to do so than if I were a complete stranger. Seems like some BS from FB to try and get away with sending unsolicited emails.
People forget about that. Despite popular belief, the internet isn't just a source of ultra-porn, it also has information about how to grow crops more efficiently and fix your own equipment.
Sort of, it's a gross simplification though. Yes, those do exist and are used, but it's not a matter of plugging the thing into the various points. It's going out and physically looking at the building. It's also an easy way of recording which areas were inspected and when.
And yes, security does lower insurance costs, but so do smoke detectors and sprinkler systems. But, we don't say that smoke detectors and sprinkler systems are for the purpose of lowering insurance costs. Same goes for security, security is there for the odd bomb threat and keeping an eye on whatever psychos might come on site. They're also the typical folks that are in charge of keeping track of where work is being done in the building and making sure that the fire doors are properly shut.
That's obviously, just a small amount of it. But, it's pretty clear that you're the expert, not the guy who has actually done the job.
That's because the purpose of security is to observe and report. Officers that go beyond that run the risk of all sorts of legal ramifications. Not to mention the bitching and moaning about overstepping of their authority. Private security has the subset of ownership rights that the property owner has chosen do delegate to them.
I realize that it's cool to hate security,but the least you could do is educate yourself before spouting off. The point of security is to observe and report in most cases. There are some exceptions, like armored car drivers, but for the most part, it's the job of law enforcement to stop crimes in progress. Security is there to make sure that the premises is properly secured and to keep track of changes day to day. And if there is a crime committed, serve as a witness in court.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that private security is supposed to be getting in the middle of crimes in progress, but that's not the case in most places. In fact, the law is very specific about what private security can and can't do. The things that you'd be required to do in order to stop a crime in progress could easily wind up with you violating the law, if you're not extremely careful. And security officers are not typically trained the way that police officers are, so it seems to me like having under trained security intervening might not be good for anybody that isn't a personal injury attorney anyways.
They are, however, the base interface should be reasonable. One of the details that a lot of developers get wrong is that the UI and all the settings should have a sane default. Realistically you're not likely to have a set up that works perfectly for everybody, but the settings should be convenient for the most common tasks. And tasks that are hard shouldn't be made nigh impossibly by hiding settings in random places.
Because, unlike Linux, Windows costs me money.
Why on Earth should I buy a copy of Windows if I have to waste hours of my time trying to figure out how to make it work appropriately? They had a UI that worked well, and they threw it in the trash to give us this garbage. Same goes for that Ribbon monstrosity. Sure, it does make the most commonly used functions easily accessible, but it makes the things I also use extremely hard to find as they're hidden because they're not used every day.
And BTW, I'm not paid for this criticism. Usability is usability, there are some variations, and that's why users should be able to make minor tweaks to their set up.
It's not silly. It is somewhat arbitrary which side you label as being left and which is right. However, the spectrum is the same no matter where you live in the world. In no part of the world is Hitler a moderate, nor Stalin for that matter.
Obama's policies are roughly in the middle between the two extremes in general. Sure on things like security, he's on the right, but for the most part, his policies are in the middle.
In case anybody is wondering why I'm so mean to conservatives, this kind of dribble is precisely why.
Considering that the GOP Presidents spent $10tn of the national debt, mostly during good times, it's hilarious that you're singling out Obama for being a thief. What's more, the largest transfer of wealth in US history happened because the Federal Reserve decided that inflation is a good thing and then set the inflation rate higher than the interest rates. Basically adding more paper to ensure that the rate of inflation would be higher than the interbank loan rates.
Had they released 7 instead of Vista, I wouldn't be saying that it's mediocre. But, the fact of the matter is that times change, OSes get better and what would have been a brilliant OS 5 years earlier, is now just mediocre because the standards are higher. The fact that it isn't $200 better than a good Linux distro says something about the product. A commercial product should be better than the free competition, if you're going to be asked to buy it.
It is the best OS that MS has ever made, but that doesn't make it any less mediocre. Linux, OSX, PC-BSD all of them wipe the floor with Win 7, sure there are worse OSes than Win 7, even outside the stable of MS ones, but acknowledging 7 as anything more than mediocre lowers the bar a bit too much.
That being said, 7 is perfectly usable and generally competent, but it lacks anything to particularly compel me to use it. Other than the large library of software that it inherited from XP and the hardware drivers that were, again, inherited from developers that supported XP.
There are very few leftists in the US government. I know that you right wingers like to pretend like Obama is a leftist, but the fact of the matter is that he's a conservative, it's just that you folks have gone so far to the right, that you can't tell the difference between a moderate and a lefty.
You do realize that this is the result of the legislation being watered down to permit that behavior, right? Causing problems so that you can be antigovernment is not a strategy for better governance. It's a strategy to ensure that the government never functions well.
I have XP running in a Virtualbox for that, and probably in the near future, I'll have my copy of 7 running in a VM.
And yeah, Adobe applications have always been the main reason to stay with MS. Fortunately, you now have a properly functioning flash plug in, but I have yet to get Adobe Digital Editions to work on Linux.
Vista wasn't particularly bad. It mostly had serious bugs on launch and poor driver support. But, the system itself mainly suffered from the way the UAC worked.
That being said, it wasn't a particularly good OS, Win 7 is quite a bit better, and it wasn't particularly competitive with what *BSD and Linux were doing at the same time, apart from having better vendor support. In terms of the merits though, like all other MS OSes of the last decade, it's markedly behind the competition without any compelling reason for existing other than people target it for their software development.
How much is MS paying you to shill for them?
The point here is that this is supposed to be a user setting that individual users can change to suit their preferred method of interacting with the computer. Not all settings should be locked down, some settings should be available to change by the user.