No offense, but I call bs. In my first few months as a member, I tried the same thing. My moderation was wiped, across the board.
Does slash record IPs for this kind of stuff? Frankly, it should. Allowing the sort of trick that you (claim) you do and that I tried means eliminating the requirement that mods not post in the discussion. A similar trick would involve making an alternative login and garnering karma bonuses, etc., by modding up your own posts, and this patently violates the spirit of the system.
Oh, and if sign language counts as a "foreign language", then so should any advanced programming language;) I think you're trying to be funny here, but the sentiment behind the joke is somewhat misleading. Sign languages are just as complex as any spoken language. Research conducted in the last 20 years or so has proven that over and over. In fact, it appears that sign language users use the same areas of the brain as spoken language users do. This doesn't, as far as I know, hold true for fluent programmers.
That's not to say that natural languages - sign included - don't operate according to rules or very specific syntaxes. They do. Probably. But programming languages as a rule are quite different from natural languages.
One difference, for example, is that programming languages typically make heavy use of center embeddedness. While natural languages can make use of this, too, it turns out humans aren't so good at parsing this sort of phenomenon. This means that programming languages aren't terribly useful for ordinary human communication.
What are Boeing going to do, sue them for some shit that happened in space that they can't prove? They don't need to prove anything. Since it'd be a civil suit, all they need is a preponderance of evidence against the satellite's owner. And to do that, all you need is a good subpoena or discovery phase. Given that this story's now been plastered on/. - as well as other places - there's ample (legal) justification to file suit if that satellite ends up sticking around.
I think everyone in this thread is a grammar Nazi - no worries.
Thanks for the comments. Most of my linguistic work has been of the computational sort, so it looks like I'm being strictly incorrect without knowing it. While it's true that there's no dative proper in English, we do have the objective case, which fills the roles of both the accusative and dative cases. I seem to have glossed over that without even thinking about it.
As a native speaker of English, I can say my Write your mother a letter is perfectly grammatical. So is Write a letter to your mother, but NB: ?Write to your mother a letter, which sounds to my ear very artificial.
Incidentally, other fun examples of case detritus in English include: him, thence, and whence though of course the latter two are fuzzy examples.
Tell me more about Swedish. In your example, are there affixes to mark case in addition to word order?
Uh-oh. Does referring to oneself as a Nazi trigger Godwin's law?
Thanks.
See the comments above regarding the shared ancestry of English and German. You're 100% correct about whether modern German is the root language of English, but again, I wasn't claiming anything like that. My apologies for the ambiguity, but elliptical phrases aren't exactly uncommon.
This is puzzling. First, I never claimed that "write" only takes dative arguments. Second, it's just not the case that "you have to do it some other way" [emphasis mine]. In my dialect, at least, the English sentence "Write your mother a letter" is perfectly grammatical. Is it not for you?
Finally, I was doing compare/contrast with the German sentence. I said its structure was analogous. My other claim - that "your mother" is dative but it's not obvious to the typical English speaker - is correct. You seem to think that I was saying we can distill English syntax from German sentences, but this is pretty clearly not the case, given my insistence on the differences between our case-marking systems. So what am I missing here?
Ah! I did not glean that from the two sentences you wrote, but thanks for the clarification. I accept that I can be read as claiming that modern German is the root of English, but I'm surprised you (and at least one other poster) would assume that I meant that instead of assuming more accurately that I was simply speaking elliptically. After all, my original post was about the dative case, not the historical development of the language.
I know, I must be new here. Still, I stand chastised.
The most charitable interpretation of of your comment that I can stomach is that you mean "root language" in a non-standard way. Anything else would be wholly ignorant of basic historical and linguistic facts.
Where I come from (i.e., in linguistics), English is regularly referred to as a Germanic language. In English literature courses, professors in the know will tell you that, while most of our long words come from Latin through French, the short words and the structure are derived from German. There are divergences - e.g., in German one can say Einen Brief schreibt er seiner Mutter but not the word-for-word English version A letter writes he his mother - but they're accounted for and often accompanied by complementary changes elsewhere in the language. The very history of the development of the English language and people points to the influence of German (despite what this guy apparently thinks).
To me, all of this says "root language." Mere temporal separation isn't enough to remove that relation, as you seem to suggest. Beyond that, I have no clue what you seem to mean by the same phrase, so I won't hazard a guess.
The explanation for the "write" vs. "write to" distinction, at least, is pretty simple. The nouns taking the verb "write" are dative case. That's not obvious in English, but it's there, and it underlies the apparent form.
German is useful here because 1) it's the root language for English and 2) its sentence structures can be perfectly analogous. Take the German sentence Schreib deiner Mutter einen Brief which is translated word-for-word as Write your mother a letter. In German, the deiner is a clear marker that Mutter is dative. The exact same thing is happening in English, but since we don't decline our articles or possessive adjectives and rely instead on word order, it's not obvious to the typical native speaker.
Look, I know your UID is about half of mine, but did you read about the '01 case? Taco and Hemos did a pretty decent job back then explaining why they were in violation of the DMCA Title II provisions and reasons for removing the content. Some key points:
The content posted was posted in full, thereby not falling under fair use provisions.
They wanted to protect safety/privacy of the/. readership. This includes avoiding B.S. court orders.
They recognized the need to pick your battles. At that time Title II suits were still pretty rare, and their legal advisors said to take the comment down.
Now what, exactly, makes posting this article look like that case? TFA is a wikinews site, and there's a YouTube video with no copyrighted CoS material. Chances are slim that CoS is gonna come after us all over this one, and there've been a lot of developments in the law clarifying/.'s liabilities even if they did.
Be mad about 2001 if you like, but this is hardly an analogous case.
Again, this is a monstrously selfish view. I see what you're saying, sure, but valid arguments from flawed premises are still unsound arguments.
You apparently operate on the principle that you're free to do what you want so long as you don't suffer the consequences for it. That's a principle you're welcome to adhere to, if you like, but I find it hard to believe that you really do. Would you - in principle - go set fires for fun if that's what you enjoyed? I assume not, but maybe I'm wrong.
As a member of a society, you could at least do the rest of the world the common courtesy of enjoying your life in a less threatening way. This isn't an unreasonable request.
Nice try and good points, but I actually sold my car several years ago with the express intention of not purchasing another until I could afford a viable environmental alternative. I use public transportation for the vast majority of my transit, which in Austin is run in large part on natural gas.
I feel sorry for those like you that are so timid and worried about safety that you never get out and live, and get a little bit of an adrenaline rush. Don't straw-man me. I'm considerate enough to get my jollies in ways that don't put others in danger, which is clearly more than we can say for you.
Unless and until you've got studies that say the reaction-time reductions on your cars are greater than or equal to reaction-time reductions from your increased speed, your implied contention that you're no more dangerous than drivers who maintain the speed limit is baseless.
Your cavalier attitude toward ecological disaster isn't worth treating seriously. Its folly is only matched by its extraordinary selfishness. Enjoy your cars today, but your kids and grandkids will pay for it.
Strange...I've never hurt a soul out there when speeding, and I ONLY look at the speedometer when the radar detector goes off. Hate to flame, but you deserve it. Hey, ass hole. Do me a huge favor and stop ruining the world for the rest of us. Not only are your speeding habits inherently less safe than others' due to the lack of reaction time available, but you're also reducing your fuel efficiency pretty heavily. Of course I'm assuming you drive a regular ol' gasoline-burning car, but even if you're driving some ultra-green machine you could save a bit of energy for the rest of the world.
Seriously. You're like that ass hole who loaded his car up with tech goodies to cross the Continental U.S. and break some record; it was here on/. but I can't find the link now. WTF gives you the idea that you can go around putting others in both immediate and long-term danger?
The problem is that this isn't the case. Their stock in trade is game advertisement space.
I see your point, but by the same reasoning we can say that the traditional press traffics in advertisement space (not necessarily for games) and that such outlets serve the advertisers and not the news-consuming demographic.
I know this criticism has been leveled against the MSM for a long time, and perhaps it gets at the truth. But the crucial point, hinted at by both the fine article and my reply, is that there is a symbiotic relationship. Without the news-consuming demographic, the advertisers won't come. Without the advertisers, the news-consuming demographic doesn't get its fix.
All that said, there are some entities that seem to get it more right than others. Many established newspapers, for example, have managed to retain a lot of their journalistic integrity. They're still trying to get the advertising-dollars part right, of course, but at least they've got the moral high ground, more or less. Most of the 24-hour cable news outlets, on the other hand...
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I have to say, "D'oh!" FTFA:
... [I]f you look outside of the world of gaming, you will see this is not an isolated event; it happens in more mainstream forms of journalism, and I might add that this could be even seen as a sign of growth for our industry.
I remember a story from an old college professor of mine who works for Time Inc.: Time magazine published an article that slightly badmouthed one of IBM's computers, which resulted in the computer giant in pulling its advertising for the following three years. Whether or not the writer was fired, I don't know. I don't believe so, but I can't be sure.
So it looks like people are waking up to the fact that gaming news isn't alone in battling this problem. The trouble is that even the established entities have yet to find a good solution, so it's going to be hard for relatively young outlets like CNET to do so. This is exacerbated by the fact that gaming outlets' main (only?) advertisers are the producers of the products reviewed. This is in contrast to traditional news organizations, whose content is often unrelated to the advertisers' products. (Though see the link in parent.)
Press outlets struggle with maintaining integrity and advertising dollars. Film at 11.
Seriously, why are people acting like the gaming press is any different from the "real" press? From the New York Times to my local "free" weekly, this kind of stuff happens all the time. Gaming journalism is no different than regular journalism. It's just that it's more blatant in gaming media because their stock in trade is reviews.
... I don't understand why they need your parents information when you aren't living with them or if they refuse to pay your tuition.
This is probably because it would be way too easy to defraud the system if such regulations weren't in place. What's to stop Daddy Millionaire from simply declining to pay tuition for his kids if he knows it will be paid by Uncle Sam?
That's not to say that the system is perfect. You bring up emancipation, which I looked into a few years ago, and the fact is that (in the U.S. at least) the standards for emancipation are way too high. You have to prove major complications in the parental relationship, such as abuse or neglect. Having parents who are simply financially neglectful doesn't seem to be enough. Whether this is a justifiable standard is something more qualified people should look into.
A workaround is to wait until the FAFSA year encompasses your 24th birthday. At that point parental finances no longer matter for most schools. My aid went up dramatically this year for precisely that reason. This is a kludge, no doubt, because we shouldn't force kids to wait ~6 years after high school before entering higher education. But it's doable, while in many cases paying for college right out of h.s. is not.
As has already been mentioned, a basic cable connection is often included in apartment prices. When these contracts are done away with, perhaps renters will be able to insist on not getting the connection and can go find a cheaper option themselves. Or, barring that, the apartment complex will be able to offer cheaper packages. Not that they will, but...
Beside all that, there is the simple fact that cable connections are often the only forms of high-speed Internet access available to many families. And it's plain that Internet access is a necessity, or at least a massive benefit, to the children of these families. Sometimes the library just isn't a viable option. So I, for one, wholeheartedly approve of the FCC's action and hope it leads to lower prices for families who need the cable companies' services.
Just checked, and it's been fixed:
Bonjour
Network your computers and smart devices instantly. Meanwhile, Bonjour is nothing new. It's just a Zeroconf implementation, and it's been around since 2002, so the marketing droids likely aren't at fault.
I think it's pretty clear that the culprit was some kind of filler text on a template or a joke. This is probably the web team's fault and no one else's.
I had the same thought. And the claim that Safari was built on open-source work just to bug Redmond is equally specious. There's no reason to think that Apple started with KHTML for any reason other than that it was a useful springboard. In fact, there's good reason not to.
And the second article linked in TFS is a year-old reactionary piece from InfoWorld. Whoop-de-doo. Here is the cached text, since it was Slashdotted within the first 20 comments. And IANAD, but this Apple page sure does make it look like the linked article was then - and is now - just so much FUD.
You wouldn't have to go look up numbers in-person Nice tip. But you still might want to have a look at the actual bookstore to be sure you've got the right edition. In the past, my professors have seemingly enjoyed putting titles and authors on syllabi without the ISBN or edition numbers, leading to hassle just a couple weeks in.
What shocks me about this story - and I've confirmed this by visiting the Coop's site - is that they don't offer online textbook purchases. I'll readily grant that the Coop is a pleasant store to walk into and spend money at, but at the beginning of the term, I like to get my books and go home. My school's Co-Op offers this service, and I use it to hunt down the ISBNs and then use bigwords.com or something similar. This semester I saved over $150 that way.
On the other hand, UT's Co-Op is student-owned, supposedly, so I don't feel bad taking advantage of their services without paying. If the Coop in Cambridge is privately held, the people at Crimson Reading might be treading on thin ethical ice.
...he/she would be protected under the laws we have regarding whistleblowing. Wait, how? IANAL (ever), but according to Wikipedia, the legal protections for whistleblowers appear to extend only to employees. My admittedly limited understanding is that MediaDefender-Defender was not an employee or group of employees but someone who claims to have 'infiltrated' the Gmail account in question. I'm not at all sure how that qualifies for whistleblower protection.
Even if we all want to cheer MD-D, it remains that what they did was very likely a violation of a number of user policy agreements (Gmail, their ISP, etc.) and possibly illegal. Let's not start adorning them with medals yet.
This is not my article, and I agree that there are probably better things to get huffed up about than this. But my point wasn't that we should all get on the bandwagon against the 'Fuck Islam' group. My point was, rather, that the reaction of GP dilutes my actual, Constitutional rights by claiming this is an FA issue.
It's not, we shouldn't act like it is, and I'd like to see us ('us' as in the world) move past this PC-vs-anti-PC fight and into the more pertinent issues, such as those raised by yourself - e.g., in a neo-liberal society, and especially with user-created content, should private organizations limit the kinds of speech allowed? I doubt there's a black-and-white debate to be had here, but we damn sure can't have it if every time a private organization slaps someone on the wrist the rabidly libertarian segments start howling.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but I call bs. In my first few months as a member, I tried the same thing. My moderation was wiped, across the board.
Does slash record IPs for this kind of stuff? Frankly, it should. Allowing the sort of trick that you (claim) you do and that I tried means eliminating the requirement that mods not post in the discussion. A similar trick would involve making an alternative login and garnering karma bonuses, etc., by modding up your own posts, and this patently violates the spirit of the system.
That's not to say that natural languages - sign included - don't operate according to rules or very specific syntaxes. They do. Probably. But programming languages as a rule are quite different from natural languages.
One difference, for example, is that programming languages typically make heavy use of center embeddedness. While natural languages can make use of this, too, it turns out humans aren't so good at parsing this sort of phenomenon. This means that programming languages aren't terribly useful for ordinary human communication.
I think everyone in this thread is a grammar Nazi - no worries.
Thanks for the comments. Most of my linguistic work has been of the computational sort, so it looks like I'm being strictly incorrect without knowing it. While it's true that there's no dative proper in English, we do have the objective case, which fills the roles of both the accusative and dative cases. I seem to have glossed over that without even thinking about it.
As a native speaker of English, I can say my Write your mother a letter is perfectly grammatical. So is Write a letter to your mother, but NB: ?Write to your mother a letter, which sounds to my ear very artificial.
Incidentally, other fun examples of case detritus in English include: him, thence, and whence though of course the latter two are fuzzy examples.
Tell me more about Swedish. In your example, are there affixes to mark case in addition to word order?
Ah! I did not glean that from the two sentences you wrote, but thanks for the clarification. I accept that I can be read as claiming that modern German is the root of English, but I'm surprised you (and at least one other poster) would assume that I meant that instead of assuming more accurately that I was simply speaking elliptically. After all, my original post was about the dative case, not the historical development of the language.
I know, I must be new here. Still, I stand chastised.
The most charitable interpretation of of your comment that I can stomach is that you mean "root language" in a non-standard way. Anything else would be wholly ignorant of basic historical and linguistic facts.
Where I come from (i.e., in linguistics), English is regularly referred to as a Germanic language. In English literature courses, professors in the know will tell you that, while most of our long words come from Latin through French, the short words and the structure are derived from German. There are divergences - e.g., in German one can say Einen Brief schreibt er seiner Mutter but not the word-for-word English version A letter writes he his mother - but they're accounted for and often accompanied by complementary changes elsewhere in the language. The very history of the development of the English language and people points to the influence of German (despite what this guy apparently thinks).
To me, all of this says "root language." Mere temporal separation isn't enough to remove that relation, as you seem to suggest. Beyond that, I have no clue what you seem to mean by the same phrase, so I won't hazard a guess.
The explanation for the "write" vs. "write to" distinction, at least, is pretty simple. The nouns taking the verb "write" are dative case. That's not obvious in English, but it's there, and it underlies the apparent form.
German is useful here because 1) it's the root language for English and 2) its sentence structures can be perfectly analogous. Take the German sentence Schreib deiner Mutter einen Brief which is translated word-for-word as Write your mother a letter. In German, the deiner is a clear marker that Mutter is dative. The exact same thing is happening in English, but since we don't decline our articles or possessive adjectives and rely instead on word order, it's not obvious to the typical native speaker.
- The content posted was posted in full, thereby not falling under fair use provisions.
- They wanted to protect safety/privacy of the
/. readership. This includes avoiding B.S. court orders.
- They recognized the need to pick your battles. At that time Title II suits were still pretty rare, and their legal advisors said to take the comment down.
Now what, exactly, makes posting this article look like that case? TFA is a wikinews site, and there's a YouTube video with no copyrighted CoS material. Chances are slim that CoS is gonna come after us all over this one, and there've been a lot of developments in the law clarifyingBe mad about 2001 if you like, but this is hardly an analogous case.
Again, this is a monstrously selfish view. I see what you're saying, sure, but valid arguments from flawed premises are still unsound arguments.
You apparently operate on the principle that you're free to do what you want so long as you don't suffer the consequences for it. That's a principle you're welcome to adhere to, if you like, but I find it hard to believe that you really do. Would you - in principle - go set fires for fun if that's what you enjoyed? I assume not, but maybe I'm wrong.
As a member of a society, you could at least do the rest of the world the common courtesy of enjoying your life in a less threatening way. This isn't an unreasonable request.
Nice try and good points, but I actually sold my car several years ago with the express intention of not purchasing another until I could afford a viable environmental alternative. I use public transportation for the vast majority of my transit, which in Austin is run in large part on natural gas.
Unless and until you've got studies that say the reaction-time reductions on your cars are greater than or equal to reaction-time reductions from your increased speed, your implied contention that you're no more dangerous than drivers who maintain the speed limit is baseless.
Your cavalier attitude toward ecological disaster isn't worth treating seriously. Its folly is only matched by its extraordinary selfishness. Enjoy your cars today, but your kids and grandkids will pay for it.
Seriously. You're like that ass hole who loaded his car up with tech goodies to cross the Continental U.S. and break some record; it was here on
I know this criticism has been leveled against the MSM for a long time, and perhaps it gets at the truth. But the crucial point, hinted at by both the fine article and my reply, is that there is a symbiotic relationship. Without the news-consuming demographic, the advertisers won't come. Without the advertisers, the news-consuming demographic doesn't get its fix.
All that said, there are some entities that seem to get it more right than others. Many established newspapers, for example, have managed to retain a lot of their journalistic integrity. They're still trying to get the advertising-dollars part right, of course, but at least they've got the moral high ground, more or less. Most of the 24-hour cable news outlets, on the other hand...
Press outlets struggle with maintaining integrity and advertising dollars. Film at 11.
Seriously, why are people acting like the gaming press is any different from the "real" press? From the New York Times to my local "free" weekly, this kind of stuff happens all the time. Gaming journalism is no different than regular journalism. It's just that it's more blatant in gaming media because their stock in trade is reviews.
That's not to say that the system is perfect. You bring up emancipation, which I looked into a few years ago, and the fact is that (in the U.S. at least) the standards for emancipation are way too high. You have to prove major complications in the parental relationship, such as abuse or neglect. Having parents who are simply financially neglectful doesn't seem to be enough. Whether this is a justifiable standard is something more qualified people should look into.
A workaround is to wait until the FAFSA year encompasses your 24th birthday. At that point parental finances no longer matter for most schools. My aid went up dramatically this year for precisely that reason. This is a kludge, no doubt, because we shouldn't force kids to wait ~6 years after high school before entering higher education. But it's doable, while in many cases paying for college right out of h.s. is not.
Mod parent +1 Informative (I would, but I've already posted in this discussion). I didn't know about this rule. For confirmation, see this link.
As has already been mentioned, a basic cable connection is often included in apartment prices. When these contracts are done away with, perhaps renters will be able to insist on not getting the connection and can go find a cheaper option themselves. Or, barring that, the apartment complex will be able to offer cheaper packages. Not that they will, but...
Beside all that, there is the simple fact that cable connections are often the only forms of high-speed Internet access available to many families. And it's plain that Internet access is a necessity, or at least a massive benefit, to the children of these families. Sometimes the library just isn't a viable option. So I, for one, wholeheartedly approve of the FCC's action and hope it leads to lower prices for families who need the cable companies' services.
Network your computers and smart devices instantly. Meanwhile, Bonjour is nothing new. It's just a Zeroconf implementation, and it's been around since 2002, so the marketing droids likely aren't at fault.
I think it's pretty clear that the culprit was some kind of filler text on a template or a joke. This is probably the web team's fault and no one else's.
I had the same thought. And the claim that Safari was built on open-source work just to bug Redmond is equally specious. There's no reason to think that Apple started with KHTML for any reason other than that it was a useful springboard. In fact, there's good reason not to.
And the second article linked in TFS is a year-old reactionary piece from InfoWorld. Whoop-de-doo. Here is the cached text, since it was Slashdotted within the first 20 comments. And IANAD, but this Apple page sure does make it look like the linked article was then - and is now - just so much FUD.
What shocks me about this story - and I've confirmed this by visiting the Coop's site - is that they don't offer online textbook purchases. I'll readily grant that the Coop is a pleasant store to walk into and spend money at, but at the beginning of the term, I like to get my books and go home. My school's Co-Op offers this service, and I use it to hunt down the ISBNs and then use bigwords.com or something similar. This semester I saved over $150 that way.
On the other hand, UT's Co-Op is student-owned, supposedly, so I don't feel bad taking advantage of their services without paying. If the Coop in Cambridge is privately held, the people at Crimson Reading might be treading on thin ethical ice.
...he/she would be protected under the laws we have regarding whistleblowing. Wait, how? IANAL (ever), but according to Wikipedia, the legal protections for whistleblowers appear to extend only to employees. My admittedly limited understanding is that MediaDefender-Defender was not an employee or group of employees but someone who claims to have 'infiltrated' the Gmail account in question. I'm not at all sure how that qualifies for whistleblower protection.Even if we all want to cheer MD-D, it remains that what they did was very likely a violation of a number of user policy agreements (Gmail, their ISP, etc.) and possibly illegal. Let's not start adorning them with medals yet.
This is not my article, and I agree that there are probably better things to get huffed up about than this. But my point wasn't that we should all get on the bandwagon against the 'Fuck Islam' group. My point was, rather, that the reaction of GP dilutes my actual, Constitutional rights by claiming this is an FA issue.
It's not, we shouldn't act like it is, and I'd like to see us ('us' as in the world) move past this PC-vs-anti-PC fight and into the more pertinent issues, such as those raised by yourself - e.g., in a neo-liberal society, and especially with user-created content, should private organizations limit the kinds of speech allowed? I doubt there's a black-and-white debate to be had here, but we damn sure can't have it if every time a private organization slaps someone on the wrist the rabidly libertarian segments start howling.