There is no such thing as actual pass-by-reference. Sure, a language might have fancy syntax for it, but it gets boiled down to pointer-to-a-value-which-is-itself-a-value. C just skips the sugar.
My point was that it was most consistent for Latin where there has been a longer history and a greater tendency to hold words of direct Latin origin in higher esteem. It is only among Latin and Greek nouns that you find consistent foreign plurals ("-a", "-i", etc.). That is true for no other language.
Why should English nouns use Latin plurals? After all, we don't do that for any other language.
False. We do that for most languages. Japanese, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Hebrew. What's the plural of "samurai"? Nobody ever says "samurais". Ninja is pluralized to "ninjas" in common usage, but pluralizing to "ninja" is not considered improper English, or douchey, and is the preferred form among scholars and writers on the subject.
For every one of those words which uses a native plural, usually in academic contexts (surprise, surprise), there are a dozen others which do not. Alongside the plural "samurai", we have "shoguns", "gieshas", "tycoons", "typhoons", "hibachis", "koans", "rickshaws", "senseis", "tsunamis", etc.
We don't use German plurals for nouns adopted from German.
Actually, nouns that have been adopted from modern German into modern English are often given German pluralization forms. The English plural of übermensch is übermenschen, not übermensches.
And again, for every exception like that, there are a dozen nativized plurals: "beer steins" (not "beer steine"), "kindergartens" (inasmuch as we even use the plural of the noun with any regularity), "gestalts" (not "gestaelte"), "meisters" (not "meister"), "doppelgaengers" (not "doppelgaenger"), "wieners/weeners" (not "wiener"), "U-boots" (not "U-boote"), "umlauts" (not "umlaeute"), etc.
But if, by "nouns adopted from German", you mean every English noun that predates the Norman conquest, then that's a false comparison. Of course the treatment of these words would shift as the morphology of the language shifts, by definition, just as the pluralization rules in German have no doubt also changed as that language evolved.
I didn't say that, because I said "nouns adopted from German" and meant it literally. I don't see how you can take that to mean Anglo-Saxon words derived from proto-Germanic.
I didn't want to waste time going into useless detail for something that's clear to thinking people. That word works the same as words from Latin, even if it's from Greek (it's also possible that it came via Latin).
In proper English, nouns that are plural end in an 's' or 'es' if the preceding consonant is a sibilant. There are a handful of native nouns that have irregular plurals. All the rest are affectations and lead mostly to confusion and are used out of arrogance, not correctness. English isn't Latin. Why should English nouns use Latin plurals? After all, we don't do that for any other language. We don't use German plurals for nouns adopted from German. And half the time, people use the wrong Latin plural anyway. There is the whole "virii" debacle, or people who think the plural of 4th declension nouns like "status" and "nexus" is "-i" and not "-us". The safest and sanest route to take is to simply use the English plural unless the Latin plural has been fully adopted into the language (like "phenomenon" ~ "phenomena", where nobody would use *"phenomonons"). With "forum", the plural form "forums" occurs many more times than "fora" (according to Google), so the Latin plural clearly hasn't been fully adopted. Using "fora", then, is just an annoying affectation.
This is a dangerous line of logic to go down. The entity directly responsible for the crime shoulders all of the blame (unless there are conspirators, etc.). Enablers, direct and indirect, can't reasonably count. The connections become too tenuous, too difficult to trace and too intertwined with other issues. I pay a guy to do my roof who likes to eat apples harvested by the guy who uses faulty ladders. Am I at fault? After all, I should have checked out where my contractor was getting his apples from so that none of my money paid to him ended up going to the crooked apply farmer. See why this doesn't work?
What scares me most is that it seems as though the personal responsibility crowd is more than happy to give up that line when it comes to corporations, who are simply unintelligent beasts that do the bidding of the consumers. Wrong. Wrong and stupid. Wrong and dangerous. The execs at BP made the decisions to cut corners with safety and to take risks too great. All the consumers asked for was oil and hopefully at a reasonable price (due to the oligopoly of oil production and distribution, they can't even demand the latter). The consumers did not ask for faulty BOPs or not planning ahead for potential disasters like this one. How can they be held accountable in any way other than the fact that their money, mostly indirectly, ended up in the hands of BP?
Yes, it is nothing to do with me. It's everything to do with the people who make the bad decisions. They are at fault and they should be held accountable. And if those companies care about the environment or public image, *they* will be the ones who start making good decisions. It's their responsibility, not mine. My responsibility is also not to make bad decisions, such as throwing garbage on the side of the road, or, ironic as it might seem at first glance, not to support companies that do unethical things. But the responsibility to maintain good ethics is still on them. I'm just not going to help them further their unethical behavior.
First of all, this is a news article, not a research paper, so it doesn't need to provide evidence for something that isn't even primary to the article in the first place. Secondly, the OP spent much of the rest of his/her post referencing an alternative theory of the universe that has not been supported by evidence and certainly doesn't compete with the current models. His post reeks of the same kind of persecutionism that bullshit artists typically use when those who know what they are talking about call them out on their bullshit.
Certainly war itself doesn't create wealth, but many of the research projects it carries out have been very advantageous to society at large, including the Internet.
I love this shift of blame from the libertarian crowd here. Clearly it's not the guy who runs the company's fault for providing dangerous ladders. He's only doing it because he's getting bribed (effectively) by the evil consumers. Come on! The person who does wrong is the guilty party. He might be enabled by some external factors, such as the money he gets from consumers (as if they are buying specifically from him because they *know* he uses broken ladders and they want to see the workers get hurt), but the choice to use bad ladders was his and his alone. Thus, he should get all of the blame and be held accountable. The alternative is the same old "privatize profit, socialize risk" philosophy that's been killing us. The farmer gets all the money when things go well, but if there are problems, it's up to the disjoint mass of consumers to collectively put him out of business or threaten such so that he will stop using faulty ladders. That is, he gets the rewards and society is supposed to pick up the pieces from his unethical behavior and collectively convince him to stop. This is not a workable system.
They would have had to go out there eventually to satisfy the demand for oil. Don't think they wouldn't have jumped at the chance either way to get access to untapped oil fields, even if they are in more dangerous areas.
That's a silly thing to say "government cannot create wealth". Government is not some supernatural entity. It is just another set of people doing things. Yes, a lot of what they do is not wealth-creation, per se, since we leave those kinds of non-market viable activities to the public sector, but other programs do create wealth and value, such as NOAA, NASA, the defense department, etc.
But in enhanced mode, Windows did use Virtual 8086 mode, and those instances could be pre-empted. That's the only way multitasked DOS boxes can work correctly anyway.
No, it didn't actually run on top of DOS. It may have used some DOS features to implement certain device drivers, but Windows 3.0/3.1 (enhanced mode, at least) was actually a 32-bit protected mode OS will virtual memory and pre-emptive multitasking. Unfortunately, all of the Windows programs were 16-bit and ran inside a single 16-bit virtual address space. It was an OS, albeit a crappy one.
No, the DOS boxes were actually pre-emptively multitasked. They had to be; that's how Virtual 8086 mode worked. All the Windows programs were cooperatively multitasked in a single 16-bit VM. The manager for all this was vmm386.exe, which ran in 32-bit protected mode and even used paging for memory management.
I think this is a terrible idea. It violates the principle of "make it as simple as possible, but not any simpler". Some things are just complicated. Even if the UI is nice and clean, what it interacts with is not and the users have to know about that. I don't think any UI could be understood by a 5 year old and I'm fine with that.
Anybody could put a picture of your on a blog or a personal website, or on a telephone pole. You worried about that? If you are worried about people taking pictures of you doing stupid things, then maybe you shouldn't do stupid things. Even without cameras, people could still tell other people about what you did. It's not as though people in the pre-internet days had no idea what you were up to ever.
And even if the picture is on Facebook, it's really not personally identifying in any structured way except to friends. You can't search on it. It's not connected with an email address or user account. It might as well not be there.
So you are pretty much stealing content. It's not free; it costs a lot to make and they nicely provide it to you without a cash transaction if you can just sit through a few advertisements. But instead, you treat it like they are infringing on your "rights" and block the only thing that might make them money.
Actually, no. People might put stuff up about you, but it's in unstructured form, not easily searchable and probably not well-tracked even by Facebook. You might be in a photo, but you probably won't be tagged, you'll just have your first name tagged, and that isn't searchable. Someone might mention you in a post, but that's unstructured data. They might as well mention you on a blog for all it's worth.
If you really want never to be mentioned, then live a private life with no friends. Wait, this is a Slashdot, so that shouldn't be too hard for most here.
I use AV now. I didn't back in the day. That Windows install was blown away with Linux years ago (and that computer is no longer mine). On my new laptop, I have Windows 7 with Avast. It never picks up anything, but at least I don't have to worry.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as actual pass-by-reference. Sure, a language might have fancy syntax for it, but it gets boiled down to pointer-to-a-value-which-is-itself-a-value. C just skips the sugar.
I'm sure the folks who work on GCC do and yet they still made this decision. That should tell you something.
What you said is true of any language. More apropos of the subject, it's not that simple: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290
My point was that it was most consistent for Latin where there has been a longer history and a greater tendency to hold words of direct Latin origin in higher esteem. It is only among Latin and Greek nouns that you find consistent foreign plurals ("-a", "-i", etc.). That is true for no other language.
For every one of those words which uses a native plural, usually in academic contexts (surprise, surprise), there are a dozen others which do not. Alongside the plural "samurai", we have "shoguns", "gieshas", "tycoons", "typhoons", "hibachis", "koans", "rickshaws", "senseis", "tsunamis", etc.
And again, for every exception like that, there are a dozen nativized plurals: "beer steins" (not "beer steine"), "kindergartens" (inasmuch as we even use the plural of the noun with any regularity), "gestalts" (not "gestaelte"), "meisters" (not "meister"), "doppelgaengers" (not "doppelgaenger"), "wieners/weeners" (not "wiener"), "U-boots" (not "U-boote"), "umlauts" (not "umlaeute"), etc.
I didn't say that, because I said "nouns adopted from German" and meant it literally. I don't see how you can take that to mean Anglo-Saxon words derived from proto-Germanic.
I didn't want to waste time going into useless detail for something that's clear to thinking people. That word works the same as words from Latin, even if it's from Greek (it's also possible that it came via Latin).
In proper English, nouns that are plural end in an 's' or 'es' if the preceding consonant is a sibilant. There are a handful of native nouns that have irregular plurals. All the rest are affectations and lead mostly to confusion and are used out of arrogance, not correctness. English isn't Latin. Why should English nouns use Latin plurals? After all, we don't do that for any other language. We don't use German plurals for nouns adopted from German. And half the time, people use the wrong Latin plural anyway. There is the whole "virii" debacle, or people who think the plural of 4th declension nouns like "status" and "nexus" is "-i" and not "-us". The safest and sanest route to take is to simply use the English plural unless the Latin plural has been fully adopted into the language (like "phenomenon" ~ "phenomena", where nobody would use *"phenomonons"). With "forum", the plural form "forums" occurs many more times than "fora" (according to Google), so the Latin plural clearly hasn't been fully adopted. Using "fora", then, is just an annoying affectation.
Facebook is a company, not the government. So whatever the constitution says about free speech is irrelevant.
For me, yes. Any fundamentalist ideology is extremely dangerous to peace and sanity.
This is a dangerous line of logic to go down. The entity directly responsible for the crime shoulders all of the blame (unless there are conspirators, etc.). Enablers, direct and indirect, can't reasonably count. The connections become too tenuous, too difficult to trace and too intertwined with other issues. I pay a guy to do my roof who likes to eat apples harvested by the guy who uses faulty ladders. Am I at fault? After all, I should have checked out where my contractor was getting his apples from so that none of my money paid to him ended up going to the crooked apply farmer. See why this doesn't work? What scares me most is that it seems as though the personal responsibility crowd is more than happy to give up that line when it comes to corporations, who are simply unintelligent beasts that do the bidding of the consumers. Wrong. Wrong and stupid. Wrong and dangerous. The execs at BP made the decisions to cut corners with safety and to take risks too great. All the consumers asked for was oil and hopefully at a reasonable price (due to the oligopoly of oil production and distribution, they can't even demand the latter). The consumers did not ask for faulty BOPs or not planning ahead for potential disasters like this one. How can they be held accountable in any way other than the fact that their money, mostly indirectly, ended up in the hands of BP? Yes, it is nothing to do with me. It's everything to do with the people who make the bad decisions. They are at fault and they should be held accountable. And if those companies care about the environment or public image, *they* will be the ones who start making good decisions. It's their responsibility, not mine. My responsibility is also not to make bad decisions, such as throwing garbage on the side of the road, or, ironic as it might seem at first glance, not to support companies that do unethical things. But the responsibility to maintain good ethics is still on them. I'm just not going to help them further their unethical behavior.
First of all, this is a news article, not a research paper, so it doesn't need to provide evidence for something that isn't even primary to the article in the first place. Secondly, the OP spent much of the rest of his/her post referencing an alternative theory of the universe that has not been supported by evidence and certainly doesn't compete with the current models. His post reeks of the same kind of persecutionism that bullshit artists typically use when those who know what they are talking about call them out on their bullshit.
Certainly war itself doesn't create wealth, but many of the research projects it carries out have been very advantageous to society at large, including the Internet.
I love this shift of blame from the libertarian crowd here. Clearly it's not the guy who runs the company's fault for providing dangerous ladders. He's only doing it because he's getting bribed (effectively) by the evil consumers. Come on! The person who does wrong is the guilty party. He might be enabled by some external factors, such as the money he gets from consumers (as if they are buying specifically from him because they *know* he uses broken ladders and they want to see the workers get hurt), but the choice to use bad ladders was his and his alone. Thus, he should get all of the blame and be held accountable. The alternative is the same old "privatize profit, socialize risk" philosophy that's been killing us. The farmer gets all the money when things go well, but if there are problems, it's up to the disjoint mass of consumers to collectively put him out of business or threaten such so that he will stop using faulty ladders. That is, he gets the rewards and society is supposed to pick up the pieces from his unethical behavior and collectively convince him to stop. This is not a workable system.
They would have had to go out there eventually to satisfy the demand for oil. Don't think they wouldn't have jumped at the chance either way to get access to untapped oil fields, even if they are in more dangerous areas.
That's a silly thing to say "government cannot create wealth". Government is not some supernatural entity. It is just another set of people doing things. Yes, a lot of what they do is not wealth-creation, per se, since we leave those kinds of non-market viable activities to the public sector, but other programs do create wealth and value, such as NOAA, NASA, the defense department, etc.
But in enhanced mode, Windows did use Virtual 8086 mode, and those instances could be pre-empted. That's the only way multitasked DOS boxes can work correctly anyway.
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2010/05/17/10013609.aspx
No, it didn't actually run on top of DOS. It may have used some DOS features to implement certain device drivers, but Windows 3.0/3.1 (enhanced mode, at least) was actually a 32-bit protected mode OS will virtual memory and pre-emptive multitasking. Unfortunately, all of the Windows programs were 16-bit and ran inside a single 16-bit virtual address space. It was an OS, albeit a crappy one.
That hardly counters his point...
No, the DOS boxes were actually pre-emptively multitasked. They had to be; that's how Virtual 8086 mode worked. All the Windows programs were cooperatively multitasked in a single 16-bit VM. The manager for all this was vmm386.exe, which ran in 32-bit protected mode and even used paging for memory management.
I think this is a terrible idea. It violates the principle of "make it as simple as possible, but not any simpler". Some things are just complicated. Even if the UI is nice and clean, what it interacts with is not and the users have to know about that. I don't think any UI could be understood by a 5 year old and I'm fine with that.
Anybody could put a picture of your on a blog or a personal website, or on a telephone pole. You worried about that? If you are worried about people taking pictures of you doing stupid things, then maybe you shouldn't do stupid things. Even without cameras, people could still tell other people about what you did. It's not as though people in the pre-internet days had no idea what you were up to ever.
And even if the picture is on Facebook, it's really not personally identifying in any structured way except to friends. You can't search on it. It's not connected with an email address or user account. It might as well not be there.
So you are pretty much stealing content. It's not free; it costs a lot to make and they nicely provide it to you without a cash transaction if you can just sit through a few advertisements. But instead, you treat it like they are infringing on your "rights" and block the only thing that might make them money.
Actually, no. People might put stuff up about you, but it's in unstructured form, not easily searchable and probably not well-tracked even by Facebook. You might be in a photo, but you probably won't be tagged, you'll just have your first name tagged, and that isn't searchable. Someone might mention you in a post, but that's unstructured data. They might as well mention you on a blog for all it's worth.
If you really want never to be mentioned, then live a private life with no friends. Wait, this is a Slashdot, so that shouldn't be too hard for most here.
I use AV now. I didn't back in the day. That Windows install was blown away with Linux years ago (and that computer is no longer mine). On my new laptop, I have Windows 7 with Avast. It never picks up anything, but at least I don't have to worry.
Right, that's the point. It's a shell issue, not a kernel issue.