Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Gladwell (Score 1) 187

by infinitelink (#48024491) Attached to: New Research Casts Doubt On the "10,000 Hour Rule" of Expertise
Interestingly, I knew a guy whose high school conductor began screaming "stop" one day, pointed the baton at him, and said, "you will never amount to anything." His reply (in his head, he didn't want to get some teeth knocked out) was, "I'll show you, you son of a b!*ch." Fast-forward maybe 20-25 years later, and not only had he played in the Navy band designated for the president's events, but opened and purchased Jazz clubs throughout New York, which he eventually sold for so much that, by the time he was teaching us in middle school, he walked-in every day with a few thousand dollars in equipment, repairs, and sometimes additional in music for the library he was building ("stamp it all with the school's stamp", he would tell me--I was also his assistant). A couple of years later in high school, I heard he was retiring to his yacht--the whole district knew as apparently he was a huge driver, all on his own, of the music programs, funding, etc. Did I mention, he could pick-up even instruments he knew nothing about, fiddle with them a few minutes, then begin to play them like a pro?

Comment: Re:ProfessorA emeritA (Score 4, Interesting) 191

by infinitelink (#48012345) Attached to: The Odd Effects of Being Struck By Lightning
Why is this rated to 0? It's a true statement--not something to downmod. Downmoding such a comment, I'm sure, actually bespeaks ignorance or violation of the terms of modding! And while that's not new for /., it's still something to have the actual admins take a look at. It's especially problematic, though, since it's a true statement.

While it is preferable to follow certain rules of grammar for use of Latin phrases, that is within the confines of acceptable English practice. "Profesora" has not, in fact, ever been used--as far as I am aware--in the English language, as an English term. Not, at least, enough to be conventional rather than eccentric. These days, perhaps all the more due to it being Spanish (though being in the Western US where we have a lot of Spanish speakers, perhaps I'm just reinforced given that perception; the east coast, on the other hand, tends not to know jack about Spanish from our POV). I am okay with it to the extent someone would have a Latin or Romance background, but the significations associated with "professor" vs. "profes[s]ora" aren't quite the same, so from that POV I would avoid it myself since it would seem to be a mis-communication, therefore an error.

And "-a" isn't even a solid indication, in English, that a term is actually a feminine for Latin. ("-a" isn't even just feminine in Latin, depending on case!). It *frequently* is in Spanish, but not enough for someone without the prior knowledge. For the last three or so centuries, however, even when Latin was widely taught, been acceptable to mix Latin forms as properly understood or most likely to be, rather than force correctness based on the classical Latin forms (and I have critiques on usage dating back over a 100 years in my personal library), so I don't get the hostility: oversensitivity to "correctness", to me, bespeaks being a poseur--as is often the case in English grammar.

It all seems like the pedantry of correct for case with "I and me" without regard for the actual use-intentions of the personal speaking English, given that the complaints are often applied to usages which antedate the oldest grammars and indicate a different mode of thinking altogether--i.e. evince a feature of English-speakers' mind that doesn't even exist in other classical languages. (Even modern, simplified English, possesses pre-classical features, and actual mixtures of features that span several language families, that ante-date the periods of major influence by Romance and Latin upon the Teutonic, e.g. altering mid-vowels to change tense, not just endings). It's the...gilded age of English armchair philology and grammatical-wishful thinking by the sophomorically over-read and over-credentialed, regarded only for being critics and clever...just not "right."

But in general, critiques of English usage typically proceed out of posing rather than expertise. It's a long-standing tradition in Anglophonic countries, and unfortunate for all the confusion has bred. e.g. I was recently standing in line at a post office and literally stood next to two old women, one who had been warned against the horrific error in saying "dug" rather than "digged", and the other warned contrarily about the error of "digged" over "dug." Both were also pissed I wouldn't take their side...or amused that I could explain the history of that "issue" though a young man, and that the other was so stupid to prefer a "non-word" they had never encountered. I actually found myself in disbelief that either could have suffered such limited exposure.

Comment: Re:English usage (Score 1) 97

by infinitelink (#47834623) Attached to: Dirty Diapers Used To Grow Mushrooms
The issue you're complaining of is one that isn't resolvable within English without either (a) awkward or unwanted redundancy or (b) a significant modification to add markers to the grammar. Consequently, the grammar here is classic in form; besides the fact that, psychologically, the meaning is understood, the rule is that the pronoun takes as its antecedent the closest noun; a supporting rule (that for purposes of avoiding ambiguity actually frowns on the spoken grammar's usage in speech where "they" is employed as a singular--not it's a dumb rule if one is using writing to imitate speech, such as in dialog) is that the pronoun and antecedent must match in number--thus no "use of 'they' to avoid SEXIST!!!(F***ING PATRIARCHCAL BIGOTS, RAAAAAR!!!!) pronouns" made-up "RULES!!!!" by the insane imposed on the usage of everyone else. (I say that despite using 'they' all the time in speech--in writing, nay!) For the prep. phrase "of them" we know "average baby" is singular and therefore "of them" must apply to the earlier "diapers", likewise for "they/'ll" which does not need follow the phrase nor would be--if the writing is any good--taken as applying to "baby."

Comment: Re:So ... (Score 1) 218

by infinitelink (#47683253) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier

Your parent actually is that counter example, you failed to comprehend it.

How so? Hubris meant an especial sort of ignorance for imagining one is godlike, like the gods, may ignore the's use as mere insolence, overconfidence, or neglect of the dangers one may encounter, is to empty the word of any special meaning and make it superfluous--but people then proceed to use it because it SOUNDS educated and special. :\

Comment: Re: You're doing it wrong. (Score 2) 199

by infinitelink (#47673473) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should You Invest In Documentation, Or UX?
If by "plenty of areas to improve" they meant the code and interfaces, then I agree with your statement: the end-users need something stable, minimum for 1-2 years. THAT DOESN'T MEAN SEPARATE VERSIONS CAN'T BE MADE! largely relying on the same codebase, it's just that when a large groups signs-up at first they need to be able to learn and keep a solid set of expectations.

If by "plenty of areas to improve" they simply meant the documentation for business use, however, then it just means they need the documentation improved.

Comment: Re: So ... (Score 1) 218

by infinitelink (#47673423) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier

Okay, I hope I've misunderstood you. I work in genomics research, and your post seems, on its face, misinformed at best. Are you seriously suggesting that the computer modeling common to physics and chemistry can be applied to biological systems?


Always keep in mind that physicists operate on a different plane in their own world dealing with quite different formal objects (or aspects) of "things" but they don't know it.

Comment: Re:So ... (Score 1) 218

by infinitelink (#47673401) Attached to: How to Maintain Lab Safety While Making Viruses Deadlier

They essentially are making biological weapons in violation of international treaties, but they're saying it's all OK because it's for research?

No, they are seeing what happens with certain changes that occur in viruses that are not improbably to occur in the wild (e.g. any single human that picks-up two strains of flue viruses could be the incubator for a fused variety--and the odds are actually pretty good) so that we know how to respond; I was going to write more but someone else beat me to it,

AND by doing this sort of work they can also develop novel methods of treatment or ideas on how to do so for viruses with characteristics and behavior that haven't appeared in the wild *yet*. This is the only way to do it, really. The problem now is how to beat the **** out of the level-1 maturity bipolar psychopathic egos who run biology labs like little kingdoms and flagrantly ignore safety rules (a buddy of mine is actually a primary auditor for universities' science programs who receive government funding and he is almost never not floored with how egregiously endangering these operations are to their participants, those on the unversity, and all those around not because "OMG I'M A F***ING IDIOT AND NOTHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS SHOULD EVER BE DONZ!!!" but because of things like "um, you do realize you're committing a felony by storing 1000 gallons of that kind of alcohol in water jugs, right?"

The hubris of thinking "it's OK, I'm a trained professional, nothing bad can happen" is mind boggling.

Ordinary mortals should never be taught the word "hubris", they always use it wrong/inappropriately.

Comment: Re:What about Oregon and Washington? (Score 1) 368

by infinitelink (#47668895) Attached to: Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording

We are becoming a country where the rich can do anything they want to everyone else.

"Rich" is the wrong word--and the distraction (intentional). Here's your correction:

We [have become] a country where [increasingly] th[ose with pull] can do anything they want to everyone else.

Comment: Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he (Score 1) 393

by infinitelink (#47659879) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

Centrists feel 'off', their views are more complicated, harder to grasp.

Or they don't really think that hard about them at all, just go what's known and comfortable. The linear view of politics and social issues misses that it's not an either-or with an in-between; those who actually are centrists are therefore pretty...sad creatures, especially when the "extremes" are often questioning the foundation of the views of the polar opposites...of the mainstream.

I'm sure you have plenty of experience with what is sadly the majority of Americans: "whatever as long as I can get my check to get my choice for hits in life."

Comment: Re:Regulations (Score 2) 125

by infinitelink (#47657293) Attached to: The Fiercest Rivalry In Tech: Uber vs. Lyft
Like the authorities who made those "laws" don't have to follow the laws limiting their authority--or the Feds whose actual job is to ensure natural rights don't have to enforce them in the States, only civil ones when they're politically useful?

Bullshit. The actual authors of this union's Constitution stated, repeatedly, frankly, any law that infringes or nullifies a right can, what? Be abrogated by the citizen with impugnity. It's only "radical" because dura lex sine jusiticia reigns once again.

I'm all for "law" that is "prudentia", i.e. for prudence or good; false laws pretending to be for public protection and other nonsense but really serve to erect unlawful monopolies, guilds, business protections, etc., are deprivations of rights under the colors of law--and those who make and enforce them deserve to be federally arrested and thrown down a hole as the Federal Code requires.

I live in Colorado, btw, notorious for this: the excuse here is that the cabs are a public utility. Strange that if I give a neighbor a lift for free it's legal but if he pays for gas it's technically and suddenly not. (Obviously they don't typically prosecute that, but selective enforcement to evade court scrutiny by ensuring the proofs the laws are not laws at all just invalidates the law in the first place.) That what millions do here daily, with insurance--including coverage of other occupants--is suddenly a public utility if any money or value, whatsoever, changes hands.

Go learn to think before citing dura lex without context. Even the Romans didn't put-up (long) with that bullshit. We just happen to be drunk under the stupor of "order" by force rather than...actual order. And it's damn time the boomers start getting off'd by their dementia to start eliminating their pseudo-sophisticate influences in that regard.

Moreover, you do realize the public figures who like to say "the laws the law" OPENLY MOCK THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY 'LAW' BESIDES FORCE--that is, in the law schools, don't you?

I DO get to choose the laws that I have to follow: if a "law" says to murder you--not going to do it; help you do it to or aid someone else in that, not going to do it; take your rights? not going to do it; assist any government actor in it? not going to do it.

Grow a pair.

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"