Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #9493
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.development |
| Subject | Re: The morality of operating system security |
| Date | 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <20160504172232.73d32902@_> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <nfpke2$jgv$1@dont-email.me> <20160427054214.182c3530@_> <ng8m9m$ms2$1@dont-email.me> <20160503165548.0baa42a3@_> <ngca01$24q$1@dont-email.me> |
On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:00:00 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/05/2016 21:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Tue, 3 May 2016 00:05:26 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 10:42, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:01:44 +0100 > >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Courgette - Zucchini > >>> > >>> ??? > >> > >> Why the question marks? > > > > It seemed strange. The others at least made some sense to me. I've > > never heard or seen the word "courgette" before. It sounds like a > > French word or a derivative. > > Maybe it's a female courg. > Ha. Hey, is Lingham's Hot Sauce widely available over there? I picked up some at the local dollar store. Nice stuff. This morning, I made a scrambled egg and spinach breakfast burrito with it. It's not easily found here. I may have to pick up some more since I suspect they won't restock. > I was serious. I thought AmE used fishes rather than fish > (plural). I guess there is room for variation in both countries. > Maybe, it's regional or generational. I don't generally discuss fish with other people. So, maybe I'm out of touch ... > > I've noticed that "whomever" is being > > consistently replaced with "whoever" now in AmE, even for news > > articles. > > Here, many - probably most - people don't know grammatically when to > say "who" and when to say "whom" and the former is now often used in > either place. I have difficulty with both, but had never noticed media outlets not using them properly until recently. > Similarly, many people don't know when to say "less" and when to say > "fewer". As you once noticed, I occasionally use "fewer" to be precise, but "less" is the "standard" usage here too. > English is a complex language. I am continually coming across things > about it that I didn't know. So, it's not easy to parse? ... The school systems here weren't teaching sentence diagramming when I was in school. They found too many students had problems with it. It helped me out immensely, but I'm above average on spatial relations. Unfortunately, I didn't learn it early on. > > I'm not sure if people just gave up or if this is an accepted > > change. Most here still can't get the usage of "than" versus "then" > > correct either. > > That reminds me of another difference. From what I have seen, in > America people talk about one thing being different than another. In > the UK people say that one thing is different from another. Both seem normal to me, but I'd say 75%:25%. > OT but I wonder how feasible it would be to design a new language > that was usable enough for humans but also logical enough to be > understood by machines. In C, I rarely use qualifiers such as "const" or "static" or "restrict" etc. "volatile" is the only one I find to be useful. In English, I am constantly having to use adverbs, adjectives, phrases, etc to modify the base meaning which is easily written. I'm forced to modify the base meaning into the precise meaning that I intend, which is usually similar but different. However, I notice some people automatically discard all such "flowery" usage and assume the base meaning is what I meant to say. English sentences which can be diagrammed, can probably be parsed by computers or generated by computers. I don't diagram anymore, but write what seems to be correct. I don't know if diagramming works for all of English, but it worked for much of it, if not all of it, when I was learning it. There are also chatterbots, parody generators, and Markov chains which might be used to confirm that a computer can parse the resulting language. Without proof, I'm assuming the that the reverse is true, that if it can generate it, then it can also parse it, i.e., reverse the process. Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm might also be of use. I.e., words are defined as sentences which are sequences of other words. So, a shortest path algorithm could programmatically find the definitions of words. These could perhaps be filtered via AI. Or, they could be used as the basis for the language. The first step might be to determine if diagrammed English sentences can be converted into Markov chains. Markov chains are supposed to be representable by FSMs. This would allow for both an engine to generate text and an engine to parse text, or so I'd think/guess ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra's_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatterbot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_generator Haven't we discussed some of this previously? Rod Pemberton
Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 15:09 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-30 00:03 +0700
Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 19:39 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:54 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-31 06:16 +0700
Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 20:01 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:59 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-31 17:47 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:11 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-01 18:25 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 23:10 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-02 14:18 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-04-01 09:58 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:06 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-29 17:39 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:13 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-30 23:18 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:31 -0700
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-31 16:57 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 09:22 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 20:24 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 18:25 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-09 18:57 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 09:07 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:01 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 00:05 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:55 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:00 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 17:02 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-05 17:55 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-05-09 14:58 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-12 17:46 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:11 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:44 +0100
csiph-web