Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #9496
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.development |
| Subject | Re: The morality of operating system security |
| Date | 2016-05-05 17:55 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <20160505175551.1b9251c6@_> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <ng8m9m$ms2$1@dont-email.me> <20160503165548.0baa42a3@_> <ngca01$24q$1@dont-email.me> <20160504172232.73d32902@_> <ngfqlk$i17$1@dont-email.me> |
On Thu, 5 May 2016 17:02:57 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > 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: > > 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. > > Sounds tasty! It was and I don't even like spinach ... Well, if you don't have Lingham's there, it's similar to an Asian style sweet and sour sauce, but it's sweet and spicy, with a mild amount of heat, very syrupy. I thought you might have it there since it seems to be from a British company in Malaysia, e.g., I assumed it would be distributed in the U.K. One of their website pictures shows it used with fried chicken. That would probably be really tasty too. http://www.lingham.com/ Hot sauces became real popular here some years ago with the Buffalo chicken wings craze which uses Frank's Redhot cayenne. So, now, there is a decent selection of hot sauce at most U.S. grocery and larger department stores. For many years, it was basically just Tabasco or a restaurant supplied sauce. My top two favorites are Burman's hot sauce available at U.S. Aldi's for $0.85 a bottle and Cholula which is imported from Mexico. Cholula has the best flavor of any hot sauce I've tried so far (about a dozen brands), but it's expensive and not nearly as hot as sriracha. Huy Fong's Sriracha would be third. Taco Bell's Fire sauce is fourth. Tabasco's Chipotle maybe fifth. Taco Bell's Fire sauce is phenomenal when paired with sliced jalapenos. Of course, I'm not sure if any of these are available over there. > Another problem is its idiosyncrasies. For example: > > I boil water > I boil a kettle > > The latter doesn't mean that the kettle gets boiled....! So, the kettle, which holds a liquid had an implicit phrase such as "full of water/tea/liquid," i.e., non-empty. English has implicit subjects too. E.g., "Go home." Subject is "you." Identifying something absent only works if you can reasonably eliminate all other valid options. That would seem to require either a fixed list of absolute options so you can cross off non-working options, or a knowledge base and reasoning to deduce what was meant. > Another one is prepositions. For example, "Mary spoke > to Jane and she was upset." There is no indication who > "she" referred to. I seem to recall that pronouns refer to the nearest, if it makes sense with the context. If it doesn't, I think I was taught that the sentence should be rearranged so that it does. I know I've run into situations where it could be either. Obviously, there is no way to enforce such a requirement on the writer (or coder). I'm assuming the language compiler would need to identify the ambiguity and report or reject it, either a parse or syntax error. Or, there could be a rule that specifies which one will be used in ambiguous situations. Then, it's up to the coder to enforce the rule. 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