Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > alt.os.development > #9495

Re: The morality of operating system security

From James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups alt.os.development
Subject Re: The morality of operating system security
Date 2016-05-05 17:02 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <ngfqlk$i17$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <20160427054214.182c3530@_> <ng8m9m$ms2$1@dont-email.me> <20160503165548.0baa42a3@_> <ngca01$24q$1@dont-email.me> <20160504172232.73d32902@_>

Show all headers | View raw


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:
>
>>>>>> 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?

If it is I've never heard of it. We have Tabasco which I guess is an 
American product.

One I buy here is Reggae Reggae X Hot sauce.

> 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!


>>> 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.

I think of it as subject and object or, more easily, the difference 
between "he" and "him". We always known when to use "he" and "him". The 
corresponding words are "who" and "whom".

E.g. who spoke with whom?

Corresponding: he spoke with him.

>
>> 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.

I don't remember noticing that but of course I take your word for it.


>> 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?  ...

Various odd things.


>> 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 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.

The main trouble with English, ISTM, is that so much of it is ambiguous. 
That is, of course, a well known problem with natural languages.


Another problem is its idiosyncrasies. For example:

I boil water
I boil a kettle

The latter doesn't mean that the kettle gets boiled....!


Another one is prepositions. For example, "Mary spoke to Jane and she 
was upset." There is no indication who "she" referred to.


> Haven't we discussed some of this previously?

Quite possibly.


-- 
James Harris

Back to alt.os.development | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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