Cushman

41 ms·

361.
by Cushman 14y ago
Huh? I don't get it.
362.
by Cushman 14y ago
Any site which serves dynamic content without a caching layer is exposed to DDoS.
363.
by Cushman 14y ago
O...kay? I'm not sure how you're reading my rather lay summary of the state of modern linguistics as histrionics, but maybe that's just a dialectal thing. I was kind of hoping you would go ahead and check out the Wiki articles[0], but I gue
364.
by Cushman 14y ago
I... am really confused. AFAICT there is only one DFW essay linked in these comments, and it seems to say basically what I, others here, and the linguistic consensus is saying: That there is a dialect of English used in the great majority o
365.
by Cushman 14y ago
Yes. If you are trying to teach children "correct" grammar rules that they will go home and unlearn because their peers speak a different grammar, you are getting teaching very wrong and you should do it differently. As has been reiterated
366.
by Cushman 14y ago
The point of this entire thread is that what you are calling "standard English" is not a thing. It's not what Shakespeare spoke and it's not what we speak. There is American Standard, the dialect primarily spoken on the news in the US and e
367.
by Cushman 14y ago
Let's talk about the computational theory of mind. Is it bad to turn off a computer? I have a process running that will continue to do productive work forever. Is it bad to suspend it? If I resume it later, is that not bad? If I intend to r
368.
by Cushman 14y ago
> Some people think that cryogenics is a better chance of resurrection than burying a body in dirt. And some people think burying a body in dirt is the best chance of resurrection. These beliefs do not seem, at this point in time, dif
369.
by Cushman 14y ago
It's not pointless, see my other reply: > If what you want to say is, "Okay, Shakespeare used double negatives for emphasis, but he spoke a different dialect than I do, and in my dialect double negatives reverse meaning", that's a fine
370.
by Cushman 14y ago
Naturally, there is no such objective principle for me to articulate. Everyone speaks according to the language center of their own brain. Some ways of speech are more different than others; some are so different that communication is hard
371.
by Cushman 14y ago
So your answer to my entreaty is "no", then?
372.
by Cushman 14y ago
I suppose it wasn't clear; I don't see a difference, except that California is more progressive linguistically than Kentucky.
373.
by Cushman 14y ago
To be clear, Shakespeare did not speak American Standard English (or any dialect of English currently spoken). However, as I replied to your sibling, the English that he spoke is not more different from ASE than many other dialects of moder
374.
by Cushman 14y ago
> And I think the best way that would be achieved is if they learn proper English at school, full stop. Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but this is not the opinion of, among many notable others, the Oakland school board since 1
375.
by Cushman 14y ago
Wikipedia, referencing the science of linguistics. And it ain't a scare capital, they call it Modern because it is. English spoken since the Great Vowel Shift does not differ from English spoken today any more than dialects of English spoke
376.
by Cushman 14y ago
Not remedial English. ESL. There's a big difference. English class is where speakers of ASE learn the grammatical rules of their language in ASE. Doing that again, or more slowly, will not help someone who does not speak ASE at home. ESL
377.
by Cushman 14y ago
Shakespeare most certainly did speak, and write, Modern English. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English . If your claim is that he did not speak an identical dialect to you, well, neither do many English speakers who use double
378.
by Cushman 14y ago
> I think the following would all be considered valid AAVE: Here's an idea: Stop guessing about a language you don't speak, put your linguist hat on, and go out and find an actual attestation. I suspect you will be surprised.
379.
by Cushman 14y ago
Why not Spanish? You can't get here from there. If a child speaks a coherent first language at home, you can't "navigate them back" to ASE, it will only confuse them (and further reinforce your preconception that they are speaking "broken"
380.
by Cushman 14y ago
To reiterate your parent: The point is not that they should not be taught ASE. The point is if a young child writes, "No tengo", you'll say, hey, we need to get a Spanish speaker in here to teach this kid some ESL. But if they write, "I a
381.
by Cushman 14y ago
That's pretty unconvincing. Despite the heading "Grammar", it mentions differences that are lexicographic or merely orthographic in nature. The only real grammatical process mentioned is "changing its grammatical usage to be deliberately in
382.
by Cushman 14y ago
All I'm trying to say is that "a target for higher-level languages" is not a defining attribute of C in a way that makes "JavaScript is the new C" a helpful analogy.
383.
by Cushman 14y ago
> and you can get architecture independence for free And you target JavaScript for precisely the same reason :) Perhaps the better way to say it is this: C is a language which was once written by hand, but which is increasingly being us
384.
by Cushman 14y ago
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second. "JavaScript is assembly" is, in my estimation, usually a rather blase metaphor for the idea of JavaScript as a compile target. People don't say "JavaScript is the new C" because general
385.
by Cushman 14y ago
Assuming you meant this to me? See my other comment about architectures. What you're describing sounds like Macintosh with PowerPC; was it ever an advantage? Maybe, but then it became a liability, and they switched. It hasn't exactly gone
386.
by Cushman 14y ago
There's an active and competitive market for, say, CPU architectures that end users are completely (and gladly) unaware of. I just see the walls of the black box expanding, that doesn't mean there's nothing going on inside.
387.
by Cushman 14y ago
> This is the new normal. The connector is the valuable part. Right, and I read this as "the connector is the next thing to go". Someday (one hopes) all of this will be done by software radio, anything that needs to be really fast wil
388.
by Cushman 14y ago
Not a comment on the Ouya specifically, but we live in an odd moment in computing history when many of us carry powerful computers with us everywhere we go, but connecting them to our existing peripherals is difficult enough that we'd rathe
389.
by Cushman 14y ago
I'm not sure what to tell you, except that, like the post you replied to said, "Of course [you] would think that" is a common rhetorical device in idiomatic English that in this context really, really does not mean what you seem to want
390.
by Cushman 14y ago
> When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. So, look, here's the problem: that never happened. I shouldn't

More ›