• Your southern neighbour (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    This again proves how far ahead the Dutch are when compared to less civilised peoples (basically, the rest of the planet) because this internet-lingo was already part of the language even before the internet was invented.

    I'll remember that next time I hear a dutch guy order a "jus d'orange van appel", an orange juice of apple :-)

    We all have our weaknesses, but the dutch are no strangers to overestimating themselves, especially when it comes to foreign languages. FWIW, most non Brittish speakers of English are not better at that point either.

  • (cs) in reply to Your southern neighbour
    Your southern neighbour:
    Severity One:
    This again proves how far ahead the Dutch are when compared to less civilised peoples (basically, the rest of the planet) because this internet-lingo was already part of the language even before the internet was invented.

    I'll remember that next time I hear a dutch guy order a "jus d'orange van appel", an orange juice of apple :-)

    We all have our weaknesses, but the dutch are no strangers to overestimating themselves, especially when it comes to foreign languages. FWIW, most non Brittish speakers of English are not better at that point either.

    They do speak better English than other non-native speakers.

  • (cs)

    Regarding the concept of keeping an animal alive and letting it regrow whatever it was you cut off for consumption: As further proof that there's nothing new under the sun, this was actually advanced as a plot point in a radio comedy sketch back in the 1930's or 1940's - probably Ethel and Albert, though I'm not exactly sure.

    Oh, and the article author clearly meant "roux", not "rouse."

  • JolleSax (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    There's nothing new about manually-propagated worms - does anyone remember Craig, the kid in Florida who wanted postcards?
    Actually not, but I'd love to hear the story.
  • (cs) in reply to GalacticCowboy

    Typical internet forum pattern:

    • hey, I have an idea!! Why don't we [insert idea here]?
    • that's nothing new, someone already exposed that idea [in a joke/in a sci-fi novel/in a dream of mine] 50 years ago!
    • yeah that's true, I actually found a partially relevant wikipedia article on the subject.
    • here's a link to a [webcomic/blog/youtube video] that will make you laugh about something vaguely related to it.
    • lame, let's not discuss that then. Geniuses like us shouldn't be wasting their time discussing things that has been already discussed before.
    • okay, let's go back to reading that [webcomic/blog/youtube video] of yours, it's so funny and I only [read/watched] it twice from the beginning!
  • Frank (unregistered) in reply to Nick
    Nick:
    I'm going to just leave this obligatory link to Stephen Fry on Language right here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY re: verbing nouns
    Hmmmm let me wiki that.
  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    PervertedComment zunesis();

  • (cs) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    PervertedComment zunesis();

    Indeed - it's more future-proof!

  • (cs) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    public PervertedComment zunesis();

    FTFM
  • (cs) in reply to PedanticCurmudgeon
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    public PervertedComment zunesis();

    FTFM

    It hardly matters since zunesis' privates are public by default.

  • Arancaytar (unregistered) in reply to rudraigh
    rudraigh:
    I lol'd at "Please restart yer facebook". Script kiddie with a sense of humor or a hacker who is ESL?

    Yer Facebook be restarted with successfulness. Arrr!

  • Röb (unregistered) in reply to Peter

    My theory is cockney rhyming slang. So rouse As in Josh Rouse the singer, 'josh' being slang for joke in my corner of the globe. eg. "I'm joshing mate".

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    public PervertedComment zunesis();

    FTFM

    It hardly matters since zunesis' privates are public by default.

    This.

  • an old friend (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    frits:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    public PervertedComment zunesis();

    FTFM

    It hardly matters since zunesis' privates are public by default.

    This.
    Only squares keep their package-level access protected.

  • boog (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    public PervertedComment zunesis();

    FTFM

    It hardly matters since zunesis' privates are public by default.

    Who cares?

  • ashaped (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic

    And to support your thesis, while we humans laugh at stupidity, note that animals don't laugh.

    So I'd better say achieving the irony of a situation is something tipically human, but unseen in wildlife.

  • (cs) in reply to Matt Westwood
    Matt Westwood:
    boog:
    I remember something on the history channel about a family living during WWII (I think in the Ukraine), who had a goat. Apparently, every so often they'd bleed the goat and have scrambled goat's blood for dinner.

    I think I like the steak idea better. Then again, less meat on a goat; probably wouldn't last as long.

    Common practice among certain tribes somewhere in Africa - can't remember where now, I read it in Scientific American a few decades back. Can't see it's much different from black pudding. I pity the poor squeamish types who can't eat a perfectly edible substance because of their fastidiousness about where on an animal it came from.
    I think the part that makes me squeamish is hearing that blood scrambles. Just the thought is nasty. Still, I'd eat it if I was starving.

    I've never tried black pudding. Some day, maybe.

    The part that interests me about the other story is that they used a goat. Keeping an animal alive can be expensive (they need to eat too), but goats eat just about anything. If I'm ever in a place in my life where I need to sustain myself on animal's blood for a lengthy period of time, I think I'd get a goat, just for the savings.

    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.

  • (cs)

    I like anything that has successfulness!

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Matt Westwood:
    boog:
    I remember something on the history channel about a family living during WWII (I think in the Ukraine), who had a goat. Apparently, every so often they'd bleed the goat and have scrambled goat's blood for dinner.

    I think I like the steak idea better. Then again, less meat on a goat; probably wouldn't last as long.

    Common practice among certain tribes somewhere in Africa - can't remember where now, I read it in Scientific American a few decades back. Can't see it's much different from black pudding. I pity the poor squeamish types who can't eat a perfectly edible substance because of their fastidiousness about where on an animal it came from.
    I think the part that makes me squeamish is hearing that blood scrambles. Just the thought is nasty. Still, I'd eat it if I was starving.

    I've never tried black pudding. Some day, maybe.

    The part that interests me about the other story is that they used a goat. Keeping an animal alive can be expensive (they need to eat too), but goats eat just about anything. If I'm ever in a place in my life where I need to sustain myself on animal's blood for a lengthy period of time, I think I'd get a goat, just for the savings.

    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.

    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.

  • Alistair Wall (unregistered) in reply to JolleSax
    JolleSax:
    trtrwtf:
    There's nothing new about manually-propagated worms - does anyone remember Craig, the kid in Florida who wanted postcards?
    Actually not, but I'd love to hear the story.

    http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/medical/shergold.asp

  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    boog:
    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.
    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.
    Indeed - all food comes from living creatures. The tastier kinds are just harder to catch.
  • Your Mum (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    frits:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    PedanticCurmudgeon:
    hoodaticus:
    Addendum: PervertedComment* zunesis;
    I think you mean:

    public PervertedComment zunesis();

    FTFM

    It hardly matters since zunesis' privates are public by default.

    Who cares?
    Me. Oh yeah.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    QJo:
    boog:
    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.
    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.
    Indeed - all food comes from living creatures. The tastier kinds are just harder to catch.

    I caught a couple of tomatoes in the garden this morning. They didn't struggle much, but there's nothing tastier than tomatoes off the vine.

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    QJo:
    boog:
    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.
    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.
    Indeed - all food comes from living creatures. The tastier kinds are just harder to catch.
    And they scream.
  • jc (unregistered) in reply to SeySayux
    SeySayux:
    "Verbing the noun" is an example of "Verbing the noun" and therefore autological (i.e. self-describing).

    QUESTION: Is "autological" an autological word? Discuss.

    But you left out the other half of that old logicians' joke: The term "heterological" refers to a word that is not self-describing.

    Then you ask your victim(s) to decide whether "heterological" is autological or heterological.

    It's a linguistic version of Russell's Paradox (the set of all sets that don't include themselves).

  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    boog:
    QJo:
    boog:
    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.
    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.
    Indeed - all food comes from living creatures. The tastier kinds are just harder to catch.
    And they scream.
    Yes, screaming is also an indicator of tastiness. This is why it's important to torture the creature first, for quality testing.
  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Question: what is it that separates humans from the animals?

    What usually separates me from animals is the saran wrap they put around the package at the butcher shop.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Steve The Cynic:
    Question: what is it that separates humans from the animals?

    Alternative answer: Humans frequently write books and articles questioning whether there is any great difference between humans and animals. Animals have never been known to write such books and articles.

    I can only conclude that anyone who says that humans are really no different than animals (or than "other animals" if you prefer), has never seen an actual animal outside of a Disney cartoon.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    all food comes from living creatures.

    Apparently you buy a different brand of microwavable meals than I do. I think this one here is made from recycled toxic wastes.

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Steve The Cynic:
    Question: what is it that separates humans from the animals?

    What usually separates me from animals is the saran wrap they put around the package at the butcher shop.

    You haven't ever watched "Dexter", have you.

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    hoodaticus:
    boog:
    QJo:
    boog:
    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.
    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.
    Indeed - all food comes from living creatures. The tastier kinds are just harder to catch.
    And they scream.
    Yes, screaming is also an indicator of tastiness. This is why it's important to torture the creature first, for quality testing.
    This means that Jamie Lee Curtis is probably the best tasting entree' in the universe.
  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Hortical
    Hortical:
    forgottenlord:
    The purpose of language is to communicate.

    Did you understand what the author intended to say? Yes? Objective met.

    The irony is:

    -The reason for using correct spelling and grammar is to make a message clear.

    -In order to correct someone's grammar, you would have to clearly understand what their underlying message is to know that your correction is valid.

    -If you can correct someone's grammar, it is not necessary to correct their grammar.

    If you can correct someone's grammar without, (a) any need whatsoever to confirm with the original author that this is what he really meant; and (b) without needing any knowledge than all other readers cannot be assumed to have; then yes, correcting the writer's grammar is unnecessary.

    But usually when I attempt to correct someone's grammar, it is a question, like, "Hey Bob, did you really mean 'he' here, referring to one person, or should that have been 'they', everyone mentioned in the previous sentence?" Or sometimes when I'm reading technical documents I can say that, as another software geek, I know that he meant that X and not Y, but that may not be clear to non-technical readers.

    I'm not going to ridicule someone over a spelling or grammar error. (Well, not unless I'm annoyed with him for some other reason and this is a convenient excuse. And I will ridicule grammar errors that occur in statements ridiculing someone else's grammar errors.) But surely in most communications "clear, correct, and unambiguous" is preferable to "hey, if you work at it you can guess what he probably meant". The only exceptions I can think of are statements to the police, political speeches, and promises made during romantic encounters, where ambiguity is often the goal so that later you can deny that that was what you meant.

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    Yes, screaming is also an indicator of tastiness.

    So that's why they call it "I scream". Truth in advertising indeed.

  • Hortical (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Hortical:
    -The reason for using correct spelling and grammar is to make a message clear. -In order to correct someone's grammar, you would have to clearly understand what their underlying message is to know that your correction is valid. -If you can correct someone's grammar, it is not necessary to correct their grammar.
    But usually when I attempt to correct someone's grammar, it is a question, like, "Hey Bob, did you really mean 'he' here, referring to one person, or should that have been 'they', everyone mentioned in the previous sentence?" Or sometimes when I'm reading technical documents I can say that, as another software geek, I know that he meant that X and not Y, but that may not be clear to non-technical readers.
    Right. That's what we should do. Ask for clarification if necessary. But if one simply swoops down to offer a correction, he violates this principle. For a predictable reason:
    Jay:
    I'm not going to ridicule someone over a spelling or grammar error. (Well, not unless I'm annoyed with him for some other reason and this is a convenient excuse.
  • cougar lover (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    boog:
    hoodaticus:
    boog:
    QJo:
    boog:
    I really enjoy telling this story around vegetarians. Talk about squeamish.
    If God hadn't meant us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food.
    Indeed - all food comes from living creatures. The tastier kinds are just harder to catch.
    And they scream.
    Yes, screaming is also an indicator of tastiness. This is why it's important to torture the creature first, for quality testing.
    This means that Jamie Lee Curtis is probably the best tasting entree' in the universe.
    She sure makes my mouth water.
  • (cs)

    I consider people who point out grammar/and or spelling mistakes on the same level as QA weenies-- only less useful.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    boog:
    Yes, screaming is also an indicator of tastiness.

    So that's why they call it "I scream". Truth in advertising indeed.

    Nice.

  • SMOCK SMOCK SMOCK SMOCK SMOCK (unregistered) in reply to hymie
    hymie:
    Sockatume:
    Steve the Cynic, we generate verbs like "lol" and nouns like "leverage" because we have the ability to parse, internalise and then utilise the content and structure of language through experience. Those damnable coinages are a side-effect of the important intellectual processes that do indeed separate us from the non-sapient animals.

    Verbing weirds languaging.

    FTF... uh, Watterson.

  • Anonymous Pedant (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    I consider people who point out grammar/and or spelling mistakes on the same level as QA weenies-- only less useful.

    purses lips and screams

  • Arnold (unregistered) in reply to hoodaticus

    I can confirm this... B)

  • (cs) in reply to Arnold
    Arnold :
    I can confirm this... B)
    Sweeeeet!
  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous Pedant
    Anonymous Pedant:
    frits:
    I consider people who point out grammar/and or spelling mistakes on the same level as QA weenies-- only less useful.

    purses lips and screams

    ... and is promptly devoured by a dozen hungry coders.

  • sadwings (unregistered)

    I don't always kill cows, but when I do, I kill them in Hillsbrad.

  • little kid lover (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    boog:
    Yes, screaming is also an indicator of tastiness.

    So that's why they call it "I scream". Truth in advertising indeed.

    "I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream!"

    Indicator of tastiness indeed.

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    boog:
    all food comes from living creatures.

    Apparently you buy a different brand of microwavable meals than I do. I think this one here is made from recycled toxic wastes.

    I stand corrected. Well played. :)

  • (cs) in reply to hoodaticus
    hoodaticus:
    Anonymous Pedant:
    frits:
    I consider people who point out grammar/and or spelling mistakes on the same level as QA weenies-- only less useful.

    purses lips and screams

    ... and is promptly devoured by a dozen hungry coders.
    Good job joining the two discussions. Bravo!

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    I consider people who point out grammar/and or spelling mistakes on the same level as QA weenies-- only less useful.
    On the other hand, most people consider you to be a trolling jackass... so there's that.
  • (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    frits:
    I consider people who point out grammar/and or spelling mistakes on the same level as QA weenies-- only less useful.
    On the other hand, most people consider you to be a trolling jackass... so there's that.

    So I fit right in here?

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    boog:
    all food comes from living creatures.

    Apparently you buy a different brand of microwavable meals than I do. I think this one here is made from recycled toxic wastes.

    Commonly known as a "Hot Passaic".

  • (cs) in reply to jc
    jc:
    SeySayux:
    "Verbing the noun" is an example of "Verbing the noun" and therefore autological (i.e. self-describing).

    QUESTION: Is "autological" an autological word? Discuss.

    But you left out the other half of that old logicians' joke: The term "heterological" refers to a word that is not self-describing.

    Then you ask your victim(s) to decide whether "heterological" is autological or heterological.

    Only undergraduates find that funny. Linguists take the issue raised very seriously. Wittgenstein offers a respectable solution to the linguistic version. Certainly, to assume that words "denote" "concepts" is misguided.

    It's a linguistic version of Russell's Paradox (the set of all sets that don't include themselves).

    That's not Russell's paradox. The paradox is that such a set can be defined using Frege's naive set theory[1], but that it cannot be given non-contradictory semantics. In other words, the paradox is that our unexamined, "natural" notion of what a set is is contradictory.

    There are many solutions to the paradox, such as requiring sets to be well-founded or well-typed. The constructive "solution" is of this type, though the paradox is a non-problem in a constructive set theory. It is unknown if Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is consistent, due to Godel's first incompleteness theorem, and the embedding of the natural numbers into the set theoretic ordinals. Indeed, Godel's first incompleteness theorem pretty directly implies that non-standard models of arithmetic are isomorphic to rational-like order types.

    [1] And Cantor's, and pretty much everybody elses' except for Intutionists/Constructivists like Brouwer.

Leave a comment on “Manually-propagating Worm”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article