Public wishlist for cplusplus.com
@BHXSpecter Does your second definition not accurately describe Zereo's point?
| 3. Computer Slang. a. a computer enthusiast. b. a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems. |
The "Jargon File" is the de facto official dictionary of hacker terms, we're not talking about just some jargon people in that group tend to use. Yes, hacker can be used for other things---it's also a golf term as your dictionary states---but the hacker sub-culture has its own dictionary called the Jargon File that defines it in the way that it was originally meant when applied to programmers and computer science.
Also, people should stop using dictionaries as the go-to source for their argument-from-authority fallacies. They're no more official than any other source. English, unlike some languages (I believe French and Norwegian do), has no official regulatory committee, so there's no "official" English dictionary, hence why there are so many competing ones. Dictionary authors have the same level of authority as anyone else: that is, none at all. The only difference is that they do research. But anyone can research the etymology and the history of the various meanings of words; it doesn't require much expertise, just a lot of effort poring through old tomes. It's not like physics or medicine where you need special skills to interpret what you're seeing; the only skill you need is the ability to read (specifically, to read middle English; although Latin, Greek, German, Norse, French, old English, etc. will all help too).
Evidence that dictionaries are useless:
See how they pander to the idiots that use words incorrectly? And this is not just some per se/per say confusion; this is literally (and I do mean literally) giving the words the opposite meaning to the meaning they currently have. I know this isn't new, but that doesn't make it right (otherwise that's another fallacy, called argument-from-history). Words mean what they mean, not what people just happen to be using them to mean. And before someone points out that I'm probably using several words differently to their original meaning: that is a product of the mistakes of others---namely, those who allowed the meanings of the words to change, as well as the people who taught me the wrong meanings---not of myself. English should be regulated; the meanings of words should be fixed to what they are now, and not allowed to change just because people like Alanis Morissette can't grasp the concept of irony.
Also, people should stop using dictionaries as the go-to source for their argument-from-authority fallacies. They're no more official than any other source. English, unlike some languages (I believe French and Norwegian do), has no official regulatory committee, so there's no "official" English dictionary, hence why there are so many competing ones. Dictionary authors have the same level of authority as anyone else: that is, none at all. The only difference is that they do research. But anyone can research the etymology and the history of the various meanings of words; it doesn't require much expertise, just a lot of effort poring through old tomes. It's not like physics or medicine where you need special skills to interpret what you're seeing; the only skill you need is the ability to read (specifically, to read middle English; although Latin, Greek, German, Norse, French, old English, etc. will all help too).
Evidence that dictionaries are useless:
| lit·er·al·ly /ˈlitərəlē/ Adverb 1. In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle". 2. Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling. |
See how they pander to the idiots that use words incorrectly? And this is not just some per se/per say confusion; this is literally (and I do mean literally) giving the words the opposite meaning to the meaning they currently have. I know this isn't new, but that doesn't make it right (otherwise that's another fallacy, called argument-from-history). Words mean what they mean, not what people just happen to be using them to mean. And before someone points out that I'm probably using several words differently to their original meaning: that is a product of the mistakes of others---namely, those who allowed the meanings of the words to change, as well as the people who taught me the wrong meanings---not of myself. English should be regulated; the meanings of words should be fixed to what they are now, and not allowed to change just because people like Alanis Morissette can't grasp the concept of irony.
@chrisname, that dictionary thing you found there is incredibly stupid and hilarious but it leaves me doubting my ability to find mistakes in dictionaries and phone books myself, do i need this skill to get on in computer science?
Last edited on
IMO. After getting a certain number of reports for your posts you should receive a ban.
e.g 1 report = 1 day ban. After it expires next report = 2 day ban. I know some people have been trolling and spamming forums and getting A LOT of reports (e.g Fredbill30)
e.g 1 report = 1 day ban. After it expires next report = 2 day ban. I know some people have been trolling and spamming forums and getting A LOT of reports (e.g Fredbill30)
@Zaita
That would be bad; what happens when some troll comes on here and reports random people?
That would be bad; what happens when some troll comes on here and reports random people?
closed account (N36fSL3A)
like 7 reports in total that I know of counting that time when spoon licker was back.
I haven't been trolling or spamming like I said when I type things you guys take it the wrong way.
Most likely because of how language isn't best interpreted in text I think modshop told me on that parma ham thingy thread.
I haven't been trolling or spamming like I said when I type things you guys take it the wrong way.
Most likely because of how language isn't best interpreted in text I think modshop told me on that parma ham thingy thread.
Last edited on by Fredbill30
closed account (N36fSL3A)
'cause they cost money and I'm sure the admin of this website wouldn't want to waste extra cash for something the community does for free.
We are the mods FOR him.
We are the mods FOR him.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I would be a mod on this forum for free and I'm sure many other users would be to. That said I don't think this forum needs any mods though I believe it is fine the way it is though would like to see some more tools to deal with certains members here. Though I am not sure what tools would help exactly.
But as things stand once someone gets reported a certain amout of times for legitimate things twicker will take care of it.
But as things stand once someone gets reported a certain amout of times for legitimate things twicker will take care of it.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
You guys report me for asking seemingly absurd questions when they do indeed have a good purpose.
I mean you guys reporting me for asking a question that you guys don't think is normal is like me calling the police on you for having a dirty room.
(It's a bad one, I know)
I mean you guys reporting me for asking a question that you guys don't think is normal is like me calling the police on you for having a dirty room.
(It's a bad one, I know)
Last edited on by Fredbill30
@Chrisname you just use a weighted system them when people who higher post counts/membership times get more power. Or you allow someone to solve a thread crediting a member for the solution, then that gets used as the weight.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
Zaita you can easily mass produce accounts and vote up for yourself. No need on for changing anything.
Last edited on by Fredbill30
@Fredbill I think people would notice a huge influx of messages being auto-solved. It's attitudes like that we don't want here.
@chrisname
Are you sure about de facto and official? This is the google descriptor I get when searching for Jargon File:
@Script Coder
I thought about that too, but then I got to thinking about most computer enthusiasts I've met, most of them just know a lot about computers from different eras. Enthusiast to me (since chrisname wants me to stop using dictionary as a reference, like it was designed for) just means they are absolutely nuts about whatever they are enthusiasts about (guns, drywall, knives, clothes, computers, etc.).
Are you sure about de facto and official? This is the google descriptor I get when searching for Jargon File:
| Programmer slang dictionary, containing more than 2000 not-quite-serious definitions and a number of programmer folklore anecdotes. |
@BHXSpecter Does your second definition not accurately describe Zereo's point? |
@Script Coder
I thought about that too, but then I got to thinking about most computer enthusiasts I've met, most of them just know a lot about computers from different eras. Enthusiast to me (since chrisname wants me to stop using dictionary as a reference, like it was designed for) just means they are absolutely nuts about whatever they are enthusiasts about (guns, drywall, knives, clothes, computers, etc.).
| I thought about that too, but then I got to thinking about most computer enthusiasts I've met, most of them just know a lot about computers from different eras. Enthusiast to me (since chrisname wants me to stop using dictionary as a reference, like it was designed for) just means they are absolutely nuts about whatever they are enthusiasts about (guns, drywall, knives, clothes, computers, etc.). |
True, that is one definition of an enthusiast, but surely Zereo's self description fills even your definition of the word. If he enjoys solving problems with and pushing the limits of a computer, then surely he must be "nuts" over them?
Also, I believe that the media has changed the definition of the word "hacker" and given it the incorrect connotations of the word "cracker". But that is just my opinion.
Sorry if I don't have the time to go through 14 pages to check if this was already covered:
1) Using the tag buttons ([code] and the like) won't bring you to the top of the post you're editing, and won't deselect the text box (aka: you don't have to click the text box again, after clicking on a button for code, quote, etc...).
That's the only thing I can think of right now.
1) Using the tag buttons ([code] and the like) won't bring you to the top of the post you're editing, and won't deselect the text box (aka: you don't have to click the text box again, after clicking on a button for code, quote, etc...).
That's the only thing I can think of right now.