|
Mark_Wallace wrote: BTW, the word is "forgettable",
No. No, it is not. Immemorable, which dates from at least the 16th Century, does not mean can be forgotten. It means cannot be remembered, is impossible to recall, is beyond the reach of memory. It is a deeper, more meaningful concept altogether.
As for your words that don't exist - Google translate appears to differ. Perhaps you'd care to explain what you think they've failed to understand.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Don't ****ing google an opinion before expressing one.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
immemorable
adj.
1550s, from Latin immemorabilis, from assimilated form of in- "not" (see in- (1)) + memorabilis (see memorable).
Immemorable | Define Immemorable at Dictionary.com[^]
It aint kosher to call something not kosher kosher. 
[EDIT]
My apologies. I misread your post completely, I thought you were complaining about the presence of the word. I guess you were not! 
Life is too shor
modified 23-Apr-16 6:00am.
|
|
|
|
|
No, it was another who got it wrong. Not that there's any chance that he'll ever admit it.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
9082365 wrote: it was another who got it wrong
Can we all just stand up, admit we are all probably as wrong as we are right, acknowledge that truth is a compromise between context and observer, a kind of DMZ full of land-mines between the warring armies of karma and serendipity ... just get that out of the way so we can go back to admiring the "beauty of our weapons" [1] ?
cheers, Bill
[1] Leonard Cohen, "First We Take Manhattan"
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Well, from your wording, I was under the impression that you wanted (tongue-in-cheek) to point out a common misspelling; and adding words to dictionaries because some group of idiots can't get them right is a flea in my shorts.
OTOH, as you were talking about words that are missing from application word lists, I sympathise entirely. My MSO custom.dic has a huge number of entries that I should not have had to add, and it got so tiresome having to copy it to every machine, every time I came across yet another shortfall, that I automated it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting that you posted this two hours after I stated that I'd been mistaken.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: you posted this two hours after I stated
Do you assume I actually read most of your posts ?
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
So you log in here as 9082365 too, do you?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: I thought you were complaining about the presence of the word
I was not oy vey gevalting about anything.
May I put it to you that culturally, imho, the ironic use of the word "kosher" in the context of the wit, irony, innuendo, and incredible sense of humor, found in modern Jewish culture (reflected in Yiddish's superb armory of put-downs, and one-ups) seems as logical as matzoh balls ? Okay, yeah, some Hasidim are going to come for me now, discover I'mgoyim, and reduce me to bupkis.
The greatest irony is that you can never use any degree of irony without offending someone.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, how can it be that my shade clad smiley gave you the impression of me being offended?
How can it be that my intentional triple repetition of "kosher" (to you) did not in any way indicate any degree of irony ?
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: how can it be that my shade clad smiley gave you the impression of me being offended?
I was not operating as if anyone was offended, or offensive; I was, am, operating, in a state of partial euphoria consequent to a long nap in 104F degree heat, breathing air full of PM2.5 from post-harvest corn-stalks burning ... after which too many things became too meaningful ... based on the principle that suffering and/or exaltation shared is suffering and/or exaltation diluted ... I headed for the sanctuary of the Lounge, where I knew could meet with equally suffering, or exalted, fellow sinners
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enuff Ruff! I would write silly things in 104F too. 
Life is too shor
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: I would write silly things in 104F
Silliness and profundity: another polarity bound by a strange attractor; another phenomenon so altered by the act of observation that whether the observer is scratched by the half-dead kitty, or the half-alive kitty, is ... a toss-up.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: 104F degree heat
Anyone know what that is in real money?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Because he can't handle irony?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
megaadam wrote: I misread your post completely
You are not alone.
Three different reads of the same words, there, Bill. For comedy/irony, you need to be really tight.
6/10 Must try harder
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Three different reads of the same words
The only thing I infer from three interpretations is that three interpreters were naive enough to assume there is any interpretation possible, most likely without ever reading the article by Hoffman, and actually thinking about it.
"Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. Between the
two, my life flows." Nisargadata
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Y'know, I used to talk to people like that (almost precisely, but with more big words, more Milton and Shakespeare quotes, and less name-dropping) when I was seventeen, but I soon realised that doing so was going against the very purpose of language.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
every time I get my binoculars out they shut their curtains
|
|
|
|
|
They're watching you too. How else would they know you're getting your binoculars out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
There have in the past been some people who sit in the car facing my house. Parke on the street for no obvious reason.
I have 15x 70mm binoculars. They are big.
Me standing on the porch, looking back through it. They drive away 
|
|
|
|
|
Get a telescope and you'll see half of it.
|
|
|
|
|
We all know that we should program against interfaces not implementations, because when we decouple that we get a lot more manageable code. There is no question about that.
I think almost all IoC-frameworks (Castle Windsor, Ninject, etc.) are able to scan assemblies for interface implementations and instantiate those classes at run-time. That means that we do not even need a reference to the assembly which is implementing the needed functionality. Cool, a lot of decoupling is going on... But that means, that we have to copy all the needed assemblies manually somehow. VS can't do this for us any longer. Same with the VS-Setup project. It isn't able to detect the necessary assemblies any more.
Is that a goal? It feels to me like this makes life harder as it needs to be...
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
