How to auto close the parent / opener window without confirmation!

[Richard Cornford]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

... . If you would have read the Jargon File (maintained
by Eric S. Raymond, one of the most famous hackers), ...

<snip>

I have always thought that any attempt to convey meaning with language
is most likely to be successful if it uses as little jargon a practical.
In discussing javascript we have little choice but use some terms that
could reasonably be described as jargon (and certainly must sound like
it to the uninitiated) but there seems little to be gained from going
out and looking for additional jargon to introduce.

Richard.

 

[Ivan Marsh]

Ivan Marsh said:

The original definition of a word is often interesting trivia, but it
doesn't carry as much weight as you seem to expect when discussing the
current meaning of a word.

It's time the real hackers took the word back.

There are many examples of English words and phrases that have evolved
to mean exactly the opposite of their original definitions.

In the case of "hacker" it's important trivia. True hackers are why the
computer revolution happened and the internet became what it is.

Hacker didn't evolve. It was co-opted by the media that never bothered to
find out what it really meant. It had it's meaning changed before it ever
had a common usage.

That's incompetence not evolution.

Amusing from a previous post (don't know who wrote it):

"Humann language is what it is. And human language evolves. To "Xerox"
something is to photocopy it, blowing your nose with a "Kleenex" means
you're using a facial tissue. To "google" means to search the Internet for
information."

Xerox meant to copy something ... it still means to copy something.
Kleenex meant facial tissue ... it still means facial tissue. Google meant
to search ... it still means to search.

Good examples.

 

[Richard Cornford]

It's time the real hackers took the word back.

Anyone genuinely adept at the solving of problems (with computers or
otherwise) would perceive the futility of the effort, given the weight
of numbers favouring the "popular" interpretation of the word. It would
probably be more practical to think up a new label (assuming that some
sort of label is seen as desirable/necessary).

Amusing from a previous post (don't know who wrote it):

"Humann language is what it is. And human language evolves. To
"Xerox" something is to photocopy it, blowing your nose with a
"Kleenex" means you're using a facial tissue. To "google" means
to search the Internet for information."

Xerox meant to copy something ... it still means to copy something.
Kleenex meant facial tissue ... it still means facial tissue.
Google meant to search ... it still means to search.

Xerox is the name of a manufacturer of copiers (among other things) and
presumably the decided upon the name before Xerox sold a single copier,
which presumably preceded it becoming a description of the act of
copying. Whoever though up the name may have perceived it as meaning
something completely different. Much the same is true of Kleenex and
Google.

Good examples.

They are examples of the way words come into popular usage and gain
meaning where they may originally have had none. The evolution of
language might be better expressed with a word such as "cool", which at
one time expressed no more than relative temperature (and/or the loss of
temperature).

Richard.

 

[Randy Webb]

Perry Cheng wrote:

OK, Richard... I am puzzled... what I am asking is related to hacking???

Your Question Mark key is borken. [psf 2.3]

No, it worked perfectly. 3 times in fact.

It seems more that it was pressed only once (as it is correct)
but returned three question marks. But you know what I mean.

That is highly doubtful, since most newbies will add multiple question
marks to attempt to emphasize the question.

It is not, the typo os deliberate.

Then you should learn proper English and how to spell appropriately.

Yes, because it is part of (hacker) jargon, as I have (or was it another
poster?) already explained. If you would have read the Jargon File
(maintained by Eric S. Raymond, one of the most famous hackers), you
would have known. I am beginning to get bored of you playing stupid.

No, I have no need, nor desire, to read anything by Eric S. Raymond as I
already know what a hacker is and how to spell broken. If you had the
first clue what you were talking about, this would be more than hilarious.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Perry Cheng wrote:
OK, Richard... I am puzzled... what I am asking is related to hacking???
Your Question Mark key is borken. [psf 2.3]
No, it worked perfectly. 3 times in fact.

It seems more that it was pressed only once (as it is correct)
but returned three question marks. But you know what I mean.

That is highly doubtful, since most newbies will add multiple question
marks to attempt to emphasize the question.

Which is still bad style.

No, I have no need, nor desire, to read anything by Eric S. Raymond as I
already know what a hacker is and how to spell broken. If you had the
first clue what you were talking about, this would be more than hilarious.

You are who has not the any clue what and who
you are talking about. Go read some documents.

<http://catb.org/~esr/>
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/>
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html>
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/borken.html>


EOD

PointedEars

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

[question mark key, used repeatedly]

Which is still bad style.

Yes, that was never in question. But the key isn't broken.

Go read some documents.

I think most of the people in this particular discussion are quite
familiar with The Jargon File. However, as the name imlies, it is
a reference for jargon, not the common use of the words (if any).

In a forum as diverse and international as a Usenet group, using
jargon makes messages harder to understand, and should be considered
bad style. Not as bad as exchanging words with phonetically equivalent
letter combinations, but it still detracts from readability.

/L

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Yes, that was never in question. But the key isn't broken.

[_] You have understood.
[X] Your irony detector is borken.

I think most of the people in this particular discussion are quite
familiar with The Jargon File. However, as the name imlies, it is
a reference for jargon, not the common use of the words (if any).

In a forum as diverse and international as a Usenet group, using
jargon makes messages harder to understand, and should be considered
bad style. Not as bad as exchanging words with phonetically equivalent
letter combinations, but it still detracts from readability.

What you forgot is that this Jargon File is but a collection of
jargon created by hackers, the people who originally built Usenet
and keep it running which is (therefore) still full of jargon:
ASAP, FAQ, FOAD, IM(H)O, LOL, ROTFL, RTFM, TIA, just to mention
some of them. Even smileys are a part of that. This group is a
part of Usenet. To refuse or even ignore all this means to
refuse or ignore the very nature of this medium, like it or not.


F'up2 poster (BTW another part of that *Usenet* jargon)

PointedEars

 

[Grant Wagner]

Actually, the book talks to and about the people that made up the term.

Then the people who "made up the term" made the same mistake you're making
now. At the time hacker was used by the people in the book, it did have
anything to do with computers. Therefore at _that_ time _they_ were using the
word "hacker" incorrectly.

Now you're claiming that _that_ meaning is the "one true meaning" and that
everyone else is "wrong".

Which is NOT the original definition of hacker.

Right, the original definition of hacker is "one who hacks".

Which is NOT the original definition of hacker.

Right, the original definition of hacker is "one who hacks".

The second definition is as inaccurate as the first.

Better get on the phone to Merriam-Webster then.

The definition you insist is the "one true defintion" is as inaccurate, or
accurate, as all the rest. The word changes meaning given the point-of-view of
the user of the word, and the context in which it appears.

I'll say it again because you seem to be missing the point. When these
computer people defined the word "hacker" to mean _anything_, _they_ were
mis-using the word "hacker". Now you're saying any meaning other then the one
_they_ defined in relation to computers is a mis-use.

I deal with stupid people every day.

I didn't say deal with stupid people. I said that language evolves, and that
you should accept that what a word means now is not what a word may mean in 2,
5 or 10 years, or even 6 months. People "surf" the World Wide Web, they "logon
to" Web sites that don't provide any authentication challenge. People use DSL
"modems" and hit the power switch on their "CPU". Perhaps you should spend
your time doing something more productive then trying to get everyone to agree
with your definition of "hacker" and calling them stupid when they understand
what you obviously do not.

 

[Ivan Marsh]

Ivan Marsh wrote:

Perhaps you should spend your time doing something more productive then
trying to get everyone to agree with your definition of "hacker" and
calling them stupid when they understand what you obviously do not.

Says the guy that posted his reply to the wrong group in the wrong thread.

You must be a hacker.