Sunday, September 21, 2008

they're called "idioms" for the most part, aside from the one you suspect was invented and is used by your friend alone.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Expressions that interest me

If I knew more about literature, or social-anything, I would probably already know what to call these phrases that follow, or know where to find them in a more inclusive text.  But I don't.  So I'll amuse myself by recording them here.

"I know, right?"
I'm not exactly sure what this is even supposed to mean.  It's a statement, followed by a question that nobody except the asker would be capable of answering!  I'm sure it's been around in an incidental form for as long as English has been around, but in the last year or two it seems to have exploded.  I have people texting it to me, and even hear it in movies.

"[Name] Mc[Name, same or similar to previous]."
e.g.: "Stinky McStinkerson" or "Stupid McUglyface"
I still contend that *I* made this up.  I've been using it for years, and had never heard anyone else use it until relatively recently.  If my pre-college journal hadn't been eaten up in a server crash disaster, I would probably have proof.

"He [verb, present tense] [verb, past participal]."
e.g.: "He needs beaten-down" or "They need whupped!"
I am pretty sure that this simply comes down to the removal of the words "to be" from any statement with an auxiliary verb.  (Though I do recall noting a few uses where that general rule didn't fit quite right.)

This construction was something I'd absolutely never heard before moving to Ohio for college.  In my dorm suite, it was frequently invoked in terms of punishment, but I've heard it use more generically by others, as well.  Returning to the West, after college, I heard it much less, but still did occasionally hear someone bust it out in the middle of otherwise grammatically correct statements.

"Hell yeah, Godsmack."
Ok, I can only attribute this one to my friend, Chris.  I have no idea where it came from, and have no intention of asking him.  It sounds too manufactured to be original.  All I know is any situation that merits vehement agreement, he'll respond with that phrase.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

A review of Google Chrome reviews, or, my rant to Scott

Yesterday, the beta of the Google Chrome web browser was released to the general public.  A few days before that, the "comic book" that Google made to describe its many technical details in a friendly way was accidentally leaked.  I lustily read the entirety of the comic the morning that the beta was due to be released, occasionally gushing about random points to my brother over IM.  I knew it was going to be something important.

So much so, that I emailed my old buddy Scott about it, telling him to get ready for the next Big Google Thing.

Then this morning, three things happened.
1.) I read a "review" of Chrome that was linked from CNN's front page
2.) I angrily shouted aloud to myself about its rampant lies
3.) I received a forwarded email from Scott that he'd received from a coworker, linking to the aforementioned angering CNN "review".  (I hesitate/refuse to give it unquoted creedance.  That would be like calling it a "review" when an 8-year-old decries Algebra to be faulty and unnecessary because he doesn't even understand basic arithematic.)

So then a fourth thing happened.  I spent a half hour ranting to Scott via email.  Here that email is:


(And, I hope consequently, [Scott's coworker]...)

I read that review also.  So allow me to rant! ;-D

It's funny you should pass this along to me, because I was so infuriated at about a half dozen things that CNN ignoramus said, that I desperately searched for a "comment" or "reply" link to read him the riot act -- but of course there was none, so I AM going to email him directly and be even more scathing.

First, get your tech news from a REAL tech website!!!!
From Slashdot (aka, "News for Nerds")...
...there are three good reviews linked:

Here is a significant quote from the first link:

Stephen Shankland [of CNET News] ... confirms Google's claim that Chrome is "many times faster" than its rivals at running JavaScript... He arrived at this conclusion by personally testing the new browser against Internet Explorer, IE 8 beta 2, Firefox 3.0.1 and Safari 3.1.2.  Indeed, that's the consensus among reviewers, readers and the many comments I've read so far about this browser, with some even exclaiming that Chrome is killing both IE 7 and Firefox 3 on their system in boot up, close out, page rendering, and Javascript.
Like CNET, the above reviews use ACTUAL benchmarking measurements, not just vague feelings derived from a flawed control setup -- and probably most importantly -- were done by people with half a brain AND computer knowledge.

My oh my, what could I mean by that slanderous statement?  Well, that brings us to...
Second, let's consider the qualifications of this meathead reviewer!

Let's pull out some things that Mr. CNN says, and you decide for yourself if he sounds likeanyone you'd want to be taking computer advice from.  (Or, if it sounds more like, say, your mom assuring everyone the computer is too old and slow because "the internet's not working" when she's using a very weak wifi signal.)

Retarded statement #1:

When playing a YouTube video, Firefox 3 took up 95 percent of the CPU time on a three-year old laptop running Windows XP.

While playing a YouTube video!??!?!?  Ok...  I considered quoting ONLY this, because you really need nothing else to prove this guy does not know what he is talking about.  Does that sound like it could POSSIBLY be right to you, Scott my friend?  I suspect the moron is actually looking at the "CPU Idle" percentage, and not firefox's.  He could be that dumb, judging from his article.  If FF is indeed using that much CPU, then he's definitely got some other crazy shit happening on his computer

P.S.: on MY 3-year-old laptop running windows XP and Firefox3, I have well over 100 tabs open and Firefox is taking all of 6% of my CPU.

Retarded statement #2:

Merely having a YouTube page open on your screen will suck power from your computer's central processing unit, or CPU. This is outrageous behavior for a browser.

I am not even going to credit this with a real response.
Ok, maybe a little.
Having ANYTHING open will "suck power" from the CPU.  It's not a magic box where once pixels are in place, they're held there by fucking gravity or something!!!  What does he THINK will happen??!  Close the goddamned window if you don't want that CPU load, which, again, shouldn't be NOWHERE near the load his infected computer might be declaring.

Retarded statement #3:

Frequently, Firefox would slow down all the other applications on my computer, then seize up completely.

OK, again... Scott, my friend... as a fellow FF user, how often does this happen to YOU???  Either thing.  Firefox affects other applications on his computer!?!?  Unless you ARE pegging your processor, that's just patently untrue.  That's the whole point of XP/NT's multithreaded processing!!

And seizing up completely is something that happens to him frequently!?!?  What!?  What is this yokel doing!?  Firefox has crashed on me so infrequently that I can only remember once in recent memory!  I doubt as if you are much different.  This guy clearly has no place reviewing anything computer related.  

Also, I wrote this email in Gmail in Chrome, and it WAS noticeably faster!  Also, when Chrome did crash on me (and I should probably quote it like "crash") it put up the nice screen (attached) and I just hit reload and was back where I was.  Beautiful!!

Anyway, pass that back along :-D