News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New Google+ is beautiful? by archgoon on Thursday May 16, 2013 @11:50PM (#5722604)
I would normally let this go, but I really dislike the holier than thou attitude with your "bastardization of language". Computer Science and mathematics would be much poorer if it didn't allow for people to generalize concepts. So let's get started.

1) Streams branch and merge all the time.

http://www.mightystreamradio.com/PHOTOS/STREAM%20PHOTO%202.j...

If anyone's bastardizing the language, it's computer scientists being overly restrictive with their allusions.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphrys_law

> But please, let's don't call it a stream.

"But please, let's not call it a stream."

Re:New Google+ is beautiful? by thebear on Friday May 17, 2013 @12:48AM (#5722733)
You live and learn. I always thought "Let's don't" was a joke, something you say facetiously to indicate that you do care about grammar. It turns out that "Let's don't" has arrived in that grey area between grammatically right and wrong where many consider it just non-standard, but not wrong:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let%27s

What I find really interesting is that in British English, it's "Don't let's." How does that happen? But we digress.

Re:New Google+ is beautiful? by transient on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:32AM (#5723126)
"Don't let's" is grammatical - "do not let us" is the opposite of "let us". A bit old-fashioned, though.
Re:New Google+ is beautiful? by thebear on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:52AM (#5723180)
Ah, of course, I should have seen that. Now it all makes sense. Thanks for explaining!