Mother-in-laws is incorrect because it makes the wrong word plural. There are two ways to look at it. The first is that "-in-law" is essentially an adjective, and unlike in other languages (e.g., Spanish), adjectives are not pluralized if describing plural nouns. (This is also why it is Attorneys General and not Attorney Generals.) Second, that it are the mothers, not the laws, that is being pluralized.
This may be a common mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless.
[overconfident(?) comment by someone who has taken exactly one (1) linguistics class]
That seems prescriptivist.
If people take "Mother-in-law" to be a single word, then it is a single word. And if they take "Mother-in-laws" to be the plural of this word, then it is the plural of that word.
Language is determined by usage. People do not say "s-in-law" , they say "in-laws".
I don't mean that you can't have a preference that usage be a particular way. I might even encourage it. If you prefer people using "mothers-in-law" over "mother-in-laws" for the reasons you gave, that's fair. Go ahead and try to convince people to say it that way. Maybe they will agree with you, that doing it only that way has advantages. I can certainly see doing it that way having advantages in some cases.
But for it to be "wrong", there has to be some standard for it to be "wrong" by.
When speaking about english as it is spoken, the standard is pretty much the ways in which people speak it.
[/overconfident(?) comment by someone who has taken exactly one (1) linguistics class]
MS Stack Advantages:
- Backwards compatible for businesses where that matters (any B2B company tends to need this)
- Tends to be easy to integrate with Windows security/domains/etc
- C# is a fantastic language, and it's getting better with each release
- Has a growing open source environment, check out everything StackExchange has released, and NancyFx for my two favorite examples
- Mono means that eventually you'll be able to swap out your server with Linux if you're brave and persistent
- Entity Framework and Linq to Sql do a good job of abstracting your database layer
- If you're using SQL Server (a pretty good, but expensive, database server) using a MS Stack means you can easily (and fully) enjoy everything it has to offer
IIS is pretty well documented online. Generally I can just google a short english sentence with exactly what I want to do and get it running.
C# Learning resources: What language are you coming from? If Java then just start using PascaleCase instead of camelCase. Then get Jon Skeet's "C# in Depth." If your coming from something else there's half a dozen good intro books (pick any, based on how good you are at picking up new languages). Then still get "C# in Depth."
Entity Framework is pretty straightforward to use...the MSDN docs are great, and the wizard gives you a good intro. Otherwise I'm sure there are books out there. I find experimentation and googling effective.
I worked for an NLP research think tank for a while and we always created text files as intermediate steps to each part of our system. It was basically a cache of each step, and you could restart the system at whatever step did work.
Hard drive space is cheap. Use as much as you want.
Making it clear that he doesn't need to buy equipment is a good thing. I agree with you that logging results as you go is worthwhile, but for data munging, I think it's better to keep your data in it's original source, and document how you get your data into the system in code, and not require somebody reproducing your results to have a huge HD or buy something.
As an aside, I was also a social scientist originally. My first degree was in Psychology. The first time I felt like a programmer was taking supplied R code that would have taken 8+ days to finish (2400 Rausch scores at 5 minutes each), and got the whole thing to run in less than a minute by moving from sequential search of every possibility to a probing strategy to find the score that best fit the curve. Learning how to be more efficient in your code, to use less space, or time through a better algorithm to handle your data, is both useful in it's own right, and intellectually rewarding.
Dear employers, please stop mentioning 'remote' unless a) you're OK with r-emote employees, or b) your business is all about about disrupting "r-emote controls", innovating "r-emote assistance" or something like that.
If your posting doesn't include it we'll assume it's not allowed, and you're well within your rights to toss out any application that does request it. Look at it as the easiest filter you'll ever find for resumes. If you really feel need to stress that the job isn't for r-emote workers just say 'LOCAL ONLY' or something like that. Pretty please?
@_whoishiring could you add something to that effect to the monthly post?
LOCAL ONLY with caps on should be fine. Because, from my experience, if the company doesn't mention rem0te, it doesn't really mean that they are not open to rem0te candidates, especially if you're a good fit.
I know I could do it with a pretty straightforward script, but it's not as simple as a ctrl+f, and it requires me being on a machine w/ unix tools (i.e. not a PC or mobile device).
Yeah, this is really annoying. Ctrl-f r emote and I just get millions of "no re mote" posts. I think most people assume it's not remo te unless stated explicitly, so there's no need to say 'no rem ote'.
Try not to use the word '*emote' unless it's pertinent to the job posting. Some of us are looking to work from home, jobs and using the phrase makes it tough to scan through the results.
