I do not see that a space makes much of a difference.
Plenty of linguists would admit 'login' as a verb. There is very little difficulty in accepting that 'to log in' and 'to login' mean the same thing.
In this case "in" does not function as a preposition, it is part of the verb. The evidence for this is immediately apparent when we consider that "to log" and "to log in" really are two different activities. We do not mean that we record anything when we login to a machine, what we are doing is obtaining access to it by means of an exchange of previously established authenticating information - and while this step may involve making a record of our login, it need not for the basic sense of that action to remain intact.
Also, we have no trouble with a multi-word verbs in English, if you don't believe me, try googling 'phrasal verbs'. This article is either a gag, or really is just an example prescriptavist nonsense which attempts in futility to combat the last 50 years of linguistic consensus.
if (false) {
self.the_one_language_I_should_learn = "the best one";
} else {
delete(self.the_one_language_I_should_learn);
while (self.could_improve) {
self.programming_skills_and_insights_struggled_with++
}
}
There is intrinsic to the academic system a pervasive issue of trust.
Grades can indicate the depth of knowledge, but with the disclaimer that both the arbitrating grader is trusted (in a very special sense), and that the method used to decide grades be both defensible and explicable to others.
To provide a concrete example. A paper on the first book of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature attempts to bring a new argument to bear on the consequences to modern epistemology incurred by Hume's concept of abstract ideas. The paper is written as a final in a graduate level philosophy class, and the instructor is known to be knowledgeable, intelligent, fair, and honest. The paper receives a B+. It is arguable that the mark is generally reflective of the student's understanding and ability at the time the student wrote the paper. (this example is taken from personal experience - I wrote this paper, and I feel that the grade was reflective of my knowledge on the topic)
But without the trustworthy instructor, the grade would be meaningless. The problem, if I were to speculate, is one of numbers - too many students, too few professors. A basic premise of security is that the more parties involved in a pact, the lest reliable the pact is, and if grades are to be a faithfully representation of a students ability, the reliability of the academic pact is paramount.
For me it was quite the opposite. I didn't begin to show any particular interest in mathematics until proof based courses came into the picture. I would certainly not have earned a degree in mathematics were it not for my interests being piqued by a capricious used bookstore purchase of E. Kampke's Set Theory when just out of high school. It was the axiomatic proof based method that appealed to me. Calculation, on the other hand, seemed to my naive 17-year-old self to be terribly banal.
To put things in perspective, and to possibly invalidate the general application of my insight on the matter, Calculus was in fact the only course I passed my final semester of high school. I received a D shortly before I dropped out altogether. The D score was earned only after being the only student to ace the final, a task which was itself only possible after I proved the first fundamental theorem to myself (thanks to an especially verbose description of it in one of the exam questions) during the course of the test.
To this day I find that the actual solving of equations to be tedious and can only be interested in problems tenable to axiomatic and algorithmic approaches. Thats where all the fun is imho. Who cares about actually determining a number (or equation)? [the answer: all the smartest people do.]
personally, I think that the husband was lucky to last as long as he did without succumbing to torpid disillusionment with himself, his potentialities, and his powers. I'm so jaded and disgusted with myself most of the time that I tend to not trust anybody who doesn't seem to want to blow their own brains out.
Gardening. I give my self one computer-free-day each week in which I garden. Working with one's hands instead of one's head provides a much needed relief after a week of programming, designing, and hacking at software. During the winter, cooking and baking fill a similar, but not quite as satisfactory, experience.
The contrast from coding intrinsic to vegetable gardening is especially satisfying - one can sit back and watch the fruits of one's labor manifest themselves. When one codes, one knows that his inactivity results in nothing. Not so with gardening, aside from some maintenance, the initial work constitutes a self-fulfilling promise.
I did that for the last 18 months and have recently taken a temp (6 month) programming gig to amass some capital before I revert to crumbbumhood.
On the one hand - the professional slacker lifestyle is pretty brilliant: youu sleep when you're tired, work on whatever you like, and you can finally get that stack of books read.
On the other hand - the lifestyle can be somewhat isolating, especially so when you find that everyone else is asleep when you're awake. It becomes too easy to lose yourself in tangents, endlessly exploring to eternal infecundity.
So - while I agree - it is a great lifestyle - I make one small addendum: to be "magically unemployed" along with two or three other persons whose interests all overlap.
Listen... I studied Math (B.S), Philosophy (Minor), and Classical Literature(B.A). I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage a bit of perspective on your part.
Sure, read some books, give them good thought, encourage others to read them too. Write poetry, publish articles, and start groups to discuss and reevaluate the social, psychological, and aesthetic relationships expressed by and represented in artistic productions. Think about, read up on, and be interested in history, social geography, food politics, 10th century Latin lyrics, the structuralist writings of Roland Barthes (Mythologies is one of my personal all time favorite books), and the consequences of modernism in the 21st century - do all of that. I'm saying do it. But do not attempt to argue that the study of the natural world is bereft of its own wonder, beauty, and artistry. Science, and more importantly, the scientific perspective, has liberated us (as a civilization) from the oppression of authority-as-truthmaker, and imbued us with an inquisitive fact-seeking attitude that serves the progress of humanity.
I'm giving you a point up - you deserve a second chance.
Plenty of linguists would admit 'login' as a verb. There is very little difficulty in accepting that 'to log in' and 'to login' mean the same thing.
In this case "in" does not function as a preposition, it is part of the verb. The evidence for this is immediately apparent when we consider that "to log" and "to log in" really are two different activities. We do not mean that we record anything when we login to a machine, what we are doing is obtaining access to it by means of an exchange of previously established authenticating information - and while this step may involve making a record of our login, it need not for the basic sense of that action to remain intact.
Also, we have no trouble with a multi-word verbs in English, if you don't believe me, try googling 'phrasal verbs'. This article is either a gag, or really is just an example prescriptavist nonsense which attempts in futility to combat the last 50 years of linguistic consensus.