God, if you're going to do the obligatory "Marry me!" Slashdot post, be honest about it! (Hint: Not all women are in to misandry. Really!)
Try this on for size. Maybe it's not a "Marry me!" Slashdot post. Maybe I'm being honest in my opinions and heartfelt in my statements.
I placed the "seeming" (should have been "seemingly") in the statement in order to indicate more of a subjunctive mood, and less of of an indicative one. Thus rendering my point-of-view, and opinion, rather than a statement of fact.
You're free to disagree, as is the entire benefit and purpose of opinions. I'm not telling you I'm right, rather I'm telling you my opinion.
My statements are not misandric, as it is true by my experience that a woman who is willing to flaunt her sexuality will attract more men, and exercise a great deal of control over their actions and attitudes towards her.
But the same is true of women also. It is very easy for a man to "say the right things", and exert the same form of control over women. We're all led by our desires to be loved/wanted by those that we find attractive.
For women who abuse their role, look at the office flirts, who use their sexuality for favors, and promotions.
For men who abuse their role, look at the guys who have the mustang "in the shop", or for real, know all the right lines, and just want to "love a girl", and tell her not to feel guilty about loving them back.
I'm just stating my experiences, and honest beliefs, and I'm not interestd in writing a "Marry Me!" Slashdot post to tokengamegrrl, as I already have a girl that I'm interested in, and I care about, and nothing in her post even lead me to even think about writing a "Marry Me!" Slashdot post.
In fact, now I'm upset that just because I wrote an affirming post to a female response that I'm somehow writing a "Marry Me!" post. CAN'T I JUST FUCKING AGREE WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT WANTING TO GET IN HER PANTS?
I've been discussing this with one of my other friends, both of us seeming more enlightened than most woman-exploiting men.
I raised the point that there will always be women who will exploit their female gender to get ahead as long as males make it so easy to do. Most men are ridiculously gullible for a woman who knows just what to do. (The same also applies in reverse.) So as long as it's easy for one side to exploit the other, they're going to do that.
If that means that women gamers who are attractive can also make better money (or reach any such other goal) by using their bodies to exploit the male sexual interest in them, then that's what they're going to do.
All that said, I am a woman gamer and enjoy playing games. For me, the entertainment is in playing, not competing
This is a point that is very true for most every culture if not all cultures. Women are less competative than men, and more socially-oriented, and collaborative. That's not to say that no women are competative, but that on the majority most women are like you and don't see a need to do everything the fastest, bestest way possible, and spend hours honing skills to a sharp edge.
If a woman can develop their skills to the point that they are beneficial to the group that they are in, then that is sufficient.
My friend raises the point that one of the problems with this whole article and such is that people keep trying to make female gamers into male games. That just doesn't work. Women and men have separate goals to achieve in life, games, and entertainment.
To expect women to become ultra-competative and overcome male games in skill level is delusional at this time, and in our society.
They're big, but Wal-mart does not have a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. They're a major player in almost all retail markets but pick any particular segment (even the broad department store category) and there are many, many competitors to Wal-mart.
Oh, I have no doubt that they're not a monopoly. In fact, in the Seattle area they're a very poor market, in that I hardly see commercials for them, and their stores are miniscule out here, and only open limited hours.
Meanwhile, go to Las Cruces, NM, where Wal-Mart is essentially THE place to buy your groceries, etc, etc. And they're open 24-hours a day. They were so popularly used that they had to open up a second store. All this in an area, and population significantly smaller than that Eastside of the Seattle area, which only has two Wal-Marts also.
But when Wal-mart makes over twice what all their competitors make combined upon a nationwide market? Suddenly you have a huge hulking 800 lbs gorilla that gets anything it wants.
Same is true with Blockbuster, they're not a monopoly in video rental, but they're so important a market, that they can easily "abuse" that position.
I'm sorry but MS calls what the do interoperability? It's more like "make the other guy make it work and then break it occasonaly" honestly.
No, Microsoft interoperability is much similar to the way every company works. Run a battery of tests against every new version to verify that you didn't break anything.
This of course would require them to operate machines that run Linux, Novel Netware, etc in order to test for true interoperability.
Windows is very much a fluid target point, where the actual operation of the program is the specification itself. Or more accurately, earlier expected operation of the program. Such that in many cases there is AppCompat stuff all over the place to make sure that application blah doesn't regress its errors that it had at one point.
I find it difficult to understand how Linux can avoid these AppCompat issues... oh wait, specs defining behavior, and if an App breaks, it's the Apps fault for using undefined behavior, and not the library/kernels fault for breaking the App.
Neither one of you intelligent, +5 Insightful posters seem to have a clue regarding how to analyze a survey or why this is just more Slow News Day hot air.
Oh no, I very much see this as just more Slow News Day hot air. Just for different reasons than you.
I've "studied" popular kids and what they do. They get interested in something, play it out, then eventually let go of it, or at least decrease their interest in it.
Just recently the popular kids were all getting way into the vibe of video gaming. Kids who would never have boughten a computer for gaming because it was "geeky" were buying computers, and console systems to play the latest and greatest GTA game or FPS.
I *saw* this shit happen right in front of my eyes.
Now, it's any surprise that interests may turn, and not just to sex? All these people are assuming that those surveyed are "just getting older and learning about sex." or something stupid like that. No, it's not all about that. (Naturally some of it is.) But this is just popularity shifting. It's not the death of video gaming by any means, it's just the start of a gradual decline of popular culture interest.
26 years and counting. Hell of a "fad". I guess Grandma was right about Jackson at least.;-)
Just couldn't think of the right word to describe it, and it's the bset thing that fit. No, it's not a complete "fad", but the popular kids sitting down playing the Halo on X-Box Live! with all their friends is the fad.
They enjoy/enjoyed it, and they will eventually find something more interesting/fun to do. Like AirSoft pellet guns, or something like that.
At the very least, everyone in this forum is discussing why individuals would decrease their video game interests over time individually, not why a whole age group of people would lose interest as new people come in to replace those leaving the age group.
Your point is much more intelligent, unlike everyone else in this forum, who's going on about "teens think screwing > gaming", I'm not going to take as much of a narrow view. Reasoning why? Kids were playing these games hard-core to begin with over sex.
Sex has little to do with the change of interests here. What's actually the case is that fads, and popularity of things are generally determined by what other people are doing. These kids were playing video games because their friends were all playing video games, and they didn't want to be left out.
Same reason people bought Pet Rocks. You bought them because everyone else was.
Unlike Pet Rocks though, video gaming is not a useless exercise, and contains a reasonable enjoyment level, similar to television. I expect to see gaming decrease in popularity as kids find other entertainment to do, and we'll see the amount of gaming level off.
God, heaven forbid table-top RPGs ever become truely popular with the in-crowd. Then when they all would lose interest, everyone would think that RPGs would be dying out, when they would really just be returning to normal levels. Just like what's happening with gaming right now
True. In my LAN gaming group, we used to play with open speakers for all to hear. It was common habit that if you were searching for someone, you would jump, and listen for their speakers to make any noise.
This worked well to your advantage until people started bringing surround sound systems and could target you based on the 3D positioning information afforded them. Sure you know that they heard you jumping, but now they know which direction you're in, and you don't.
Of course, all that stopped once we started bringing just headphones to the games. It turned out that the biggest advantage over even being able to positionally locate someone, was to not even let them listen in to what you were doing.
... But why should the widescreen folk have a better view than the 4:3 folk? Imagine playing a game online, and you have a 4:3 screen. It's great, it looks good. But then someone else you are playing against has a 16:9 widescreen and he sees not only what you are able to see, but more (on the sides). So his 'character' has a better peripheral vision because he has a widescreen monitor?
Blame the industry for lack of foresight, meanwhile, me and my widescreens will enjoy the extra peripheral viewspace.
To note though, I have a PowerPC Mac with widescreen, and got the Doom3 demo, and I had to bump up the POV in order to not get a "stretched" image. Meaning the resolution was widened but the angle of view was still the same as an unstretched monitor.
In this case, everyone is able to set the POV to the same values that I am, and the Doom-engined games have long allowed servers to restrict POV ranges, since people could set these to very high values, adjust to them, and thus end up being able to see out the sides of their heads.
Having the widescreen stretch the view out seems like less of a programming issue and more of a gamer-fairness issue.
If one is actually concerned about this "fairness" issue, then Macs have offered for a long time a resolution where it is not stretched, but rather the standard resolution centered in the middle of the screen. This looks a HECK of a lot better than a stretched resolution, where people look fat, and distorted.
Also, again the same point as above, anyone can adjust POV angles in the games that support it, so if you're willing to deal with a distorted image, you can have the same POV range as I do.
And what is it, exactly, that makes my reply a "rant"? This word would imply that my words were angry and/or violent.
Not angry and/or violent. Perhaps you're not aware of common internet usage of the word "rant". A rant is simply anyone rambling on about something just because they disagree...
By not having paragraphs, you look like you're rambling and not forming well formed coherent statements. It looks like you're just "ranting away".
Hell, it's so bloched together, I didn't *READ* the thing to find out if you were even actually angry. But the first two sentences were fairly clearly an objection, and the rest of it was just rambled together.
Perhaps you should look at the article again. It is from The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. Once again it is back to your opinion about improper usage of the word. You do realize that a) English is not an "American" invention and b) Canadian English is more closely related to British English than it is American English. Further, RIM is a Canadian company and while I cannot find any profile information for James Balsillie on RIM's homepage I am taking a "leap of faith" and assuming that he is Canadian. Hence, we are once again returned to the fact that it is strictly your opinion, and perhaps a little bit of ignorance on your part, that the word was used incorrectly.
Well if someone just SAID that it was all Canadian English from the start, and not just get all pissed at me for complaining about alternate usage, then I'd have apologized upfront.
Shit, people need to learn how to tell people that they're wrong. Stop telling me wrong just because a dictionary tells me I'm wrong, I don't give a crap about some authority. Tell me I'm wrong, because I have my premises were wrong in the first place:P
That is an interesting argument coming from someone who is complaining about the improper usage of the word assure in a news article. I find your last sentence in the above quote rather humorous given the current topic of discussion.
You gotta learn what I'm doing when I'm complaining. I'm not saying I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm saying, I wouldn't do something like this, and it bothers me. Yes, this usage of "assure" bothers me. And damn well right, I know saying "nookyoolur" bothers other people.
I heckle them for it, and I expect to be heckled by anyone who says that "assure" is being used properly here. But in my personal position, this usage of "assure" is not common usage in America. And not knowing the country of origin here, I assumed that they were American, and got my premises wrong. You corrected that with the first paragraph I quoted in this comment. Thanks for the correction, it would have been a hell of a lot more useful than a stupid "you're wrong fucktard" like everyone seems to ever give around here.
Actually I would consider the people who work for Oxford English Dictionary, and to some degree the folks at Merriam-Webster, to be the guardians of the English language.
Yeah, guardians of the English language. Just like Bush is the guardian of American values. Values and language change. If "assure" came into common usage here in the US, I'd not complain about this usage. In fact, in 5 years, I may come back here, and go "what the hell was I complaining about?" But this is my idiolect now, and it sounds wrong to me.
1) The Globe and Mail -- Canadian Newspaper Got that. A good point of correction that is the first constructive comment I've seen on this whole argument, and as such, is the first real piece of information that means jack to me.
2) RIM -- Canadian Company (leading me to believe James Balsillie is Canadian) Got that. A good point of correction that is the second constructive comment I've seen on this whole argument.
3) Canadian English does not equal American English Knew that. I didn't know in the first place that this was Canadian English we were discussing. I was discussing within the US-centric dialog that is common on Slashdot.
4) The English language was invented by the occupants of what is now England Just a little point of interest here. The English spoken in America is closer to now-archaic English (Victorian English) than the English actually spoken there now. We ennunciate more, and speak clearer. That's nothing against British English. It's simply evolved.
I'd just rather people say "American" and "English" or in some other way always indicate "US English" vs "Commonwealth English", in contexts of perscriptivism, since both have highly heated sides over stupid silly issues such like this.
Yes, according to you the sentence sounds fucked up. However, that does not necessarily mean that you are correct in your assumption that the word assure was used improperly.
I'm willing to concede archaic usages, and non-American uses that sound unusual to me as being outside of the scope of the authority of my idiolect. But using word choices that are outside of common usage is inappropriate for the media, and reporting to the media/people.
If you want a litterati president that's going to get up in front of the media and talk like a "proper" educated man, turning phrases, and using archacisms, then that's fine for you, but meanwhile, me and numerous other people are going to be totally fucking lost listening to him.
If you're using uncommon usage beware that people are going to be upset at you for it.
If your dictionary says that nuclear is pronounced "nookyoolur" then perhaps it is time you invested in a real dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list "nookyoolur" as either the British nor the American pronunciation of nuclear.
Merriam-Webster, and other respectable dictionaries *do* list this pronunciation, because it *is* in common usage. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't mean it's not being said that way.
I stand by my complaint at his usage of "assure", if you want to disagree, then that's fine, your idiolect is outside of the scope of influence of my idiolect.
Also a real dictionary would be able to let you know that there is no such word as "ideolect", which you use throughout your post. Perhaps you were thinking of "idiolect".
Pfff... English dimutes its vowels into schwas all over the place, and makes it difficult for people to remember which vowel should be written where. Combine that with learning a language that has clear and distinct vowel usage, and you have a recipe for bad spelling, because I can't remember which "vowel" goes where, because they've all been diminished beyond recognition. So, I guess. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it's just a freaking typo.
Personally I would trust the authority of a dictionary over the rantings of an individual.
As is your perfectly legitimate right. But that very same attitude is why we have the word "adventure", which is a total crock. Look up it's history. We got the word through French as "aventure", and we also got the word "avance" from French. Then people wanted to make things more like the original Latin, and they looked at "avance" and said, "Oops, this should be advance." Then someone else noticed "aventure", and said, "Hey, this should be adventure, too." and what ever authority it was that setup that rule agreed with them.
The problem is that while "avance" came from Latin by the elition of the 'd' in "advance", the word "aventure" came from Latin through a leniation of the 'b' in "abenture".
So this stupid hyper-correcting authority "broke" English, but because it's tradition now, and no one knows, and 99.999% of the population speaking English natively is going to tell you that "adventure" is correct and "abenture" is wrong, that's the way it is. So, I pity you that you think the individual's opinions don't matter. I bet you think the same thing about your vote that you cast for your elected officials.
The point is that, according to pretty much every dictionary, they two words share a common meaning. I think I would probably consider the major dictionaries to be a more scholarly source than you on the meaning of words.
The point is, that according to my ideolect, the sentence sounds fucked up.
You quote the dictionary as proper usage, the other guys quotes tradition as proper usage, and I rely upon my instinct and my ideolect. As a native speaker of English, I am afforded the right to do that.
It's all in who you trust. If you want to trust the arbitrary authority of your dictionary or "common usage", which both say that a proper pronunciation for "nuclear" is "nookyoolur", then go ahead, but perscriptionists are still going to tell you it's wrong.
If he wants to trust the arbitrary authority of tradition, and the way things used to be--or should be--then he'll mandate that "nookyoolur" is an abomination against God, and that anyone who says "nuclear" that way should be shot. But anyone who cares about common usage, and dictionaries is going to tell him that he's being over bearing.
If I want to trust my trained ear that tells me how to speak English, then I'll say that "nookyoolur" is going to be pronounced in a hundred different ways, and no one person is correct. I'd also say that using "assure" like the guy in the article is wrong.
It all depends on who you want to trust, you all go ahead and enjoy all the authority that you just abdicate your own sense of English to, and I'll trust myself, because I'm the only person who isn't going to lie to me.
Also, please note, I'm not complaining about pronunciation, I'm not complaining about spelling, I'm not complaining about anything related to actual Grammar. I'm complaining about an unusual word choice, that it appears is valid for only some subset of the English speaking world. (Note: since I am an English speaker, and I object to this usage, it must therefore be a subset, even if I'm the only person objecting, which I'm not.)
Dude, seriously.... when was the last time you saw a grammar nazi get good karma points?
did it even fleetingly occur to you that his grasp of the English language just might be superior to yours and that of the knee-jerks who modded you up?
His usage violates my ideolect. I don't argue with the sentence given for definition 4 in the dictionary you linked to. It sounds reasonable. But the text given in the article:
"RIM hopes to advance meaningful patent law reform, thus helping to assure that no other company experiences what we endured over the past five years."
Sounds wrong. For me "assure" cannot be followed by a dependent clause.
However, you probably spell colour without the "u" so I'll forgive you since the "English for Dummies" rule would come into effect.
If this is a more international usage, then I concede to that point, I can't argue international English, only what sounds good to me. And "assure that..." sounds wrong to me.
I just checked in IE6, and I thought that the bug was gone, but it just turns out that if you don't stay in the window, it doesn't work. If the window loses focus, then the test will fail, even inside a vulnerable IE window.
I retested keeping focus in the window, and confirmed the bug.
I may not remember much from high school, but you have more than one reader: versteh ihr. Wakarimasu-ka?
Actually, you've remembered something good, that there's a second person plural in German. But you failed to realize that the formal personal pronoun is used for both single and plural forms.
Also, the correct congution of "verstehen" for "ihr" is "versteht" so "Versteht ihr?". It's argued whether one should be formal or not with people you meet over the internet, the tendency is to be quite informal over the internet, where as you would be more formal in person.
Regardless, I feel that his rendition actually fits better into this medium, and conversation. Regardless, and unfortunately your grammatical error means yours would not be correct anyway.
The gov. has the right to request all keys/passwords if a judge has so ordered.
I suppose if they have a warrant I'll have to comply, same as if they had a warrant to search my computer, as long as they follow due process of law.
But if they only had a warrant to search my safe deposit box, and then they find all my keys/passwords in there, then they have probable cause to go get a warrant to search those. Keeping them to myself and in my mind is probably the best way to keep the existence of something hidden.
The snippet is intended to entice Slashdot readers to read the f* article. Or must I be new here?
You must be new here. Slashdot snippets aren't supposed to entice you to read the article, they're supposed to summarize all our preconceived notions into one little paragraph so that we can debate the topic without reading the f* article.
And how many other currencies for people living in other English-speaking areas where Slashdot is read? British pounds? Canadian dollars? Australian dollars?
Well, I think that converting the original price at all was a mistake then. Saying that it should be between 500 and 600 euros is a lot more useful information than giving some random conversion to a monetary unit that hardly means anything to the majority of people in the world.
If you have to give a conversion for the US population then give it as a side note. Shit, real journalists take this to heart, why can't a geek blog do the same? If you're going to do any sort of conversion on a number, give the f* original value, too! I don't care what it is.
Saying that the price of a PS3 in X country is going to be N units, even if I'm not familiar with any three of those variables is an important thing to include originally.
For an example, at work some people working with localized builds of our software will report a message poorly translated by some autotranslator online, and not include the original error message. Well, thanks man, just what I needed, an imperfect translation of a text that I don't have the original to compare against, to even have an idea what the original was trying to say.
If you're translating/converting any value keep the original there God Damn It!
Slashdot Mirror
God, if you're going to do the obligatory "Marry me!" Slashdot post, be honest about it! (Hint: Not all women are in to misandry. Really!)
Try this on for size. Maybe it's not a "Marry me!" Slashdot post. Maybe I'm being honest in my opinions and heartfelt in my statements.
I placed the "seeming" (should have been "seemingly") in the statement in order to indicate more of a subjunctive mood, and less of of an indicative one. Thus rendering my point-of-view, and opinion, rather than a statement of fact.
You're free to disagree, as is the entire benefit and purpose of opinions. I'm not telling you I'm right, rather I'm telling you my opinion.
My statements are not misandric, as it is true by my experience that a woman who is willing to flaunt her sexuality will attract more men, and exercise a great deal of control over their actions and attitudes towards her.
But the same is true of women also. It is very easy for a man to "say the right things", and exert the same form of control over women. We're all led by our desires to be loved/wanted by those that we find attractive.
For women who abuse their role, look at the office flirts, who use their sexuality for favors, and promotions.
For men who abuse their role, look at the guys who have the mustang "in the shop", or for real, know all the right lines, and just want to "love a girl", and tell her not to feel guilty about loving them back.
I'm just stating my experiences, and honest beliefs, and I'm not interestd in writing a "Marry Me!" Slashdot post to tokengamegrrl, as I already have a girl that I'm interested in, and I care about, and nothing in her post even lead me to even think about writing a "Marry Me!" Slashdot post.
In fact, now I'm upset that just because I wrote an affirming post to a female response that I'm somehow writing a "Marry Me!" post. CAN'T I JUST FUCKING AGREE WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT WANTING TO GET IN HER PANTS?
I've been discussing this with one of my other friends, both of us seeming more enlightened than most woman-exploiting men.
I raised the point that there will always be women who will exploit their female gender to get ahead as long as males make it so easy to do. Most men are ridiculously gullible for a woman who knows just what to do. (The same also applies in reverse.) So as long as it's easy for one side to exploit the other, they're going to do that.
If that means that women gamers who are attractive can also make better money (or reach any such other goal) by using their bodies to exploit the male sexual interest in them, then that's what they're going to do.
All that said, I am a woman gamer and enjoy playing games. For me, the entertainment is in playing, not competing
This is a point that is very true for most every culture if not all cultures. Women are less competative than men, and more socially-oriented, and collaborative. That's not to say that no women are competative, but that on the majority most women are like you and don't see a need to do everything the fastest, bestest way possible, and spend hours honing skills to a sharp edge.
If a woman can develop their skills to the point that they are beneficial to the group that they are in, then that is sufficient.
My friend raises the point that one of the problems with this whole article and such is that people keep trying to make female gamers into male games. That just doesn't work. Women and men have separate goals to achieve in life, games, and entertainment.
To expect women to become ultra-competative and overcome male games in skill level is delusional at this time, and in our society.
They're big, but Wal-mart does not have a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. They're a major player in almost all retail markets but pick any particular segment (even the broad department store category) and there are many, many competitors to Wal-mart.
Oh, I have no doubt that they're not a monopoly. In fact, in the Seattle area they're a very poor market, in that I hardly see commercials for them, and their stores are miniscule out here, and only open limited hours.
Meanwhile, go to Las Cruces, NM, where Wal-Mart is essentially THE place to buy your groceries, etc, etc. And they're open 24-hours a day. They were so popularly used that they had to open up a second store. All this in an area, and population significantly smaller than that Eastside of the Seattle area, which only has two Wal-Marts also.
But when Wal-mart makes over twice what all their competitors make combined upon a nationwide market? Suddenly you have a huge hulking 800 lbs gorilla that gets anything it wants.
Same is true with Blockbuster, they're not a monopoly in video rental, but they're so important a market, that they can easily "abuse" that position.
I heard the same claims against Blockbuster and movies.
It's just a standard chilling effect.
Sucks, but it's bound to happen in monopoly driven market places.
I'm sorry but MS calls what the do interoperability? It's more like "make the other guy make it work and then break it occasonaly" honestly.
No, Microsoft interoperability is much similar to the way every company works. Run a battery of tests against every new version to verify that you didn't break anything.
This of course would require them to operate machines that run Linux, Novel Netware, etc in order to test for true interoperability.
Windows is very much a fluid target point, where the actual operation of the program is the specification itself. Or more accurately, earlier expected operation of the program. Such that in many cases there is AppCompat stuff all over the place to make sure that application blah doesn't regress its errors that it had at one point.
I find it difficult to understand how Linux can avoid these AppCompat issues... oh wait, specs defining behavior, and if an App breaks, it's the Apps fault for using undefined behavior, and not the library/kernels fault for breaking the App.
Neither one of you intelligent, +5 Insightful posters seem to have a clue regarding how to analyze a survey or why this is just more Slow News Day hot air.
Oh no, I very much see this as just more Slow News Day hot air. Just for different reasons than you.
I've "studied" popular kids and what they do. They get interested in something, play it out, then eventually let go of it, or at least decrease their interest in it.
Just recently the popular kids were all getting way into the vibe of video gaming. Kids who would never have boughten a computer for gaming because it was "geeky" were buying computers, and console systems to play the latest and greatest GTA game or FPS.
I *saw* this shit happen right in front of my eyes.
Now, it's any surprise that interests may turn, and not just to sex? All these people are assuming that those surveyed are "just getting older and learning about sex." or something stupid like that. No, it's not all about that. (Naturally some of it is.) But this is just popularity shifting. It's not the death of video gaming by any means, it's just the start of a gradual decline of popular culture interest.
26 years and counting. Hell of a "fad". I guess Grandma was right about Jackson at least. ;-)
Just couldn't think of the right word to describe it, and it's the bset thing that fit. No, it's not a complete "fad", but the popular kids sitting down playing the Halo on X-Box Live! with all their friends is the fad.
They enjoy/enjoyed it, and they will eventually find something more interesting/fun to do. Like AirSoft pellet guns, or something like that.
At the very least, everyone in this forum is discussing why individuals would decrease their video game interests over time individually, not why a whole age group of people would lose interest as new people come in to replace those leaving the age group.
Certainly some Americans do, but I cringe everytime I hear "Amblance" instead of "Ambulance" and "axe" instead of "ask".
*shudders, and cries* please don't hurt my ears like that!
Your point is much more intelligent, unlike everyone else in this forum, who's going on about "teens think screwing > gaming", I'm not going to take as much of a narrow view. Reasoning why? Kids were playing these games hard-core to begin with over sex.
Sex has little to do with the change of interests here. What's actually the case is that fads, and popularity of things are generally determined by what other people are doing. These kids were playing video games because their friends were all playing video games, and they didn't want to be left out.
Same reason people bought Pet Rocks. You bought them because everyone else was.
Unlike Pet Rocks though, video gaming is not a useless exercise, and contains a reasonable enjoyment level, similar to television. I expect to see gaming decrease in popularity as kids find other entertainment to do, and we'll see the amount of gaming level off.
God, heaven forbid table-top RPGs ever become truely popular with the in-crowd. Then when they all would lose interest, everyone would think that RPGs would be dying out, when they would really just be returning to normal levels. Just like what's happening with gaming right now
True. In my LAN gaming group, we used to play with open speakers for all to hear. It was common habit that if you were searching for someone, you would jump, and listen for their speakers to make any noise.
This worked well to your advantage until people started bringing surround sound systems and could target you based on the 3D positioning information afforded them. Sure you know that they heard you jumping, but now they know which direction you're in, and you don't.
Of course, all that stopped once we started bringing just headphones to the games. It turned out that the biggest advantage over even being able to positionally locate someone, was to not even let them listen in to what you were doing.
It was kind of like an arms race...
... But why should the widescreen folk have a better view than the 4:3 folk? Imagine playing a game online, and you have a 4:3 screen. It's great, it looks good. But then someone else you are playing against has a 16:9 widescreen and he sees not only what you are able to see, but more (on the sides). So his 'character' has a better peripheral vision because he has a widescreen monitor?
Blame the industry for lack of foresight, meanwhile, me and my widescreens will enjoy the extra peripheral viewspace.
To note though, I have a PowerPC Mac with widescreen, and got the Doom3 demo, and I had to bump up the POV in order to not get a "stretched" image. Meaning the resolution was widened but the angle of view was still the same as an unstretched monitor.
In this case, everyone is able to set the POV to the same values that I am, and the Doom-engined games have long allowed servers to restrict POV ranges, since people could set these to very high values, adjust to them, and thus end up being able to see out the sides of their heads.
Having the widescreen stretch the view out seems like less of a programming issue and more of a gamer-fairness issue.
If one is actually concerned about this "fairness" issue, then Macs have offered for a long time a resolution where it is not stretched, but rather the standard resolution centered in the middle of the screen. This looks a HECK of a lot better than a stretched resolution, where people look fat, and distorted.
Also, again the same point as above, anyone can adjust POV angles in the games that support it, so if you're willing to deal with a distorted image, you can have the same POV range as I do.
I'm old school, I didn't get a degree in math, I got .0174 radians.
1 degree = 0.0174532925 radians
Are we using Round-towards even, truncate, or floor?
And what is it, exactly, that makes my reply a "rant"?
This word would imply that my words were angry and/or violent.
Not angry and/or violent. Perhaps you're not aware of common internet usage of the word "rant". A rant is simply anyone rambling on about something just because they disagree...
By not having paragraphs, you look like you're rambling and not forming well formed coherent statements. It looks like you're just "ranting away".
Hell, it's so bloched together, I didn't *READ* the thing to find out if you were even actually angry. But the first two sentences were fairly clearly an objection, and the rest of it was just rambled together.
</rant>
Perhaps you should look at the article again. It is from The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper. Once again it is back to your opinion about improper usage of the word. You do realize that a) English is not an "American" invention and b) Canadian English is more closely related to British English than it is American English. Further, RIM is a Canadian company and while I cannot find any profile information for James Balsillie on RIM's homepage I am taking a "leap of faith" and assuming that he is Canadian. Hence, we are once again returned to the fact that it is strictly your opinion, and perhaps a little bit of ignorance on your part, that the word was used incorrectly.
:P
Well if someone just SAID that it was all Canadian English from the start, and not just get all pissed at me for complaining about alternate usage, then I'd have apologized upfront.
Shit, people need to learn how to tell people that they're wrong. Stop telling me wrong just because a dictionary tells me I'm wrong, I don't give a crap about some authority. Tell me I'm wrong, because I have my premises were wrong in the first place
That is an interesting argument coming from someone who is complaining about the improper usage of the word assure in a news article. I find your last sentence in the above quote rather humorous given the current topic of discussion.
You gotta learn what I'm doing when I'm complaining. I'm not saying I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm saying, I wouldn't do something like this, and it bothers me. Yes, this usage of "assure" bothers me. And damn well right, I know saying "nookyoolur" bothers other people.
I heckle them for it, and I expect to be heckled by anyone who says that "assure" is being used properly here. But in my personal position, this usage of "assure" is not common usage in America. And not knowing the country of origin here, I assumed that they were American, and got my premises wrong. You corrected that with the first paragraph I quoted in this comment. Thanks for the correction, it would have been a hell of a lot more useful than a stupid "you're wrong fucktard" like everyone seems to ever give around here.
Actually I would consider the people who work for Oxford English Dictionary, and to some degree the folks at Merriam-Webster, to be the guardians of the English language.
Yeah, guardians of the English language. Just like Bush is the guardian of American values. Values and language change. If "assure" came into common usage here in the US, I'd not complain about this usage. In fact, in 5 years, I may come back here, and go "what the hell was I complaining about?" But this is my idiolect now, and it sounds wrong to me.
1) The Globe and Mail -- Canadian Newspaper
Got that. A good point of correction that is the first constructive comment I've seen on this whole argument, and as such, is the first real piece of information that means jack to me.
2) RIM -- Canadian Company (leading me to believe James Balsillie is Canadian)
Got that. A good point of correction that is the second constructive comment I've seen on this whole argument.
3) Canadian English does not equal American English
Knew that. I didn't know in the first place that this was Canadian English we were discussing. I was discussing within the US-centric dialog that is common on Slashdot.
4) The English language was invented by the occupants of what is now England
Just a little point of interest here. The English spoken in America is closer to now-archaic English (Victorian English) than the English actually spoken there now. We ennunciate more, and speak clearer. That's nothing against British English. It's simply evolved.
I'd just rather people say "American" and "English" or in some other way always indicate "US English" vs "Commonwealth English", in contexts of perscriptivism, since both have highly heated sides over stupid silly issues such like this.
5) Re
Yes, according to you the sentence sounds fucked up. However, that does not necessarily mean that you are correct in your assumption that the word assure was used improperly.
I'm willing to concede archaic usages, and non-American uses that sound unusual to me as being outside of the scope of the authority of my idiolect. But using word choices that are outside of common usage is inappropriate for the media, and reporting to the media/people.
If you want a litterati president that's going to get up in front of the media and talk like a "proper" educated man, turning phrases, and using archacisms, then that's fine for you, but meanwhile, me and numerous other people are going to be totally fucking lost listening to him.
If you're using uncommon usage beware that people are going to be upset at you for it.
If your dictionary says that nuclear is pronounced "nookyoolur" then perhaps it is time you invested in a real dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary does not list "nookyoolur" as either the British nor the American pronunciation of nuclear.
Merriam-Webster, and other respectable dictionaries *do* list this pronunciation, because it *is* in common usage. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't mean it's not being said that way.
I stand by my complaint at his usage of "assure", if you want to disagree, then that's fine, your idiolect is outside of the scope of influence of my idiolect.
Also a real dictionary would be able to let you know that there is no such word as "ideolect", which you use throughout your post. Perhaps you were thinking of "idiolect".
Pfff... English dimutes its vowels into schwas all over the place, and makes it difficult for people to remember which vowel should be written where. Combine that with learning a language that has clear and distinct vowel usage, and you have a recipe for bad spelling, because I can't remember which "vowel" goes where, because they've all been diminished beyond recognition. So, I guess. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right. Sometimes it's just a freaking typo.
Personally I would trust the authority of a dictionary over the rantings of an individual.
As is your perfectly legitimate right. But that very same attitude is why we have the word "adventure", which is a total crock. Look up it's history. We got the word through French as "aventure", and we also got the word "avance" from French. Then people wanted to make things more like the original Latin, and they looked at "avance" and said, "Oops, this should be advance." Then someone else noticed "aventure", and said, "Hey, this should be adventure, too." and what ever authority it was that setup that rule agreed with them.
The problem is that while "avance" came from Latin by the elition of the 'd' in "advance", the word "aventure" came from Latin through a leniation of the 'b' in "abenture".
So this stupid hyper-correcting authority "broke" English, but because it's tradition now, and no one knows, and 99.999% of the population speaking English natively is going to tell you that "adventure" is correct and "abenture" is wrong, that's the way it is. So, I pity you that you think the individual's opinions don't matter. I bet you think the same thing about your vote that you cast for your elected officials.
You know, paragraphs make your rants easier to read.
You know, just FYI
The point is that, according to pretty much every dictionary, they two words share a common meaning. I think I would probably consider the major dictionaries to be a more scholarly source than you on the meaning of words.
The point is, that according to my ideolect, the sentence sounds fucked up.
You quote the dictionary as proper usage, the other guys quotes tradition as proper usage, and I rely upon my instinct and my ideolect. As a native speaker of English, I am afforded the right to do that.
It's all in who you trust. If you want to trust the arbitrary authority of your dictionary or "common usage", which both say that a proper pronunciation for "nuclear" is "nookyoolur", then go ahead, but perscriptionists are still going to tell you it's wrong.
If he wants to trust the arbitrary authority of tradition, and the way things used to be--or should be--then he'll mandate that "nookyoolur" is an abomination against God, and that anyone who says "nuclear" that way should be shot. But anyone who cares about common usage, and dictionaries is going to tell him that he's being over bearing.
If I want to trust my trained ear that tells me how to speak English, then I'll say that "nookyoolur" is going to be pronounced in a hundred different ways, and no one person is correct. I'd also say that using "assure" like the guy in the article is wrong.
It all depends on who you want to trust, you all go ahead and enjoy all the authority that you just abdicate your own sense of English to, and I'll trust myself, because I'm the only person who isn't going to lie to me.
Also, please note, I'm not complaining about pronunciation, I'm not complaining about spelling, I'm not complaining about anything related to actual Grammar. I'm complaining about an unusual word choice, that it appears is valid for only some subset of the English speaking world. (Note: since I am an English speaker, and I object to this usage, it must therefore be a subset, even if I'm the only person objecting, which I'm not.)
Dude, seriously.... when was the last time you saw a grammar nazi get good karma points?
did it even fleetingly occur to you that his grasp of the English language just might be superior to yours and that of the knee-jerks who modded you up?
His usage violates my ideolect. I don't argue with the sentence given for definition 4 in the dictionary you linked to. It sounds reasonable. But the text given in the article:
Sounds wrong. For me "assure" cannot be followed by a dependent clause.
However, you probably spell colour without the "u" so I'll forgive you since the "English for Dummies" rule would come into effect.
If this is a more international usage, then I concede to that point, I can't argue international English, only what sounds good to me. And "assure that..." sounds wrong to me.
'assure[sic] that no other company experiences what we endured over the past five years.'
God, I hope that's what he actually said, and some jerk along the way didn't just mangle it into making him sound like a total idiot.
I tried it first, and it failed, then I tried it again, and it worked. Turns out if you don't keep focus in the window, the flaw doesn't happen.
Just for your info, I'm using:
IE Version 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.060220-1746
and my Windows XP is fully patched.
So it's probably a related issue, or something else, but your browser is definitely just as vulnerable to the flaw as mine.
If I were to click on a link, the address bar would immediately change to the real domain.
It only takes one click to send my login and password to a phisher.
I just checked in IE6, and I thought that the bug was gone, but it just turns out that if you don't stay in the window, it doesn't work. If the window loses focus, then the test will fail, even inside a vulnerable IE window.
I retested keeping focus in the window, and confirmed the bug.
I may not remember much from high school, but you have more than one reader: versteh ihr. Wakarimasu-ka?
Actually, you've remembered something good, that there's a second person plural in German. But you failed to realize that the formal personal pronoun is used for both single and plural forms.
Also, the correct congution of "verstehen" for "ihr" is "versteht" so "Versteht ihr?". It's argued whether one should be formal or not with people you meet over the internet, the tendency is to be quite informal over the internet, where as you would be more formal in person.
Regardless, I feel that his rendition actually fits better into this medium, and conversation. Regardless, and unfortunately your grammatical error means yours would not be correct anyway.
"wakatta-ka?"
The gov. has the right to request all keys/passwords if a judge has so ordered.
I suppose if they have a warrant I'll have to comply, same as if they had a warrant to search my computer, as long as they follow due process of law.
But if they only had a warrant to search my safe deposit box, and then they find all my keys/passwords in there, then they have probable cause to go get a warrant to search those. Keeping them to myself and in my mind is probably the best way to keep the existence of something hidden.
The snippet is intended to entice Slashdot readers to read the f* article. Or must I be new here?
You must be new here. Slashdot snippets aren't supposed to entice you to read the article, they're supposed to summarize all our preconceived notions into one little paragraph so that we can debate the topic without reading the f* article.
And how many other currencies for people living in other English-speaking areas where Slashdot is read? British pounds? Canadian dollars? Australian dollars?
Well, I think that converting the original price at all was a mistake then. Saying that it should be between 500 and 600 euros is a lot more useful information than giving some random conversion to a monetary unit that hardly means anything to the majority of people in the world.
If you have to give a conversion for the US population then give it as a side note. Shit, real journalists take this to heart, why can't a geek blog do the same? If you're going to do any sort of conversion on a number, give the f* original value, too! I don't care what it is.
Saying that the price of a PS3 in X country is going to be N units, even if I'm not familiar with any three of those variables is an important thing to include originally.
For an example, at work some people working with localized builds of our software will report a message poorly translated by some autotranslator online, and not include the original error message. Well, thanks man, just what I needed, an imperfect translation of a text that I don't have the original to compare against, to even have an idea what the original was trying to say.
If you're translating/converting any value keep the original there God Damn It!