That's an adept analysis, but there is a problem with merely utilizing "the right tool for the right job" in a non-profit situation.
I work at a non-profit organization and they are very resisitant to (what they call) "alternate" operating systems, like the Mac or Linux. I have been begging for both since I got here, and there is a huge resistance to anything that's not Microsoft. (my machine crashes constantly, it's a piece of shit, and they won't replace it, because they suck.) These people consider Wired to be esoteric, so there's a problem, but even our systems people are somewhat. ..well, let me not get fired here. (We run Solaris, not Linux, not BSD, etc.)
"Of course you have to BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it's crap!" There's a misconception for you, eh?
MacOS is a better gui, I really believe that. And better GUIs would be better for librarians, don't you think? So why nothing but Windoze in the building? Um. ..two words.
Gates Grant.
But when I come along and say "hey fellas, I'm designing web pages here. I'm no librarian. can I have an old 486 so I can run the Gimp, and they freak out, well, that deserves a little analysis. It's a problem.
And when they tell me they want me to start dealing with video, I want a 450 g4 dp if I can have it, not the fscking pentium pro they've left me with. Know what'I mean, Vern? But no, because Macs on the Novell network? Horror of horrors!
Any time that somebody is suggesting that non-profit orgs get a little into the open-source/free software movement, I believe they're doing both a favor. But you're right, it's a risky desktop solution for folks who work with charities, non-prof orgs, etc, whose skills may (probably aren't we have to deal with it) at the level that would allow them to really utilize something like X.
That said, why they have to go straight to Microsoft for *all* their solutions is beyond me.
On some level it's that Gates Grant. They look at Microsoft as a big, good benevolent thing. They know the word "technology" which they say alot, and they know "Microsoft" and they use the two interchangeably.
Pretty effective marketing strategy he's got going, that Bill.
Aber wenn Sie sagen dass unsere Sprache schlecht ist, dann habe ich ein klein Problem.
"When you say your language is bad, I have a problem." You've just made a fool out of yourself.
OK, I'm still reading that as "But when you say that our language is bad, then I have a small problem." But my German is rusty, I admit that.
d. I knew about the grammar rules on quoting. I made the mistake because I was in a hurry, but you should stop digressing.
Which is also why I mispelled tongue and elitist. Wow, we're both human and have capacity for error! Oh wait, but I understand. Your capacity for error is more forgivable cuz, of course, you're the brilliant Flavio.
e. I dislike you for offending me.
One, don't give a damn if you're offended, because, as you admit, you certainly don't seem to give a damn if anyone else -- namely native speakers of english, primarily me -- is offended. By your "babytalk" comment, among other things. Two, i don't much care if you dislike me.
f. Arguments against you present no challenge. You're intellectually one notch above the average but you still suck.
No idea what the heck the first statement is supposed to mean, I gues you just typed it too fast. But, thanks for the compliment. I guess. And nope, I'm not bothering to spell check this. You know what, man, I believe you're a smart guy, i really do. But I think you're a little intense, and I would mention that you're probably enjoying this a whole lot more than I am. YOu're the one who likes to "piss a whole lot of people off," (which isn't exactly an iconoclast, but here i do get what you're saying.)
I enjoy the subjunctive and wouldn't live without it, not
to speak of variants of the future and perfect past.
After all this the subjuntive case and problems with temporal aspects of verb tense is your validation that an entire language is inferior? Please! I might buy that languages have relative strengths and weaknesses, but no way are you convincing me of your argument here.
In fact what you did was post a flamebait post, then wait for someone to sit back to spar with. I'm certain that you're digging this, but I'm done. I can no more convince you of my utter certainty that you're off than you can convince me that my native tongue is "simplistic." So I disagree with you, and I note one last time: IMHO, you have no right here to get pissed off at me cuz I called you a shithead, becuase you just said that you like to piss people off and get them to disagree with you. Which i did. I played your game. I'm a dope for falling into it.
Flav, you're a troll but I'll respond to you anyway.
For example, I think German kicks serious ass. Why? Because it has this inner logic and structure that English is just pathetic at.
Ich auch. Aber wenn Sie sagen dass unsere Sprache schlecht ist, dann habe ich ein klein Problem. And, um, bullshit. You should know by being both a German and an English speaker that English is a very Germanic language, a fact that ought to throw a kink in your ridiculous argument, if you had a brain on your shoulders. English is beautiful and interesting because it isn't formulaic; it's a varied and diverse language, with varied and diverse influences.
You obviously have no base of comparison and fail to observe I speak of vulgar English!
Poorly constructed thought, but ok. Still, you were actually talking about a language, and when you talk about a language, you are speaking whollistically, and I stand by the original point.
Reject does mean "not learn adequately or at all".
No, it doesn't, but since you were being vauge, I did my best.
I didn't marginalize it, otherwise I wouldn't read so many books in English or even try to learn it.
Yes you did. You said my language was simplistic, you said it lacked "inner" logic (as opposed the the outer logic?) and you said it was "baby-talk." You, sir, are wrong. I challenge you to prove that you are not wrong. How, for example, is English less "precise" in general, than German? Or Spanish? How, Flavio, you piece of shit troll? Just curious.
I have this attitude precisely because I speak and write much better than the natives. And English isn't my mother "toungue".
To the first sentence I answer, Dream on, Flav.
To the second: we got that, you condescending eliteist. We went to your silly website after you insulted us to gather ammo.
Go read unabridged Goethe or unabridged Luis Vaz de Camoes.
Never read Luis Vaz de Camoes. Goethe I've read and collected rare copies of in both languages, as a matter of fact. Since we're name dropping, my favorite Spanish speaking author is Jorge Luis Borges, though I am only able to listen to the original, I do enjoy that. Lovely sounds. And amazing text, even in translation. This has nothing to do with how stupid you are, but hey, you wanted to name drop.
Your original point, I think, was that the 'Shakespeare effect," whatever that is, is recreatable in multiple languages, and that:
Shakespeare barely hits the average and is only acceptable in comparison.
Everyone's a critic, eh. Poor Shakespeare. I suppose then we should stop reading Hamlet and rather enjoy your brilliant website?
Goodbye, Flavio. I'd call you a Shakespearean fool, but then you're hardly as loveable as Falstaff, probably uglier, and certainly less intelligent.
P.S. By the way, you superior writer of English you, it is customary to place puncutation marks in our language before closing quotes:
"This is correct."
"This is not, if you care".
I am soooo pissed off at all of those people out there that tie their language to their culture and then their culture to their identity.
You would prefer, I suppose, that when we construct identities in our subconscious minds, we should, rather than utilizing the tools at our disposal (our language, our cultural environs, et al.), we instead somehow invent metalinguistic constructs and metacultural ideologies to create. ..what? Apolitical identities?
Language is culture. Identity is generally agreed to be constructed, but if you think that we, as socio-political animals, can construct our identities outside of our linguistic and cultural constructs, you're making a mistake.
You're not thinking clearly. Do you speak any other languages? Have you ever even been outside of the country?
These people may be "radical", but they do have a point. You can choose to engage that point or you can choose to be "another stupid American." I choose the former. I highly recommend it to you as well.
As a reflex of this simplicity, people often reject other languages, claiming these are unnecessarily complex.
One
I assume by "people" you mean Americans and by "reject" you mean choose not to learn adequately or at all. In which case I can assure you that many Americans "reject" other languages because environmentally and politically it's easy to do so. We don't live in an environment, many of us, in which being multilingual is particularly valuable, and our society doesn't really demand it. Am I proud of that, as an American? No. I think it's pathetic. I do think it's accurate though.
Two
Language is an inherently complex phenomenon. We could debate all day the relative complexities of our mother tounges.
However, it's a-whole-nother fucking thing to call someone elses mother tounge "baby-talk." I suppose you may feel juvenille speaking our mother tounge sometimes becuase you don't speak it as well as a native speaker does. I have this experience in my second langage. But that doesn't mean you have the right to marginalize our langauage. I'm sorry if you feel any Americans have insulted your language by action or directly through speech. That's reprehensible. Unfortunately, you're doing it to my language, and so you're the reprehensible one now.
Three
Anyone who honestly believes the language of Shakespeare and Joyce is "babytalk" is a fool.
____________
That said I do think that the english-centric net will be more multilingual in the future, and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps it will even encourage Americans to foster a more multilingual society, and perhaps we'll be more culturally rich for it.
____________
At some places here in Baltimore and around the Bay we use Old Bay Seasoning in our Bloody Marys. YUM! Butcha gotta get McCormick, that's the Balmur native's choice. If you really can't find McCormick, try making it yourself.
Last time I was in the Big Easy I got a Bloody Mary with some okra in it.
Seems everywhere I go, I get a regional Bloody Mary variant. That's why I love this drink!
My best pal at work, Chas, has a father who was a new york judge upstate.
So a little before he retires some sys guys come around for to give em' so email, you know. Now, we work at the library, our domain is pratt.lib.md.us; much like that, courts are apparently standard. So they tell Judge that his mail will be judge@upstate.courts.ny.us, or some such. Confused, he calls Chas and Chas explains at length, ultimately asking
"So . . . you got it, right Dad?"
"Oh yeah, bud, I got it! I should be on the Internet soon!"
Now, Pops/Judge knows his son Chas will be proud of him, so he's excited to get going! He works hard at setting up the Microsoft email like he was told by the sys fellas and emails his son right away.
Chas got an email from judgeUPSTATECOURTSNYUS@hotmail.com.
Our laws are in good hands.;) I fscking swear by my karma that this story is true.
Looks like they're slashdotted.
I can't hit the BSA homepage.
Re the MD adds, [see above] they're even running them in primetime, and they're running a lot of slots in Baltimore. I see it 4-5 times a night, and I watch too much TV.
1. People under 18 years of age have no rights. Constitutional amendments notwithstanding
NO!
This is not only untrue, it is also fundamentally and purely an evil and hellish thing to say and you should be run out of the country for it. American citizens all have the same rights *in theory.* In practice, that's another matter. But don't ever let anyone tell you that young people don't have rights merely because we adults tend to marginalize them without thinking twice about it.
2. Once you walk onto public school property, you forfeit all rights you may have had. Your locker is subject to search, you're subject to questioning without an attorney.
Also wrong. All students are in constant possesion of their Consititutional Rights while on school property. The student's rights are [arguably] regularly infringed upon, but these rights are still present. The school insititutions simply don't follow them by a matter of course that is often upheld by overly conservative local judiciaries under the guise of "protection."
No one forfeited any rights unless they consented to foreit them in advance. Rights cannot be foreited without written [possibly verbal in some cases?] consent.
I may be mistaken but I do not think that Consititutionaly rights can ever be forfeited. Anyone?
Perhaps Katz's pal will understand it better this way.
"Politics" (a word that is rather lazily thrown about these pages) are really about Power. Geeks should understand this because we are also into Power. We see something that we like, think is cool, want to use, etc, and we fusk with it. We make it do cool things. We wield command over the tools in our dominion. And the users in our domains, incidently.
Politicians have been doing this with the world for the lifetime of human social interaction. They're much better practiced at doing that in their realm than we are in ours. They're powerful. We have servers and cell phones and/. There are defininte differences between "us" and "them" but one thing must be clear--you are a "political" animal.
My point is just that they are powerful, and thus often judged. We should understand about power, becuase geeks do have a relationship with power. So think about that before you hold in comtempt a politician for being a politician.
You do not get to live your life independent of society, obviously, and by virtue of your living you are involved, you are therefore politically engaged. In other words, you are a part of the American political landscape even if you choose to "not act."
Inaction is action, as anyone who has read about Buddhism will readily tell you. I never thought about that much before I read into Buddhism, and it seems that Heinlein also notes this (see above). Not that Heinlein should be our guiding, light, frankly I think the man was a sexist pig. But who cares about this.
So what is really happening here is that Deggan doesn't like the politicians that he encounters. He therefore equates "politics" with poor thinking or wrong action (akusala action, to keep with my buddhist theme) and discards it as below his station.
If we do this, we commit a grevious error and we will loose the power that we have wrought for ourselves. We must be aware of the fact that if we do not concern ourselves with the stuggle for power, what power we have could be taken from us. This may be done financially, politically, etc. They can't out tech us, for sure, but we're not immune to our sociopolitical landscape.
Slashdot Mirror
I work at a non-profit organization and they are very resisitant to (what they call) "alternate" operating systems, like the Mac or Linux. I have been begging for both since I got here, and there is a huge resistance to anything that's not Microsoft. (my machine crashes constantly, it's a piece of shit, and they won't replace it, because they suck.) These people consider Wired to be esoteric, so there's a problem, but even our systems people are somewhat. . .well, let me not get fired here. (We run Solaris, not Linux, not BSD, etc.)
"Of course you have to BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it's crap!" There's a misconception for you, eh?
MacOS is a better gui, I really believe that. And better GUIs would be better for librarians, don't you think? So why nothing but Windoze in the building? Um. . .two words.
Gates Grant.
But when I come along and say "hey fellas, I'm designing web pages here. I'm no librarian. can I have an old 486 so I can run the Gimp, and they freak out, well, that deserves a little analysis. It's a problem.
And when they tell me they want me to start dealing with video, I want a 450 g4 dp if I can have it, not the fscking pentium pro they've left me with. Know what'I mean, Vern? But no, because Macs on the Novell network? Horror of horrors!
Any time that somebody is suggesting that non-profit orgs get a little into the open-source/free software movement, I believe they're doing both a favor. But you're right, it's a risky desktop solution for folks who work with charities, non-prof orgs, etc, whose skills may (probably aren't we have to deal with it) at the level that would allow them to really utilize something like X.
That said, why they have to go straight to Microsoft for *all* their solutions is beyond me.
On some level it's that Gates Grant. They look at Microsoft as a big, good benevolent thing. They know the word "technology" which they say alot, and they know "Microsoft" and they use the two interchangeably.
Pretty effective marketing strategy he's got going, that Bill.
for my wife, so I wonder how laughing changes the ph in your blood?!
Aber wenn Sie sagen dass unsere Sprache schlecht ist, dann habe ich ein klein Problem.
"When you say your language is bad, I have a problem." You've just made a fool out of yourself.
OK, I'm still reading that as "But when you say that our language is bad, then I have a small problem." But my German is rusty, I admit that.
d. I knew about the grammar rules on quoting. I made the mistake because I was in a hurry, but you should stop digressing.
Which is also why I mispelled tongue and elitist. Wow, we're both human and have capacity for error! Oh wait, but I understand. Your capacity for error is more forgivable cuz, of course, you're the brilliant Flavio.
e. I dislike you for offending me.
One, don't give a damn if you're offended, because, as you admit, you certainly don't seem to give a damn if anyone else -- namely native speakers of english, primarily me -- is offended. By your "babytalk" comment, among other things. Two, i don't much care if you dislike me.
f. Arguments against you present no challenge. You're intellectually one notch above the average but you still suck.
No idea what the heck the first statement is supposed to mean, I gues you just typed it too fast. But, thanks for the compliment. I guess. And nope, I'm not bothering to spell check this. You know what, man, I believe you're a smart guy, i really do. But I think you're a little intense, and I would mention that you're probably enjoying this a whole lot more than I am. YOu're the one who likes to "piss a whole lot of people off," (which isn't exactly an iconoclast, but here i do get what you're saying.)
I enjoy the subjunctive and wouldn't live without it, not to speak of variants of the future and perfect past.
After all this the subjuntive case and problems with temporal aspects of verb tense is your validation that an entire language is inferior? Please! I might buy that languages have relative strengths and weaknesses, but no way are you convincing me of your argument here.
In fact what you did was post a flamebait post, then wait for someone to sit back to spar with. I'm certain that you're digging this, but I'm done. I can no more convince you of my utter certainty that you're off than you can convince me that my native tongue is "simplistic." So I disagree with you, and I note one last time: IMHO, you have no right here to get pissed off at me cuz I called you a shithead, becuase you just said that you like to piss people off and get them to disagree with you. Which i did. I played your game. I'm a dope for falling into it.
Flav, you're a troll but I'll respond to you anyway.
For example, I think German kicks serious ass. Why? Because it has this inner logic and structure that English is just pathetic at.
Ich auch. Aber wenn Sie sagen dass unsere Sprache schlecht ist, dann habe ich ein klein Problem.
And, um, bullshit. You should know by being both a German and an English speaker that English is a very Germanic language, a fact that ought to throw a kink in your ridiculous argument, if you had a brain on your shoulders. English is beautiful and interesting because it isn't formulaic; it's a varied and diverse language, with varied and diverse influences.
You obviously have no base of comparison and fail to observe I speak of vulgar English!
Poorly constructed thought, but ok. Still, you were actually talking about a language, and when you talk about a language, you are speaking whollistically, and I stand by the original point.
Reject does mean "not learn adequately or at all".
No, it doesn't, but since you were being vauge, I did my best.
I didn't marginalize it, otherwise I wouldn't read so many books in English or even try to learn it.
Yes you did. You said my language was simplistic, you said it lacked "inner" logic (as opposed the the outer logic?) and you said it was "baby-talk." You, sir, are wrong. I challenge you to prove that you are not wrong. How, for example, is English less "precise" in general, than German? Or Spanish? How, Flavio, you piece of shit troll? Just curious.
I have this attitude precisely because I speak and write much better than the natives. And English isn't my mother "toungue".
To the first sentence I answer, Dream on, Flav.
To the second: we got that, you condescending eliteist. We went to your silly website after you insulted us to gather ammo.
Go read unabridged Goethe or unabridged Luis Vaz de Camoes.
Never read Luis Vaz de Camoes. Goethe I've read and collected rare copies of in both languages, as a matter of fact. Since we're name dropping, my favorite Spanish speaking author is Jorge Luis Borges, though I am only able to listen to the original, I do enjoy that. Lovely sounds. And amazing text, even in translation. This has nothing to do with how stupid you are, but hey, you wanted to name drop.
Your original point, I think, was that the 'Shakespeare effect," whatever that is, is recreatable in multiple languages, and that:
Shakespeare barely hits the average and is only acceptable in comparison.
Everyone's a critic, eh. Poor Shakespeare. I suppose then we should stop reading Hamlet and rather enjoy your brilliant website?
Goodbye, Flavio. I'd call you a Shakespearean fool, but then you're hardly as loveable as Falstaff, probably uglier, and certainly less intelligent.
P.S. By the way, you superior writer of English you, it is customary to place puncutation marks in our language before closing quotes:
"This is correct."
"This is not, if you care".
You would prefer, I suppose, that when we construct identities in our subconscious minds, we should, rather than utilizing the tools at our disposal (our language, our cultural environs, et al.), we instead somehow invent metalinguistic constructs and metacultural ideologies to create. . .what? Apolitical identities?
Language is culture. Identity is generally agreed to be constructed, but if you think that we, as socio-political animals, can construct our identities outside of our linguistic and cultural constructs, you're making a mistake.
You're not thinking clearly. Do you speak any other languages? Have you ever even been outside of the country?
These people may be "radical", but they do have a point. You can choose to engage that point or you can choose to be "another stupid American." I choose the former. I highly recommend it to you as well.
One
I assume by "people" you mean Americans and by "reject" you mean choose not to learn adequately or at all. In which case I can assure you that many Americans "reject" other languages because environmentally and politically it's easy to do so. We don't live in an environment, many of us, in which being multilingual is particularly valuable, and our society doesn't really demand it. Am I proud of that, as an American? No. I think it's pathetic. I do think it's accurate though.
Two
Language is an inherently complex phenomenon. We could debate all day the relative complexities of our mother tounges.
However, it's a-whole-nother fucking thing to call someone elses mother tounge "baby-talk." I suppose you may feel juvenille speaking our mother tounge sometimes becuase you don't speak it as well as a native speaker does. I have this experience in my second langage. But that doesn't mean you have the right to marginalize our langauage. I'm sorry if you feel any Americans have insulted your language by action or directly through speech. That's reprehensible. Unfortunately, you're doing it to my language, and so you're the reprehensible one now.
Three
Anyone who honestly believes the language of Shakespeare and Joyce is "babytalk" is a fool.
____________
That said I do think that the english-centric net will be more multilingual in the future, and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps it will even encourage Americans to foster a more multilingual society, and perhaps we'll be more culturally rich for it.
____________
At some places here in Baltimore and around the Bay we use Old Bay Seasoning in our Bloody Marys. YUM! Butcha gotta get McCormick, that's the Balmur native's choice. If you really can't find McCormick, try making it yourself.
Last time I was in the Big Easy I got a Bloody Mary with some okra in it.
Seems everywhere I go, I get a regional Bloody Mary variant. That's why I love this drink!Don't forget Qmail.
My best pal at work, Chas, has a father who was a new york judge upstate.
So a little before he retires some sys guys come around for to give em' so email, you know. Now, we work at the library, our domain is pratt.lib.md.us; much like that, courts are apparently standard. So they tell Judge that his mail will be judge@upstate.courts.ny.us, or some such. Confused, he calls Chas and Chas explains at length, ultimately asking
Now, Pops/Judge knows his son Chas will be proud of him, so he's excited to get going! He works hard at setting up the Microsoft email like he was told by the sys fellas and emails his son right away.
Chas got an email from judgeUPSTATECOURTSNYUS@hotmail.com.
Our laws are in good hands. ;) I fscking swear by my karma that this story is true.
Looks like they're slashdotted. I can't hit the BSA homepage. Re the MD adds, [see above] they're even running them in primetime, and they're running a lot of slots in Baltimore. I see it 4-5 times a night, and I watch too much TV.
1. People under 18 years of age have no rights. Constitutional amendments notwithstanding
NO!
This is not only untrue, it is also fundamentally and purely an evil and hellish thing to say and you should be run out of the country for it. American citizens all have the same rights *in theory.* In practice, that's another matter. But don't ever let anyone tell you that young people don't have rights merely because we adults tend to marginalize them without thinking twice about it.
2. Once you walk onto public school property, you forfeit all rights you may have had. Your locker is subject to search, you're subject to questioning without an attorney.
Also wrong. All students are in constant possesion of their Consititutional Rights while on school property. The student's rights are [arguably] regularly infringed upon, but these rights are still present. The school insititutions simply don't follow them by a matter of course that is often upheld by overly conservative local judiciaries under the guise of "protection."
No one forfeited any rights unless they consented to foreit them in advance. Rights cannot be foreited without written [possibly verbal in some cases?] consent.
I may be mistaken but I do not think that Consititutionaly rights can ever be forfeited. Anyone?
I apologize for the omission, that was a terrible oversight.
We should add the Reform Party
the the Independence Party
Not to mention a myriad of other third parties. We have options. There is no need to just bow out and accept the mediocrity offered by Gush and Bore.
Perhaps Katz's pal will understand it better this way.
"Politics" (a word that is rather lazily thrown about these pages) are really about Power. Geeks should understand this because we are also into Power. We see something that we like, think is cool, want to use, etc, and we fusk with it. We make it do cool things. We wield command over the tools in our dominion. And the users in our domains, incidently.
Politicians have been doing this with the world for the lifetime of human social interaction. They're much better practiced at doing that in their realm than we are in ours. They're powerful. We have servers and cell phones and /. There are defininte differences between "us" and "them" but one thing must be clear--you are a "political" animal.
My point is just that they are powerful, and thus often judged. We should understand about power, becuase geeks do have a relationship with power. So think about that before you hold in comtempt a politician for being a politician.
You do not get to live your life independent of society, obviously, and by virtue of your living you are involved, you are therefore politically engaged. In other words, you are a part of the American political landscape even if you choose to "not act."
Inaction is action, as anyone who has read about Buddhism will readily tell you. I never thought about that much before I read into Buddhism, and it seems that Heinlein also notes this (see above). Not that Heinlein should be our guiding, light, frankly I think the man was a sexist pig. But who cares about this.
So what is really happening here is that Deggan doesn't like the politicians that he encounters. He therefore equates "politics" with poor thinking or wrong action (akusala action, to keep with my buddhist theme) and discards it as below his station.
If we do this, we commit a grevious error and we will loose the power that we have wrought for ourselves. We must be aware of the fact that if we do not concern ourselves with the stuggle for power, what power we have could be taken from us. This may be done financially, politically, etc. They can't out tech us, for sure, but we're not immune to our sociopolitical landscape.
That said, vote Nader.
Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on /.
Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.
Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.