More of the same anti-competitive practices.
on
A Quick Peek at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Microsoft is just up to the same old tricks. By tightly coupling their enterprise server apps to their client apps via poorly documented, proprietary interfaces, they hope to stomp competitors out of existence. They want people to rely on these proprietary features so that IS departments are forced to deploy and maintain Microsoft-only networks.
Without government intervention, it will only get worse. The average computer user does not understand issues of inter-operability, conformance with open standards, or the dangers in adopting Microsoft proprietary formats and protocols.
The failure of so many dot-coms is not an indication that selling on the Internet is doomed to failure. All that this shows us is that an ill-conceived business won't be made miraculously transformed into a success by simply registering a domain name and putting up a web site.
Look at some of the idiotic failures:
Pet food sold over the Internet. Pet food is normally about 35 cents per can. So people are going to order it over the Internet for the big savings?
The Netpliance i-opener Internet appliance is another great example. They were selling them for $99 and taking about a $300 loss and they intended to make all of that loss back up with subscriber fees to their Internet service. One problem: You could buy the thing and never sign up or decide to stop using it after a few months.
Then there were all of the sites that decided that they would provide expensive, high-bandwidth content for free and support themselves with banner ads. Great idea if you already have a HUGE user base, but pretty dumb if you don't.
Investors may be running scared, but a company with a desirable service or product that is priced attractively (and profitably) is still a good bet. And it doesn't matter if they sell in the mall or on the Internet.
I doubt even if you could be bothered reading the floppy that after 8-10 years the floppy will still be readable...
I just had to read in a set of old Borland 5.25" floppies to rebuild some ancient source code. They read fine and they are well over 10 years old. I did copy them for safety, but they still read fine.
or use pgp to secure the data.. and send it as an email..
One problem: 99% of the world does not use PGP. Sorry, but that's life. I can't go around a 5,000 person company and, as a consultant, insist that everyone from managers to secretaries to software engineers install PGP so that I can exchange encrypted e-mail with them.
Just accept it: Floppy disks are a necessary part of life for most computer users. They aren't fast, capacious, or high-tech, but they are still needed. I buy products with diagnostics and drivers on floppy (examples: Ethernet adapters and Western Digital hard drives). They provide a means of booting into DOS to flash BIOSs, run PROM programmers, and use tools like Norton Ghost -- and you can't boot from a USB key dongle.
I use a CompactFlash card and one of those pocket USB CF readers for that. USB mass storage drivers are included in various recent OSes (i.e., no, I can't use my CF card on some 6-year-old Win95 machine, but I don't care to either). If you want to get fancy, you can get one of those little keychain USB flash drives.
I can already move data between all of my machines via the network. What I want is a way to move date between many different PCs and mine. Some of those PCs are on a network. Some are not. Some have USB while others do not. Some are laptops, some are desktops, some are embedded systems.
I have one system without a floppy drive and it drives me ape-fecal-matter on a recurring basis. I can't boot it up via a Norton Ghost floppy, DOS floppy, etc. I can't read diskettes that I have -- including driver diskettes. I've had to copy diskettes to CD-R/W media just to access them. It's a PITA.
If your boss hands you a floppy disk, it's time to get a new boss!
So he's supposed to cut a CD-R to give you a 100K file? Or he's supposed to send proprietary, sensitive data through e-mail? Is he supposed to take something from 8-10 years ago and put it up on the server so that you don't have to be bothered with reading a floppy (yes, businesses sometimes need data for that long and longer)?
Get a clue and stop making absurd generalizations.
That's your right, I suppose, but understand that it means your comparison will be useless to anyone except for other geeks.
Since Slashdot is news for nerds, I'd say my comparison was pretty well targeted.
As for the floppy disk: Haven't you ever heard of a network?
Yes, I have. I run an FTP server, mail server, web server, and Telnet server. And that doesn't do me a bit of good if someone hands me a floppy. I've used floppies for installing network drivers (try that over a non-functional Ethernet connection), running Norton Ghost, booting into MS-DOS for flashing BIOSs and operating my E/EE/PROM programmer, running a commercial RAM testing program, running hard drive diagnostics, and for moving data to secure systems that don't have a connection to the Internet.
While floppies aren't an ideal medium, they are a fast and convenient way to move relatively small quantities of data conveniently. Even my 24x CD cutter is a lot slower than my floppy drive if all I want to move is a 100K file.
Why does 'equivalent' mean merely computationally equivalent?
Because it's my comparison and I can decide how the comparison is done.
You can't measure "total experience" and all of that other subjective stuff that the Mac crowd likes to carry on about (somehow I don't think that it's a coincidence). But you can compare performance, price, memory, hard drive storage, and features.
All of the eye candy in the world doesn't do any good if the software you want is not available for your computer, if you can't read the floppy disk your boss just handed you, or if the program you are running is slow.
If you like your Mac, that's fine. Enjoy. There are people out there who are convinced that their 6-cylinder Dodge Darts are the greatest cars ever built and that they are "fast enough."
Some people can afford the best, some people can't.
I paid cash for my new (2002) car, so get off of your high horse about "some people" not being able to afford a Mac.
I don't own a Mac because Macs are not the best. They are slow, expensive, and have a dearth of hardware and software available for them. They are designed around the user-as-idiot paradigm.
I recently had the "opportunity" to use Photoshop on a Power Mac G4. I was stunned at how slow and unresponsive it was when compared to its performance on my Athlon XP system. Same thing for the OS/X GUI. It was glacial compared to the snappy response to which I have become accustomed. Games that fly on my PC look like slide shows on most Power Mac G4 systems.
My boss, on the other hand, won't come anywhere near a handheld that isn't a Palm. He loves the software that loads on his desktop. He loves the fact that he and his... assistant can synchronize their schedules or that she can make the schedule for him--and all he needs to do is put the Palm in the cradle.
I am a die-hard PalmOS fan, too. I wouldn't consider a Windows-based handheld because they lack the usability, small size, and long battery life of the Palm machines. But tell me why I should pay $450 for a new PalmOS handheld from Palm when I can get higher resolution, more memory, and wireless connectivity if I need it, from a Sony or Handspring PalmOS handheld.
The new Palm offers almost nothing over the old Palm VIIx. Same memory (8mb). Same screen size (160x160). Wireless connectivity, just like the VIIx. The only real difference that I can see is USB (vs. serial) connectivity and an expansion slot. That's just not enough progress in what is, in the computer field, an eternity.
Even if they could, the machine you described can't burn DVDs, and, having only a single processor, will be less responsive when mixing interactive work with computationally intensive work.
Try reading before you reply next time. I was comparing the $1599 Power Mac G4 that he mentioned to an $899 Compaq. The $1599 Power Mac G4 does not have dual CPUs or a DVD burner. In fact, it does not even have a DVD drive.
There's no such thing as an "equivalent PC", since PCs can't run OS X.
Equivalent means computationally comparable, not that it runs the same OS. The fact that the PC runs Windows rather than Apple's new OS is a plus since there is a lot more software out there for Windows than there is for OS/X.
And Compaqs are not known for being the highest quality of computers or at least that is true from what I have seen.
It was just an example. I could have just as well used examples from Dell or HP to illustrate my point.
Hell, once you pass over 300 MHz most improvements become largely irrelevant.
It all depends on what you use them for. If you are doing much multimedia work using tools like Photoshop, or if you are playing state of the art video games, you will quickly appreciate the advantage that you get from higher speed CPUs.
I say you get what you pay for as Windows machines just can't handle multimedia in any way near the Mac machines...
Have you ever seen 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Bryce, Poser, SoftImage, and the other current generation Windows apps for multimedia creation? Don't fall into that 1992 mindset that says that Mac is the only choice for multimedia. As Mac falls further and further behind in the horsepower race, while their prices remain sky-high, more and more professional multimedia apps are finding their way to the Windows PC market.
The lowest priced PowerMac model is $1599 (US, no display). That's with the single-800 MHz processor.
Or one could just run down to Best Buy and pick up a Compaq Athlon XP-1700+ system with twice as much RAM, double the hard drive space, a DVD drive (in addition to the CD-R/W drive), and a floppy drive (apparently not on the PowerMac G4 you mentioned). And still have enough money left over to buy a sweet 17" flat panel LCD monitor!
They're not all that expensive.
Maybe they aren't expensive on your home planet, but here on Earth, they cost about twice what an equivalent x86-based PC does.
It's a sad state of affairs when the most desirable Palm platform handhelds are made by Sony and Handspring. This latest Palm doesn't do much for me. I don't want to subscribe to some overpriced service to get connectivity. The display is still the same resolution (160x160) that it was years ago while the Sony Clies have four times as many pixels (320x320). This device offers no more memory than my $150 Palm M105 and only half of what modern Handspring Visors have. It's not the sleek, ultra-thin design that Sony has for their Clie line.
As much as I like Palm handhelds, I really think that the end is near for them. Their products are no longer innovative, market leaders. Instead, they just rerelease the same features in new cases.
"Singular" does include the meaning "one of a kind" but is not limited to that as is "unique." It's really not the same word. Could you imagine someone saying "those shoes are singular" rather than "those shoes are unique"?
No - I'll stick with such illiterate yokels such as J.D. Salinger and the editors of dictionaries
While there are some educated people who subscribe to the belief that "unique" can mean "unusual", they are in the minority. Go to www.dictionary.com. They include the following alternate definition:
b. Informal. Unusual; extraordinary: spoke with a unique accent.
A news story on Slashdot is not "informal" -- or at least it should not be.
As to the usage guide, it reads:
Usage Note: For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term, a shibboleth that distinguishes between those who understand that such a term cannot be modified by an adverb of degree or a comparative adverb and those who do not. These grammarians would say that a thing is either unique or not unique and that it is therefore incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else. Most of the Usage Panel supports this traditional view. Eighty percent disapprove of the sentence Her designs are quite unique in today's fashions.
While it goes on to say that some people argue that it is synonymous with "unusual", they warn the reader to be ready for "censure" if they use it that way with a modifier.
BTW "grammer" is spelt "grammar". I wouldn't normally mention such a typo, but a) it's the second time you've made this error, b) you are supposed to be a experienced editor, and c) you are the one being picky about language.
Grammar is one of those words with which I have a mental block. No matter how many times I discover I have spelled it incorrectly, I can never remember the next time which spelling I discovered was incorrect. Even experienced writers and editors are not immune to mental blocks. Perhaps your correction will help make it stick this time.
By the way, "spelt" is hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe for livestock feed. Just kidding. I know it's an alternative to "spelled."
The problem with a lot of these rules (such as "no modifiying an absolute") is they assume that a word has a fixed meaning.
The word "unique" is unique. There is not some other word that means "one of a kind." If we allow the semi-literate amoung us to redefine words unchallenged, then English will become a less precise means of expressing thoughts. And that would be a shame.
For that reason, I will stick with the usage and definition of the word "unique" accepted by the vast majority of educated English speakers. If you prefer to use the underwear-clad suspects on Cops as your guide to English grammer, there is nothing I can do about it.
So the message was transmitted clearly. And for bonus points he managed to seriously annoy some language mavens.
If that kind of thing makes you happy, I suggest that you shut off your computer and, instead of reading Slashdot, watch an episode of the Jenny Jones show. You can revel in sentences like "She think she all that," "He ain't shit" and "She all, like, getting up in his face and stuff."
I am a published writer and experienced editor, so you can stop making a fool of yourself and let this drop. Or you can amuse me further by trying to come up with some explanation of why you believe that you are right.
I wasn't talking about the translation. I was talking about the story posted on Slashdot:
senseimoron writes: "Check out the Filewalker, a new Linux-based handheld, with a very unique (one-handed) means of inputting characters. It is too difficult to explain, just checkout the site..."
That's why Slashdot has editors. They are supposed to fix errors in story submissions, not just post them with spelling and grammer errors in place.
Whether they should have hired professional translators as this is a business, is another topic.
And on that other topic, yes, they should have hired professional translators or, at least, a professional, English-speaking editor. I get offended by companies that want money from a market but won't even hire a single native speaker from that market to edit their copy. Some of the Asian computer manufacturers are particularly bad in this respect. They set up offices in the U.S. but will not hire non-Asians or even Asians for whom English is a primary language. If you actively discriminate against English-speaking Americans in your hiring practices, then don't expect me to give you my money.
A friend of mine with an Asian last name interviewed at one of those firms. When he arrived, they just started speaking Chinese to him. Once he told them that he did not speak Chinese, the interview (for a support job in the U.S.) was over. There is something very wrong when an American is denied a job in the U.S. because he speaks English.
No, it does not. The shoehorning of Linux into PDAs reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force Windows into everything from washing machine control panels to vending machines. It is, at best, a kludge. A PDA is an embedded system architecture. It does not need a mulitasking, multi-user OS designed around the personal-computer-with-hard-disk paradigm. It needs a purpose-built embedded system OS.
A PDA is not supposed to be a poor man's laptop, a rich man's Gameboy, or a pathetic man's status symbol. It is supposed to perform useful functions as a Personal Digital Assistant, not be crammed with everything from MP3 playback to telnet clients in something the size of a calculator. That's a fact that Palm, Visor, and Sony seem to get, but that others are losing sight of.
Like every other "revolutionary Linux-based PDA", this one will be dead on arrival. There will be a handful of geeks who buy this thing, port stuff to it that doesn't belong on a PDA, and then loudly proclaim that Linux is necessary in a PDA and that it's not that much of an inconvenience to run fsck every time they turn it on.
with a very unique (one-handed) means of inputting characters.
Something is either "unique" or it is not. There are not levels or gradations of uniqueness. Unique means "one of a kind." Have you ever thought of saying that something was "somewhat one of a kind" or "very one of a kind"? Of course not.
P.S. This is not "off-topic". If it can't be discussed here, where can it be discussed?
Bork *expected* the crisis to escalate upon the firing (as would *anyone* who gave it serious thought). He was also concerned about the justice department--he was the only senior official left, and *someone* had to mind the store.
What an absurd rewrite of history! Bork simply lacked the moral integrity of Elliot L. Richardson and William Ruckelshaus. They were men of principle and chose to sacrifice their own jobs rather than iterfere with the Watergate Special Prosecutor.
Claiming that Bork's concern was for the Justice Department is idiotic fantasy. Bork was hardly the kind of guy to "mind the store" at the Justice Department after he interfered with a lawful investigation of Nixon and Watergate.
To suggest that he thought that this would in *any* way assist the coverup is to be willfully ignorant.
Cox was attempting to gain access to the full Watergate tapes, not just the snippets that Nixon chose to provide him. Nixon, in a desperate move to prevent that, had Bork fire Cox. What more obvious way could Bork have found to assist Nixon in the coverup?
Bork's own statement at the time was "All I will say is that I carried out the President's directive." Does that sound like the words of a man proudly doing his duty for the Justice Department? Of course those words might have sounded muffled to you given where your head is.
Here is an article from the May 21, 2001 Washington Post entitled Bork Wasn't Borked. I suggest you read it before singing the praises of Bork and rewriting the pages of history while doing so.
Before you start praising the supposed high moral character of Bork, perhaps you should take in a little history lesson:
On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson resigned in protest rather than carry out Richard Nixon's order to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired. Nixon's Solicitor General, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, carried out Nixon's orders and fired Cox.
Anyone who would help Nixon cover up Watergate by firing the Watergate Special Prosecutor lacks the ethics, integrity, and judgement to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I, for one, am happy that the Democrats hae real integrity and blocked the appointment of that scoundrel.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is just up to the same old tricks. By tightly coupling their enterprise server apps to their client apps via poorly documented, proprietary interfaces, they hope to stomp competitors out of existence. They want people to rely on these proprietary features so that IS departments are forced to deploy and maintain Microsoft-only networks.
Without government intervention, it will only get worse. The average computer user does not understand issues of inter-operability, conformance with open standards, or the dangers in adopting Microsoft proprietary formats and protocols.
The failure of so many dot-coms is not an indication that selling on the Internet is doomed to failure. All that this shows us is that an ill-conceived business won't be made miraculously transformed into a success by simply registering a domain name and putting up a web site.
Look at some of the idiotic failures:
Pet food sold over the Internet. Pet food is normally about 35 cents per can. So people are going to order it over the Internet for the big savings?
The Netpliance i-opener Internet appliance is another great example. They were selling them for $99 and taking about a $300 loss and they intended to make all of that loss back up with subscriber fees to their Internet service. One problem: You could buy the thing and never sign up or decide to stop using it after a few months.
Then there were all of the sites that decided that they would provide expensive, high-bandwidth content for free and support themselves with banner ads. Great idea if you already have a HUGE user base, but pretty dumb if you don't.
Investors may be running scared, but a company with a desirable service or product that is priced attractively (and profitably) is still a good bet. And it doesn't matter if they sell in the mall or on the Internet.
I doubt even if you could be bothered reading the floppy that after 8-10 years the floppy will still be readable...
I just had to read in a set of old Borland 5.25" floppies to rebuild some ancient source code. They read fine and they are well over 10 years old. I did copy them for safety, but they still read fine.
or use pgp to secure the data.. and send it as an email..
One problem: 99% of the world does not use PGP. Sorry, but that's life. I can't go around a 5,000 person company and, as a consultant, insist that everyone from managers to secretaries to software engineers install PGP so that I can exchange encrypted e-mail with them.
Just accept it: Floppy disks are a necessary part of life for most computer users. They aren't fast, capacious, or high-tech, but they are still needed. I buy products with diagnostics and drivers on floppy (examples: Ethernet adapters and Western Digital hard drives). They provide a means of booting into DOS to flash BIOSs, run PROM programmers, and use tools like Norton Ghost -- and you can't boot from a USB key dongle.
I use a CompactFlash card and one of those pocket USB CF readers for that. USB mass storage drivers are included in various recent OSes (i.e., no, I can't use my CF card on some 6-year-old Win95 machine, but I don't care to either). If you want to get fancy, you can get one of those little keychain USB flash drives.
I can already move data between all of my machines via the network. What I want is a way to move date between many different PCs and mine. Some of those PCs are on a network. Some are not. Some have USB while others do not. Some are laptops, some are desktops, some are embedded systems.
I have one system without a floppy drive and it drives me ape-fecal-matter on a recurring basis. I can't boot it up via a Norton Ghost floppy, DOS floppy, etc. I can't read diskettes that I have -- including driver diskettes. I've had to copy diskettes to CD-R/W media just to access them. It's a PITA.
If your boss hands you a floppy disk, it's time to get a new boss!
So he's supposed to cut a CD-R to give you a 100K file? Or he's supposed to send proprietary, sensitive data through e-mail? Is he supposed to take something from 8-10 years ago and put it up on the server so that you don't have to be bothered with reading a floppy (yes, businesses sometimes need data for that long and longer)?
Get a clue and stop making absurd generalizations.
That's your right, I suppose, but understand that it means your comparison will be useless to anyone except for other geeks.
Since Slashdot is news for nerds, I'd say my comparison was pretty well targeted.
As for the floppy disk: Haven't you ever heard of a network?
Yes, I have. I run an FTP server, mail server, web server, and Telnet server. And that doesn't do me a bit of good if someone hands me a floppy. I've used floppies for installing network drivers (try that over a non-functional Ethernet connection), running Norton Ghost, booting into MS-DOS for flashing BIOSs and operating my E/EE/PROM programmer, running a commercial RAM testing program, running hard drive diagnostics, and for moving data to secure systems that don't have a connection to the Internet.
While floppies aren't an ideal medium, they are a fast and convenient way to move relatively small quantities of data conveniently. Even my 24x CD cutter is a lot slower than my floppy drive if all I want to move is a 100K file.
Why does 'equivalent' mean merely computationally equivalent?
Because it's my comparison and I can decide how the comparison is done.
You can't measure "total experience" and all of that other subjective stuff that the Mac crowd likes to carry on about (somehow I don't think that it's a coincidence). But you can compare performance, price, memory, hard drive storage, and features.
All of the eye candy in the world doesn't do any good if the software you want is not available for your computer, if you can't read the floppy disk your boss just handed you, or if the program you are running is slow.
If you like your Mac, that's fine. Enjoy. There are people out there who are convinced that their 6-cylinder Dodge Darts are the greatest cars ever built and that they are "fast enough."
Could someone tell me how it is "Flamebait" to compare the price of a computer being discussed to an alternative system?
Or does "flamebait" mean that the moderator simply disagrees with the opinion expressed?
Some people can afford the best, some people can't.
I paid cash for my new (2002) car, so get off of your high horse about "some people" not being able to afford a Mac.
I don't own a Mac because Macs are not the best. They are slow, expensive, and have a dearth of hardware and software available for them. They are designed around the user-as-idiot paradigm.
I recently had the "opportunity" to use Photoshop on a Power Mac G4. I was stunned at how slow and unresponsive it was when compared to its performance on my Athlon XP system. Same thing for the OS/X GUI. It was glacial compared to the snappy response to which I have become accustomed. Games that fly on my PC look like slide shows on most Power Mac G4 systems.
So, buy one if you want, but count me out.
My boss, on the other hand, won't come anywhere near a handheld that isn't a Palm. He loves the software that loads on his desktop. He loves the fact that he and his... assistant can synchronize their schedules or that she can make the schedule for him--and all he needs to do is put the Palm in the cradle.
I am a die-hard PalmOS fan, too. I wouldn't consider a Windows-based handheld because they lack the usability, small size, and long battery life of the Palm machines. But tell me why I should pay $450 for a new PalmOS handheld from Palm when I can get higher resolution, more memory, and wireless connectivity if I need it, from a Sony or Handspring PalmOS handheld.
The new Palm offers almost nothing over the old Palm VIIx. Same memory (8mb). Same screen size (160x160). Wireless connectivity, just like the VIIx. The only real difference that I can see is USB (vs. serial) connectivity and an expansion slot. That's just not enough progress in what is, in the computer field, an eternity.
Even if they could, the machine you described can't burn DVDs, and, having only a single processor, will be less responsive when mixing interactive work with computationally intensive work.
Try reading before you reply next time. I was comparing the $1599 Power Mac G4 that he mentioned to an $899 Compaq. The $1599 Power Mac G4 does not have dual CPUs or a DVD burner. In fact, it does not even have a DVD drive.
There's no such thing as an "equivalent PC", since PCs can't run OS X.
Equivalent means computationally comparable, not that it runs the same OS. The fact that the PC runs Windows rather than Apple's new OS is a plus since there is a lot more software out there for Windows than there is for OS/X.
And Compaqs are not known for being the highest quality of computers or at least that is true from what I have seen.
It was just an example. I could have just as well used examples from Dell or HP to illustrate my point.
Hell, once you pass over 300 MHz most improvements become largely irrelevant.
It all depends on what you use them for. If you are doing much multimedia work using tools like Photoshop, or if you are playing state of the art video games, you will quickly appreciate the advantage that you get from higher speed CPUs.
I say you get what you pay for as Windows machines just can't handle multimedia in any way near the Mac machines...
Have you ever seen 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Bryce, Poser, SoftImage, and the other current generation Windows apps for multimedia creation? Don't fall into that 1992 mindset that says that Mac is the only choice for multimedia. As Mac falls further and further behind in the horsepower race, while their prices remain sky-high, more and more professional multimedia apps are finding their way to the Windows PC market.
The lowest priced PowerMac model is $1599 (US, no display). That's with the single-800 MHz processor.
Or one could just run down to Best Buy and pick up a Compaq Athlon XP-1700+ system with twice as much RAM, double the hard drive space, a DVD drive (in addition to the CD-R/W drive), and a floppy drive (apparently not on the PowerMac G4 you mentioned). And still have enough money left over to buy a sweet 17" flat panel LCD monitor!
They're not all that expensive.
Maybe they aren't expensive on your home planet, but here on Earth, they cost about twice what an equivalent x86-based PC does.
It's a sad state of affairs when the most desirable Palm platform handhelds are made by Sony and Handspring. This latest Palm doesn't do much for me. I don't want to subscribe to some overpriced service to get connectivity. The display is still the same resolution (160x160) that it was years ago while the Sony Clies have four times as many pixels (320x320). This device offers no more memory than my $150 Palm M105 and only half of what modern Handspring Visors have. It's not the sleek, ultra-thin design that Sony has for their Clie line.
As much as I like Palm handhelds, I really think that the end is near for them. Their products are no longer innovative, market leaders. Instead, they just rerelease the same features in new cases.
Apart from "singular".
"Singular" does include the meaning "one of a kind" but is not limited to that as is "unique." It's really not the same word. Could you imagine someone saying "those shoes are singular" rather than "those shoes are unique"?
No - I'll stick with such illiterate yokels such as J.D. Salinger and the editors of dictionaries
While there are some educated people who subscribe to the belief that "unique" can mean "unusual", they are in the minority. Go to www.dictionary.com. They include the following alternate definition:
b. Informal. Unusual; extraordinary: spoke with a unique accent.
A news story on Slashdot is not "informal" -- or at least it should not be.
As to the usage guide, it reads:
Usage Note: For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term, a shibboleth that distinguishes between those who understand that such a term cannot be modified by an adverb of degree or a comparative adverb and those who do not. These grammarians would say that a thing is either unique or not unique and that it is therefore incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else. Most of the Usage Panel supports this traditional view. Eighty percent disapprove of the sentence Her designs are quite unique in today's fashions.
While it goes on to say that some people argue that it is synonymous with "unusual", they warn the reader to be ready for "censure" if they use it that way with a modifier.
BTW "grammer" is spelt "grammar". I wouldn't normally mention such a typo, but a) it's the second time you've made this error, b) you are supposed to be a experienced editor, and c) you are the one being picky about language.
Grammar is one of those words with which I have a mental block. No matter how many times I discover I have spelled it incorrectly, I can never remember the next time which spelling I discovered was incorrect. Even experienced writers and editors are not immune to mental blocks. Perhaps your correction will help make it stick this time.
By the way, "spelt" is hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe for livestock feed. Just kidding. I know it's an alternative to "spelled."
The problem with a lot of these rules (such as "no modifiying an absolute") is they assume that a word has a fixed meaning.
The word "unique" is unique. There is not some other word that means "one of a kind." If we allow the semi-literate amoung us to redefine words unchallenged, then English will become a less precise means of expressing thoughts. And that would be a shame.
For that reason, I will stick with the usage and definition of the word "unique" accepted by the vast majority of educated English speakers. If you prefer to use the underwear-clad suspects on Cops as your guide to English grammer, there is nothing I can do about it.
So the message was transmitted clearly. And for bonus points he managed to seriously annoy some language mavens.
If that kind of thing makes you happy, I suggest that you shut off your computer and, instead of reading Slashdot, watch an episode of the Jenny Jones show. You can revel in sentences like "She think she all that," "He ain't shit" and "She all, like, getting up in his face and stuff."
So get off your high horse, it makes *perfect* sense to talk about this being "very unique".
You are simply wrong and here's the evidence to prove it:
Common Errors in English Usage
Some Common Grammar and Usage Mistakes in Undergraduate Philosophy Papers
Bowdoin College -- A Style Guide
The Dirty Dozen
Additional Writing Hints (first entry)
Unique and Other Absolute Modifiers
See Curmudgeon's Corner...our soapbox where we vent our spleen regarding abuses of the English language.
I am a published writer and experienced editor, so you can stop making a fool of yourself and let this drop. Or you can amuse me further by trying to come up with some explanation of why you believe that you are right.
I wasn't talking about the translation. I was talking about the story posted on Slashdot:
senseimoron writes: "Check out the Filewalker, a new Linux-based handheld, with a very unique (one-handed) means of inputting characters. It is too difficult to explain, just checkout the site..."
That's why Slashdot has editors. They are supposed to fix errors in story submissions, not just post them with spelling and grammer errors in place.
Whether they should have hired professional translators as this is a business, is another topic.
And on that other topic, yes, they should have hired professional translators or, at least, a professional, English-speaking editor. I get offended by companies that want money from a market but won't even hire a single native speaker from that market to edit their copy. Some of the Asian computer manufacturers are particularly bad in this respect. They set up offices in the U.S. but will not hire non-Asians or even Asians for whom English is a primary language. If you actively discriminate against English-speaking Americans in your hiring practices, then don't expect me to give you my money.
A friend of mine with an Asian last name interviewed at one of those firms. When he arrived, they just started speaking Chinese to him. Once he told them that he did not speak Chinese, the interview (for a support job in the U.S.) was over. There is something very wrong when an American is denied a job in the U.S. because he speaks English.
but does linux really belong in the PDA market?
No, it does not. The shoehorning of Linux into PDAs reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force Windows into everything from washing machine control panels to vending machines. It is, at best, a kludge. A PDA is an embedded system architecture. It does not need a mulitasking, multi-user OS designed around the personal-computer-with-hard-disk paradigm. It needs a purpose-built embedded system OS.
A PDA is not supposed to be a poor man's laptop, a rich man's Gameboy, or a pathetic man's status symbol. It is supposed to perform useful functions as a Personal Digital Assistant, not be crammed with everything from MP3 playback to telnet clients in something the size of a calculator. That's a fact that Palm, Visor, and Sony seem to get, but that others are losing sight of.
Like every other "revolutionary Linux-based PDA", this one will be dead on arrival. There will be a handful of geeks who buy this thing, port stuff to it that doesn't belong on a PDA, and then loudly proclaim that Linux is necessary in a PDA and that it's not that much of an inconvenience to run fsck every time they turn it on.
with a very unique (one-handed) means of inputting characters.
Something is either "unique" or it is not. There are not levels or gradations of uniqueness. Unique means "one of a kind." Have you ever thought of saying that something was "somewhat one of a kind" or "very one of a kind"? Of course not.
P.S. This is not "off-topic". If it can't be discussed here, where can it be discussed?
Bork *expected* the crisis to escalate upon the firing (as would *anyone* who gave it serious thought). He was also concerned about the justice department--he was the only senior official left, and *someone* had to mind the store.
What an absurd rewrite of history! Bork simply lacked the moral integrity of Elliot L. Richardson and William Ruckelshaus. They were men of principle and chose to sacrifice their own jobs rather than iterfere with the Watergate Special Prosecutor.
Claiming that Bork's concern was for the Justice Department is idiotic fantasy. Bork was hardly the kind of guy to "mind the store" at the Justice Department after he interfered with a lawful investigation of Nixon and Watergate.
To suggest that he thought that this would in *any* way assist the coverup is to be willfully ignorant.
Cox was attempting to gain access to the full Watergate tapes, not just the snippets that Nixon chose to provide him. Nixon, in a desperate move to prevent that, had Bork fire Cox. What more obvious way could Bork have found to assist Nixon in the coverup?
Bork's own statement at the time was "All I will say is that I carried out the President's directive." Does that sound like the words of a man proudly doing his duty for the Justice Department? Of course those words might have sounded muffled to you given where your head is.
Here is an article from the May 21, 2001 Washington Post entitled Bork Wasn't Borked. I suggest you read it before singing the praises of Bork and rewriting the pages of history while doing so.
oh, you mean the democrats in big cities who are corrupt as hell? dead voters who are registered?
Boy, you really present a convincing, detailed refutation of my position. The research that went into that response was truly impressive.
Before you start praising the supposed high moral character of Bork, perhaps you should take in a little history lesson:
On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson resigned in protest rather than carry out Richard Nixon's order to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired. Nixon's Solicitor General, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, carried out Nixon's orders and fired Cox.
Anyone who would help Nixon cover up Watergate by firing the Watergate Special Prosecutor lacks the ethics, integrity, and judgement to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I, for one, am happy that the Democrats hae real integrity and blocked the appointment of that scoundrel.
How, pray tell, do they propose to determine whether a user has NAT?
I think we just need to formalize it, there is a definate need for the TLD ".sucks"
.sucks could rival the popularity of the .museum, .coop, .pro, and .aero TLDs recently approved by ICANN!
.sucks TLD becoming available, someone would register ICANN.sucks. That's why they will never approve it.
Surely you aren't suggesting that
My bet: Within 50ms of the