Dear Word Detective: At a recent party, I had occasion to use the phrase "Heebee Jeebees" to refer to something that gave me a "creepy" feeling. I was flummoxed when half the crowd was nonplussed! (See, you do have an effect!) Actually, I was even more surprised when someone suggested that she thought the phrase was not in good taste because it was anti-Semitic! I am doubtful, but I'm PC enough to worry. -- Chris Kuhn, via the Internet.
Of course I have an effect; many effects, in fact, some of them rather alarming. Most people find me easiest to take with meals (you can always play with your peas and pretend not to know me), and it's generally wise not to go swimming within a half-hour after reading this column. If dizziness or skepticism develops, go ask William Safire.
I, too, am surprised that half the folks at that party didn't know what "heebie-jeebies" (the usual spelling) are. What are they teaching in school these days, anyway? Nothing useful, apparently. To quote the Oxford English Dictionary, the "heebie-jeebies" are "a feeling of discomfort, apprehension, or depression; the 'jitters'; delirium tremens; also, formerly, a type of dance." Just like the "wim-wams," I'd say, except the dancing part.
As to your worries about "heebie-jeebies" possibly being an anti-Semitic slur, the answer is a somewhat qualified "no." The phrase "heebie-jeebies" was invented by Billy De Beck, a famous American comic strip artist of the 1920's, in his popular "Barney Google" strip in 1923. De Beck, by the way, also invented "hotsy-totsy" (a term of approval) and the wonderful "horsefeathers" (meaning "utter nonsense") in his strip. "Heebie-jeebies" must have caught the popular imagination immediately, since the dance of that name appeared a scant three years later, in 1926.
The invention of "heebie-jeebies" by De Beck was, without doubt, innocent of any racial or ethnic animosity. The only possible anti-Semitic interpretation of "heebie-jeebies" comes from its unfortunate resemblance to the slang term "hebe" (a cropping of "Hebrew"), which is indeed an anti-Jewish epithet. Whether you want to risk possible misunderstandings when you use "heebie-jeebies" is up to you, of course, but the truth of its innocent origin is its best defense.
You're an idiot. First of all, this case has nothing to do with copyright. Read that sentence over and over until you actually understand that. If anything, you're the one spewing FUD, not the GP.
In fact, the GP specifically said "it doesn't make them any less foul". So now, it's a "straw man" to post the truth about an issue, which is that this situation has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with trademarks.
It's not black-and-white rhetoric, it's merely an observation that, 99% of the time, these types of laws are championed by those who label themselves as liberal - thus the perception that such a mindset is "liberal". I also didn't say that these businesses shouldn't be able to make their own decision on this, but if they do, they should be required to make it plainly clear, and post this requirement outside, so that emergency personnel can know ahead of time and stay out of such businesses completely (after all, if they don't have to advertise that they disable cell phones, then emergency personnel should be able to completely stay away from such businesses, so that their wireless service isn't interrupted at all - imagine if they were needed, but they couldn't be contacted because they had stepped into such a business). As for those who aren't emergency personnel, I couldn't care less, as there is no requirement for business owners to accomodate them. I would feel the same way about emergency personnel if it weren't for the possibility of someone not receiving medical care that they need.
It's also not partisan, because I'm not Conservative as understood by the majority of the populace today. If anything, I'm a "small c" conservative who champions government that's only as big as it absolutely needs to be to function as set forth in the Constitution. Nowadays, I'm just as mad at the right as I am at the left.
Um, please learn to read before yapping your mouth off.
Basically, if you orerate a forum in New Jersey, your site must have data for your users, whether they are from New Jersey, New York or Papua New Guinea. (emphasis mine)
You must be a liberal who thinks that they should ban anything that irritates them. Instead of trying to think about it reasonably, you're trying to advocate a blanket ban on communications devices inside of a movie theater. It's this same misguided nannyism that causes things like city-wide indoor smoking bans for businesses (despite the fact that a business owner should have the right to make that decision themself).
I wouldn't require relinquishing the phone, I would only require that patrons who are not employees of an emergency service to turn off the ringer on their phone, and if they need to send or receive a phone call, I would also require them to step outside or go to the restroom to complete their call.
And it's not just doctors - it's any service that would be considered an emergency service. Everyone else that's on call can simply turn their ringer off (most modern phones support vibrate) and then take the call away from those who would be irritated.
Remember, you don't have a right not to be irritated. You simply don't. As a business owner, I would make an attempt to accomodate both sides of the issue, so as to ensure, as best as I can, that I don't lose business.
As far as I know, that was actually hashed out in Sega v. Accolade, where Sega was trying to prevent unlicensed cartridges by requiring software to contain the trademark "SEGA" and to write it at a specific hardware register (the infamous TMSS or "trademark security system"). The court found that it was legal for Accolade to include the TMSS for the purposes of making their own code work on the system, as the TMSS was initally intended to help fight counterfeiters (by counterfeiting such a cartridge, it would display the "SEGA" mark that shows up before all games on a Genesis 2 or 3).
No, but the 9th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn't otherwise give the government the jurisdiction, then the rights are reserved to the people. And since there is no explicit verbiage that says the people don't have a right to privacy, it follows that they do indeed have that right.
Oh, so doctors should never go to a theater, because heaven forbid they might actually get called on an emergency? It's one thing to be against casual cell phone use, but when it's a doctor or other emergency personnel, you are 100% in the wrong to bitch.
Yeah, but when you're sitting at a desk, your arms may not be precisely and fully perpendicular, but your forearm is certainly in a position that is approximately perpendicular to your torso.
At least for the Genesis, that's primarily not true. The only mentioned Genesis game that used extra hardware was Virtua Racing. All the others just put code in the Genesis' ROM space and perhaps had some save RAM.
Anyway, he'd take 15 minute smoke breaks...every hour. You do the math, and guess who caught hell for all the work not getting done.
The problem there wasn't that he took a 15-minute smoke break each hour, but that he couldn't complete the work. Last job I worked, I took an abundance of smoke breaks (at least one per hour, about 5-6 minutes long) without negatively impacting my work in the slightest.
Actually, the publisher isn't making sticker price, they're making whatever unit price they sold the games to the retail outlets for. From there, the retailers mark it up so that they will profit as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the publisher's gross profit (notwithstanding production and marketing costs) was 50% of the retail price.
That's exactly why the Framers were against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights - they feared that people would see the explicit rights as the only rights. Even after including the 9th Amendment, people still have such a misconception.
I agree with you. You're speaking from the practical standpoint, and I'm speaking by what the law actually is (and as it stands now, I don't know of anywhere that the actual law itself states that police officers can accost anyone for any reason at any time).
It's almost to the point where it would be prudent to walk around with a hidden microphone and camera, along with a large hard drive and a lossy video encoder, such that anything that you see and hear is recorded. Have it set up with basic PVR-type functionality, only have the buffer be something like two or three hours. Press a button and the device instantly retains all of the buffer contents and everything recorded from that moment forward until explicitly disabled by the user. Sure, it's not foolproof (it's only a basic concept), but such a device could be indispensable in catching police officers breaking the law in such a fashion. Such a device would be fully voluntary, of course, and fully controlled by the user (so no recording what they do when they don't know it).
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Word Detective: At a recent party, I had occasion to use the phrase "Heebee Jeebees" to refer to something that gave me a "creepy" feeling. I was flummoxed when half the crowd was nonplussed! (See, you do have an effect!) Actually, I was even more surprised when someone suggested that she thought the phrase was not in good taste because it was anti-Semitic! I am doubtful, but I'm PC enough to worry. -- Chris Kuhn, via the Internet.
Of course I have an effect; many effects, in fact, some of them rather alarming. Most people find me easiest to take with meals (you can always play with your peas and pretend not to know me), and it's generally wise not to go swimming within a half-hour after reading this column. If dizziness or skepticism develops, go ask William Safire.
I, too, am surprised that half the folks at that party didn't know what "heebie-jeebies" (the usual spelling) are. What are they teaching in school these days, anyway? Nothing useful, apparently. To quote the Oxford English Dictionary, the "heebie-jeebies" are "a feeling of discomfort, apprehension, or depression; the 'jitters'; delirium tremens; also, formerly, a type of dance." Just like the "wim-wams," I'd say, except the dancing part.
As to your worries about "heebie-jeebies" possibly being an anti-Semitic slur, the answer is a somewhat qualified "no." The phrase "heebie-jeebies" was invented by Billy De Beck, a famous American comic strip artist of the 1920's, in his popular "Barney Google" strip in 1923. De Beck, by the way, also invented "hotsy-totsy" (a term of approval) and the wonderful "horsefeathers" (meaning "utter nonsense") in his strip. "Heebie-jeebies" must have caught the popular imagination immediately, since the dance of that name appeared a scant three years later, in 1926.
The invention of "heebie-jeebies" by De Beck was, without doubt, innocent of any racial or ethnic animosity. The only possible anti-Semitic interpretation of "heebie-jeebies" comes from its unfortunate resemblance to the slang term "hebe" (a cropping of "Hebrew"), which is indeed an anti-Jewish epithet. Whether you want to risk possible misunderstandings when you use "heebie-jeebies" is up to you, of course, but the truth of its innocent origin is its best defense.
Newsflash: Being modded down on /. is not being "punished". It's merely showing that people who have mod points disagree with your statement.
I stand corrected - I just did the same as you and found the vulnerability is present.
I just tested it in IE7b2 and got the correct results, showing the Secunia URL and not Google's.
You're an idiot. First of all, this case has nothing to do with copyright. Read that sentence over and over until you actually understand that. If anything, you're the one spewing FUD, not the GP.
In fact, the GP specifically said "it doesn't make them any less foul". So now, it's a "straw man" to post the truth about an issue, which is that this situation has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with trademarks.
You must have played a different Doom than everyone else, because I remember killing humans when I played it.
You know, if everyone who felt that way actually voted for a third-party candidate, things would be shaken up pretty quick.
It's not black-and-white rhetoric, it's merely an observation that, 99% of the time, these types of laws are championed by those who label themselves as liberal - thus the perception that such a mindset is "liberal". I also didn't say that these businesses shouldn't be able to make their own decision on this, but if they do, they should be required to make it plainly clear, and post this requirement outside, so that emergency personnel can know ahead of time and stay out of such businesses completely (after all, if they don't have to advertise that they disable cell phones, then emergency personnel should be able to completely stay away from such businesses, so that their wireless service isn't interrupted at all - imagine if they were needed, but they couldn't be contacted because they had stepped into such a business). As for those who aren't emergency personnel, I couldn't care less, as there is no requirement for business owners to accomodate them. I would feel the same way about emergency personnel if it weren't for the possibility of someone not receiving medical care that they need.
It's also not partisan, because I'm not Conservative as understood by the majority of the populace today. If anything, I'm a "small c" conservative who champions government that's only as big as it absolutely needs to be to function as set forth in the Constitution. Nowadays, I'm just as mad at the right as I am at the left.
You must be a liberal who thinks that they should ban anything that irritates them. Instead of trying to think about it reasonably, you're trying to advocate a blanket ban on communications devices inside of a movie theater. It's this same misguided nannyism that causes things like city-wide indoor smoking bans for businesses (despite the fact that a business owner should have the right to make that decision themself).
No, it's not.
I wouldn't require relinquishing the phone, I would only require that patrons who are not employees of an emergency service to turn off the ringer on their phone, and if they need to send or receive a phone call, I would also require them to step outside or go to the restroom to complete their call.
And it's not just doctors - it's any service that would be considered an emergency service. Everyone else that's on call can simply turn their ringer off (most modern phones support vibrate) and then take the call away from those who would be irritated.
Remember, you don't have a right not to be irritated. You simply don't. As a business owner, I would make an attempt to accomodate both sides of the issue, so as to ensure, as best as I can, that I don't lose business.
As far as I know, that was actually hashed out in Sega v. Accolade, where Sega was trying to prevent unlicensed cartridges by requiring software to contain the trademark "SEGA" and to write it at a specific hardware register (the infamous TMSS or "trademark security system"). The court found that it was legal for Accolade to include the TMSS for the purposes of making their own code work on the system, as the TMSS was initally intended to help fight counterfeiters (by counterfeiting such a cartridge, it would display the "SEGA" mark that shows up before all games on a Genesis 2 or 3).
For more indepth information, read Sega v. Accolade.
No, but the 9th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn't otherwise give the government the jurisdiction, then the rights are reserved to the people. And since there is no explicit verbiage that says the people don't have a right to privacy, it follows that they do indeed have that right.
Oh, so doctors should never go to a theater, because heaven forbid they might actually get called on an emergency? It's one thing to be against casual cell phone use, but when it's a doctor or other emergency personnel, you are 100% in the wrong to bitch.
It's called the 9th Amendment.
Yeah, but when you're sitting at a desk, your arms may not be precisely and fully perpendicular, but your forearm is certainly in a position that is approximately perpendicular to your torso.
No, it's not a law or anything, just one of the founding tenets of this country. That's all.
Um, yeah, when you stick your arms out, they're perpendicular to your body.
Or do you live in Bizarro world?
They're saying that the rate itself doubled, not the total loss.
At least for the Genesis, that's primarily not true. The only mentioned Genesis game that used extra hardware was Virtua Racing. All the others just put code in the Genesis' ROM space and perhaps had some save RAM.
Actually, the publisher isn't making sticker price, they're making whatever unit price they sold the games to the retail outlets for. From there, the retailers mark it up so that they will profit as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the publisher's gross profit (notwithstanding production and marketing costs) was 50% of the retail price.
That's exactly why the Framers were against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights - they feared that people would see the explicit rights as the only rights. Even after including the 9th Amendment, people still have such a misconception.
I agree with you. You're speaking from the practical standpoint, and I'm speaking by what the law actually is (and as it stands now, I don't know of anywhere that the actual law itself states that police officers can accost anyone for any reason at any time).
It's almost to the point where it would be prudent to walk around with a hidden microphone and camera, along with a large hard drive and a lossy video encoder, such that anything that you see and hear is recorded. Have it set up with basic PVR-type functionality, only have the buffer be something like two or three hours. Press a button and the device instantly retains all of the buffer contents and everything recorded from that moment forward until explicitly disabled by the user. Sure, it's not foolproof (it's only a basic concept), but such a device could be indispensable in catching police officers breaking the law in such a fashion. Such a device would be fully voluntary, of course, and fully controlled by the user (so no recording what they do when they don't know it).