(Funny but it's not me who's blowing someone off with pithy comments or one-liners here, is it?)
Arguing? Well, if you want to call trying to engage in a serious conversation about etymology arguing, well, then I guess I am arguing. But, if nothing else, doesn't what I've said suggest to you that "burgle" has been around for longer than "burglarize"? Or, given that it's not used anywhere else in the world, that "burglarize" is an Americanism?
And, by the way, the one print dictionary that I have access to here (published by Collins) has "burgle" but no mention of "burglarize", even though it does contain alternative American spellings to words such as "colour", "centre", "aluminium", etc, which is strange if "burgle" is totally unused in the US. I don't claim that as empirical proof of anything but, again, it does seem to suggest that burgle is more universal than perhaps you might think.
1. Uh, if "burglar" comes from a word with no Ls in it then why can't "burgle" come from the very same word, which like "burgle" happens to be a verb too?
2. I never said the OED was an American publication (although I bet they do print US versions), I said that the other dictionaries referenced in the parent post to the one that you're referring to were American publications.
3. You think it's a coincidence that Britain, Australasia, South Africa, Canada, India and you name it uses "burgle" whereas only the US uses "burglarize"? Granted, South Africa and India were part of the British Empire at the end of the 19th century but Australia's been an independent country for over 200 years and Canada gained independence in 1867.
If "burgle" is some British bastardisation of the English language, then why is it used in those countries too? Occam's Razor would suggest that "burgle" didn't suddenly crop up in the lexicon of three different subsets of English simultaneously, but you're free to argue that it did if you want to.
Seriously, would you argue that a bugler "buglerizes"? Wouldn't that seem silly to you? Because that's how ridiculous "burglarize" looks from here.
Dude, wait until you see the movie of the book of the video game of the Star Wars lego sets. That's going to blow you socks off! And if that doesn't the extended special edition will!
Speaking as someone who doesn't have kids, I find it incredible that people can complain about a baby crying. It's not like they weren't babies who cried themselves at one time or another, right?
I feel the same way about those people who are selfish enough to think that babies have an off button that their parents can just hit whenever they have to fly.
Seriously, if you're so intolerant of every aspect of the rest of society then perhaps you should fly first class, fly by private charter, or not fly at all. (And that's a general "you", not JNighthawk in particular.)
Frankly, this whole "loud conversation" stuff reminds me of that universal off button story a few months back. If something bothers you, then try to address it politely or not at all.
And a 250 user company doesn't? The question was whether a Linux solution was still cheaper than a Windows one for a company larger than the 250 user one mentioned in the study, not whether Linux was cheaper than Windows.
The separate question which you seem to be asking is whether that's still true accounting for employee turnover. Well, I've not done any study on it myself, but if you're going to bring up retraining of new employees then you also have to consider the continued year-on-year savings of not having to provide each one with a Windows desktop equipped with Office, etc.
For the big businesses we're dicussing, Microsoft software is acquired through annual licencing, not one-off purchases, something that you might not have factored into your thinking. No Microsoft desktops means huge savings on the annual IT cost, more than enough to pay for a day's training in how to open Open Office et al.
The cost of training per user doesn't go up, does it? If anything you can argue that it goes down, because you can buy training for 10,000 users for less than you can buy training for 250 users.
Meanwhile the cost of implementing the change per user - and by implementing I mean actually reimaging their desktops to run Linux, etc - and other such costs go down.
Think of it this way: a 10,000 user company is like 40 250 user companies under one roof but with more purchasing power and more scope to use the economies of scale to reduce costs. Proportionally, there will be fewer IT people in a typical 10,000 user company than a typical 250 user one, etc.
That firt sentence should have read "If you have a TV licence for home then almost certainly not, as the device in question is mobile and capable of running on its own power, just like mobile TVs."
I was a bit over-zealous with my editing down of what I'd originally typed. Mea culpa.
If you have a TV licence for home then almost certainly, as the device in question is mobile and capable of running on its own power, just like mobile TVs.
If you have no TV licence for home then the answer is maybe. It depends on several factors, including how these devices are classified, whether you actually watch live TV on them or not, etc. I think it's unlikely though.
Right now you have video mobile phones in the UK on which you can receive sports highlights, etc and you don't a TV licence for those, so I would have thought that the new devices won't need any licences either.
1. From the verb "burgare" to the verbs "burgle" or "burglarize": which looks like the simpler, more natural progression and which looks like the bigger, more forced leap?
2. All the dictionaries you're talking about are American publications with an overwhelming emphasis on American English, so of course they're US-centric in providing definitions. (If I wanted to be patronising then I'd add a "duh" here, but I'm not, I'm trying to have a serious conversation about etymology and the development of language.)
3. Of course the "-ize" vs "-ise" debate is relevant here. If as you say "burgle" is some sort of bad bastardisation of the language, then you'd expect to see "burglarise" commonly used in Britain, Australasia, South Africa, Canada, India, and elsewhere in the English speaking world, because where Americans use "-ize" the rest of the world uses "-ise" almost without exception.
Earlier you mentioned "vandalize", "brutalize" and "terrorize": to everyone but Americans, those words should be spelt "vandalise", "brutalise" and "terrorise", so if "burglarize" is so right and "burgle" is so wrong you'd expect to see "burglarise" in common usage too, but you don't.
QED.
And, yes, I did just write "spelt",: it's like "slept", "dreamt", "felt", etc; only Americans insist on using "spelled".
From (US-centric) Dictionary.com's entry for burglar: [Anglo-Norman burgler(alteration of burgesur, probably from Old French burg, borough), Medieval Latin burgulator(alteration of burgator, from burgare, to commit burglary in, from Late Latin burgus, fortified town) both of Germanic origin. See bhergh-2 in Indo-European Roots.]
In other words, "burgle" is not a back-formation of burglar, as your originally wrote, but is derived from the Medieval Latin verb "burgare". So that blows your original argument out of the water, doesn't it? Now, if you think that "burgare" became "burglarize" before it became "burgle" then, boy, do I have a bridge for you.
Remember, this is a word of Medieval European derivation, yet no where in Britain, or most of its former colonies, is the word "burglarize" in use. So what seems more likely to you: that all those former colonies (including some that became nations in their own right over two hundred years ago, such as Australia) at some stage all dropped "burglarize" in favour of "burgle", or that "burglarize" is exclusively a construct of American English?
Ever notice that "burglarize" has that "-ize" suffix that's almost exclusively associated with modern day American English? (In Britain and elsewhere, "-ise" is used almost everytime Americans use "-ize".
And have you checked the usage of these words online? Googling for "burglarise": less than 1,000 entries total (most obscure dictionary references). "Burglarize": 21,500 entries. "Burgle": 24,900 entries. Even on the Internet, which is still heavily US-centric in terms of content, that's a clear indication that "burgle" gets the nod over "burglarize".
So you bought the entry-level Tungsten model then bitched about it not having a complete everything-but-the-kitchen-sink feature set?
Sorry to appear rude, but are you an idiot? Didn't you read the model's specifications before you bought it? To make things worse, you then go on to compare the Tungsten E, which costs £199, to a Pocket PC that costs twice as much! Talk about trying to compare apples and oranges!
Two points for you to remember for the future:
1. Know what you're buying. It helps avoid small disappointments like, say, your new car not coming with heat-seeking missiles or an energy shield.
2. If you want a fair comparison then compare like with like. Don't expect a $199 device to do everything a $399 device does and certainly don't compare one to the other without at least acknowledging that one's twice as expensive as the other.
How much do you want to bet that "burgle" has been around in usage a lot longer than "burglarize"? So who exactly is "construct[ing] new words from old however [they] want" here?
And, no matter what you're smoking, verb formations are commonly shorter, not longer, than noun ones: a builder builds, a seller sells, a buyer buys, a helper helps, a writer writes, an editor edits, a publisher publishes, a reader reads, etc, etc.
What the federal governments could do and what it will do are two different things. The fact remains that the cost of serving the deficit is higher now than it's ever been (because the deficit's higher than it's even been), which means that the proportion of tax dollars wasted on just paying that interest rather than on schools, police, etc is disproportionately high.
Someone who burgles is a burglar. It's that simple, just like someone who warbles is a warbler. Distorting the verb form to "burglarize" is silly: you wouldn't say someone who's a warbler warblerizes, would you?
I wonder how long it'll be until you start calling someone who "burglarizes" a "burglarizer"?
From what I've seen reported, the cost of paying the interest alone, in terms of federal income, is comfortably in double figures, which isn't to be laughed at.
Measuring in terms of GDP is silly, because GDP is a measure of a country's economic sector, not of how much money it has to spend. And as this debt is federal, it's federal income rather than GDP that the cost of paying it back should be measured against or, in other words, as a percentage of tax dollars in.
I think you need to be examining what percentage of all government expenditure goes towards just servicing (ie, paying off the interest alone) that debt. It's a frightening proportion of all governmental income, and one which won't be falling anytime soon with GW Bush in perpetual tax cutting mode.
According to the article, the PSP's launch price was 20,790 Yen. That's only £103 ($198 US), which is as cheap as a non-portable PS2 is here in the UK.
Exactly. Shorter function and variable names means smaller code. I thought that much was pretty obvious to even the least experienced programmer. In Google's case, I'm sure this is about saving a few bucks - although it does do that - but about producing smaller and faster web pages.
Slashdot Mirror
(Funny but it's not me who's blowing someone off with pithy comments or one-liners here, is it?)
Arguing? Well, if you want to call trying to engage in a serious conversation about etymology arguing, well, then I guess I am arguing. But, if nothing else, doesn't what I've said suggest to you that "burgle" has been around for longer than "burglarize"? Or, given that it's not used anywhere else in the world, that "burglarize" is an Americanism?
And, by the way, the one print dictionary that I have access to here (published by Collins) has "burgle" but no mention of "burglarize", even though it does contain alternative American spellings to words such as "colour", "centre", "aluminium", etc, which is strange if "burgle" is totally unused in the US. I don't claim that as empirical proof of anything but, again, it does seem to suggest that burgle is more universal than perhaps you might think.
...that having software that (knowingly or unknowingly) blocks or removes this spyware isn't a crime...
1. Uh, if "burglar" comes from a word with no Ls in it then why can't "burgle" come from the very same word, which like "burgle" happens to be a verb too?
2. I never said the OED was an American publication (although I bet they do print US versions), I said that the other dictionaries referenced in the parent post to the one that you're referring to were American publications.
3. You think it's a coincidence that Britain, Australasia, South Africa, Canada, India and you name it uses "burgle" whereas only the US uses "burglarize"? Granted, South Africa and India were part of the British Empire at the end of the 19th century but Australia's been an independent country for over 200 years and Canada gained independence in 1867.
If "burgle" is some British bastardisation of the English language, then why is it used in those countries too? Occam's Razor would suggest that "burgle" didn't suddenly crop up in the lexicon of three different subsets of English simultaneously, but you're free to argue that it did if you want to.
Seriously, would you argue that a bugler "buglerizes"? Wouldn't that seem silly to you? Because that's how ridiculous "burglarize" looks from here.
Dude, wait until you see the movie of the book of the video game of the Star Wars lego sets. That's going to blow you socks off! And if that doesn't the extended special edition will!
Speaking as someone who doesn't have kids, I find it incredible that people can complain about a baby crying. It's not like they weren't babies who cried themselves at one time or another, right?
Truly, Christmas has come early this year!
I feel the same way about those people who are selfish enough to think that babies have an off button that their parents can just hit whenever they have to fly.
Seriously, if you're so intolerant of every aspect of the rest of society then perhaps you should fly first class, fly by private charter, or not fly at all. (And that's a general "you", not JNighthawk in particular.)
Frankly, this whole "loud conversation" stuff reminds me of that universal off button story a few months back. If something bothers you, then try to address it politely or not at all.
So the "no built-in bluetooth" bit of your post was my imagination? Silly me!
And a 250 user company doesn't? The question was whether a Linux solution was still cheaper than a Windows one for a company larger than the 250 user one mentioned in the study, not whether Linux was cheaper than Windows.
The separate question which you seem to be asking is whether that's still true accounting for employee turnover. Well, I've not done any study on it myself, but if you're going to bring up retraining of new employees then you also have to consider the continued year-on-year savings of not having to provide each one with a Windows desktop equipped with Office, etc.
For the big businesses we're dicussing, Microsoft software is acquired through annual licencing, not one-off purchases, something that you might not have factored into your thinking. No Microsoft desktops means huge savings on the annual IT cost, more than enough to pay for a day's training in how to open Open Office et al.
The cost of training per user doesn't go up, does it? If anything you can argue that it goes down, because you can buy training for 10,000 users for less than you can buy training for 250 users.
Meanwhile the cost of implementing the change per user - and by implementing I mean actually reimaging their desktops to run Linux, etc - and other such costs go down.
Think of it this way: a 10,000 user company is like 40 250 user companies under one roof but with more purchasing power and more scope to use the economies of scale to reduce costs. Proportionally, there will be fewer IT people in a typical 10,000 user company than a typical 250 user one, etc.
More people = more savings. File that under "duh".
That firt sentence should have read "If you have a TV licence for home then almost certainly not, as the device in question is mobile and capable of running on its own power, just like mobile TVs."
I was a bit over-zealous with my editing down of what I'd originally typed. Mea culpa.
If you have a TV licence for home then almost certainly, as the device in question is mobile and capable of running on its own power, just like mobile TVs.
If you have no TV licence for home then the answer is maybe. It depends on several factors, including how these devices are classified, whether you actually watch live TV on them or not, etc. I think it's unlikely though.
Right now you have video mobile phones in the UK on which you can receive sports highlights, etc and you don't a TV licence for those, so I would have thought that the new devices won't need any licences either.
Apologies, it was mattdm (1931) who mentioned "vandalize", etc but the point I made is still just as valid.
1. From the verb "burgare" to the verbs "burgle" or "burglarize": which looks like the simpler, more natural progression and which looks like the bigger, more forced leap?
2. All the dictionaries you're talking about are American publications with an overwhelming emphasis on American English, so of course they're US-centric in providing definitions. (If I wanted to be patronising then I'd add a "duh" here, but I'm not, I'm trying to have a serious conversation about etymology and the development of language.)
3. Of course the "-ize" vs "-ise" debate is relevant here. If as you say "burgle" is some sort of bad bastardisation of the language, then you'd expect to see "burglarise" commonly used in Britain, Australasia, South Africa, Canada, India, and elsewhere in the English speaking world, because where Americans use "-ize" the rest of the world uses "-ise" almost without exception.
Earlier you mentioned "vandalize", "brutalize" and "terrorize": to everyone but Americans, those words should be spelt "vandalise", "brutalise" and "terrorise", so if "burglarize" is so right and "burgle" is so wrong you'd expect to see "burglarise" in common usage too, but you don't.
QED.
And, yes, I did just write "spelt",: it's like "slept", "dreamt", "felt", etc; only Americans insist on using "spelled".
From (US-centric) Dictionary.com's entry for burglar: [Anglo-Norman burgler(alteration of burgesur, probably from Old French burg, borough), Medieval Latin burgulator(alteration of burgator, from burgare, to commit burglary in, from Late Latin burgus, fortified town) both of Germanic origin. See bhergh-2 in Indo-European Roots.]
In other words, "burgle" is not a back-formation of burglar, as your originally wrote, but is derived from the Medieval Latin verb "burgare". So that blows your original argument out of the water, doesn't it? Now, if you think that "burgare" became "burglarize" before it became "burgle" then, boy, do I have a bridge for you.
Remember, this is a word of Medieval European derivation, yet no where in Britain, or most of its former colonies, is the word "burglarize" in use. So what seems more likely to you: that all those former colonies (including some that became nations in their own right over two hundred years ago, such as Australia) at some stage all dropped "burglarize" in favour of "burgle", or that "burglarize" is exclusively a construct of American English?
Ever notice that "burglarize" has that "-ize" suffix that's almost exclusively associated with modern day American English? (In Britain and elsewhere, "-ise" is used almost everytime Americans use "-ize".
And have you checked the usage of these words online? Googling for "burglarise": less than 1,000 entries total (most obscure dictionary references). "Burglarize": 21,500 entries. "Burgle": 24,900 entries. Even on the Internet, which is still heavily US-centric in terms of content, that's a clear indication that "burgle" gets the nod over "burglarize".
So you bought the entry-level Tungsten model then bitched about it not having a complete everything-but-the-kitchen-sink feature set?
Sorry to appear rude, but are you an idiot? Didn't you read the model's specifications before you bought it? To make things worse, you then go on to compare the Tungsten E, which costs £199, to a Pocket PC that costs twice as much! Talk about trying to compare apples and oranges!
Two points for you to remember for the future:
1. Know what you're buying. It helps avoid small disappointments like, say, your new car not coming with heat-seeking missiles or an energy shield.
2. If you want a fair comparison then compare like with like. Don't expect a $199 device to do everything a $399 device does and certainly don't compare one to the other without at least acknowledging that one's twice as expensive as the other.
How much do you want to bet that "burgle" has been around in usage a lot longer than "burglarize"? So who exactly is "construct[ing] new words from old however [they] want" here?
And, no matter what you're smoking, verb formations are commonly shorter, not longer, than noun ones: a builder builds, a seller sells, a buyer buys, a helper helps, a writer writes, an editor edits, a publisher publishes, a reader reads, etc, etc.
What the federal governments could do and what it will do are two different things. The fact remains that the cost of serving the deficit is higher now than it's ever been (because the deficit's higher than it's even been), which means that the proportion of tax dollars wasted on just paying that interest rather than on schools, police, etc is disproportionately high.
Proof, if proof was needed, that Macs are so simple to use that even a complete idiot can use one!
Someone who burgles is a burglar. It's that simple, just like someone who warbles is a warbler. Distorting the verb form to "burglarize" is silly: you wouldn't say someone who's a warbler warblerizes, would you?
I wonder how long it'll be until you start calling someone who "burglarizes" a "burglarizer"?
From what I've seen reported, the cost of paying the interest alone, in terms of federal income, is comfortably in double figures, which isn't to be laughed at.
Measuring in terms of GDP is silly, because GDP is a measure of a country's economic sector, not of how much money it has to spend. And as this debt is federal, it's federal income rather than GDP that the cost of paying it back should be measured against or, in other words, as a percentage of tax dollars in.
I think you need to be examining what percentage of all government expenditure goes towards just servicing (ie, paying off the interest alone) that debt. It's a frightening proportion of all governmental income, and one which won't be falling anytime soon with GW Bush in perpetual tax cutting mode.
According to the article, the PSP's launch price was 20,790 Yen. That's only £103 ($198 US), which is as cheap as a non-portable PS2 is here in the UK.
Exactly. Shorter function and variable names means smaller code. I thought that much was pretty obvious to even the least experienced programmer. In Google's case, I'm sure this is about saving a few bucks - although it does do that - but about producing smaller and faster web pages.