Another way to put it: using weird made up words so outsiders don't understand you = argot; speaking with systematic Canadian raising [wikipedia.org] = dialect.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the info -- I've not heard the term argot before now.
Of course, now I need to go and see if I speak with a Canadian Raising or not, and figure out if my dipthong is showing -- I think that would be embarrassing.:-P
TFS was totally clear and unambiguous to me as well, however I understand that no matter how clear or unambiguous you can make a statement, someone will come along and twist the meaning to infuriate their beliefs.
Oh, you're wrong. That would never happen -- they're more likely to come along and twist the meaning to infuriate their beliefs than do that.
Part of the problem here is that speaking proper english is often seen as "selling out", and any attempts to crawl out of poverty or to get educated are harshly treated by peers.
Well, part of the problem is that certain sub-dialects are intended to obfuscate the meaning.
Cockney Rhyming Slang evolved to make it difficult to for police and those not "in the know" to understand what was being said.
If you're not part of the group, you're not supposed to know WTF they're saying. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't hire someone to help you out with the finer points.:-P
You're making a false association by assuming older translations are more in-line with the original.
Maybe innocently, but not by intent. I interpreted your post to mean that the newer translations were inherently better because they would use a more modern language -- I was thinking that I didn't want Shakespeare to read like "Yo, Hamlet, 'sup forsooth?":-P
Now that I re-read it (and the above post) I see that you mean more that the translation is simply better because it's had the benefit of more careful thought.
My bad for misinterpreting what you said -- I thought you were advocating a translation which would be more in the vernacular. Methinks reading comprehension doth suffer on Fridays.:-P
Last I checked profit for companies is a good thing?
Profit? Sure. Outright gouging? Nope.
Profit isn't some holy concept that needs to be pursued at all costs. You can be profitable and not be an asshole about it. Charging me the same amount for an electronic copy as the physical copy when the electronic copy costs you nothing is being an asshole. Charging me the same for the electronic copy and injecting ads into it? Not bloody likely.
When they cease to be in the business of selling me books, and instead become in the business of selling my eyeballs, then they get no business. Then they get no profits.
Some companies seem to think that because their business model relies on selling ads to a 3rd party that I'm somehow obligated to play their game and view their ads.
The same goes for people who buy advertising, they would argue that fast forwarding on my PVR "robs" them because they paid for the ad. They didn't pay me, and I am under no obligation to them for anything.
This isn't to say that older, public domain translations can't be good, but there's something to be said for a current take on it
Well, for lots of us who aren't going to be doing "scholarly" reads and analysis of this stuff, the point is largely moot. Most people will never compare the several translations of a single work. As funny as your anecdote is about the Greek plays being "effectively in Jive" -- I don't want a modernized form of my classics when I read them. That would detract from it I think.
Now, I realize at some point if you're talking about something sufficiently old, it is necessarily modernized because of the sheer amount of time. But, I don't want to read something which now reads like a strange contemporary translation.
The "olde tyme" version is generally what I'm looking for, and since I can't read in other languages, I'll settle for something as close to the original as possible. So, for me, if it's a 70+ year old translation, that's even better.
On a completely unrelated note -- years after I stopped going to church, I was in one for a wedding and they were using an "updated" version of the services. I found the language so jarring since it got rid of all of the archaic stuff I expected to hear. It made me cringe. Then again, I guess some people would still prefer Latin.:-P
Gutenberg? Isn't he the guy who made that infernal contraption that is responsible for for the imposition of copyright on the world in the first place?
Ummm... no. When Gutenberg built his press, he made publications more open, not less. Copyright came after.
According to this, Gutenberg built his press in the 1400s, and copyright came about in the 1700s.
Check the facts elsewhere as you choose, but Gutenberg cannot be blamed for copyright. That's why the current Project Gutenberg carries his name.
If they're inserting ads into the freely available public domain books? No thanks, I'll keep looking for a service that doesn't want to bombard me with ads.
No ads, free content from the public domain. Compatible with damned near every e-book reader. Hell, I download Gutenberg titles directly through iTunes.
You won't get the latest author, or anything published recently unless the author made it free. But, there's a 30,000+ titles available.
I'll not buy books with ads, and I'll return them as defective if they put them there without telling me beforehand.
Good luck with that. The "license" for the electronic book-like thing you "purchased" will say you can't return it. It will be a take the money and run scenario.
I agree though. How they can sell an electronic copy of a book for the same as the actual book and not be making truckloads of profit off it completely eludes me.
I guess it's a good thing that the only ebooks I put on my nook are either released for free through creative commons, or are now considered public works
Hear hear. Project Gutenberg has been the source of all of my eBooks -- I've really been enjoying reading through Jules Verne, HG Wells, Dante, Don Quixote, and all sorts of classics that have been on my list for years.
There's so much stuff out there that's really good and now freely available that it's mind-boggling. Yeah for Project Gutenberg and their work!!
WTF happened with regulatory control that didn't enforce that this kind of redundancy and human oversight applied to critical systems on the ground as well?
If I understand the garbled translation, I think that the airline failed to enter into their computers in a timely manner that there had been existing problems...
A deficiency of that computer is joined also by the fact that Spanair took about 24 hours to score in the computer failures of its planes , according to the judge admitted two mechanics from the airline. Spanair took about 24 hours to score in the computer failures of its planes . This is not a trivial matter, and expected the flight JK 5022 Madrid Barajas would not have taken off if its share on the computer had been a day.
Essentially, a compounding of human error and a virus-ridden computer prevented the whole redundant system from working correctly. Basically, if you break screw up enough of the steps along the way, your redundant system doesn't have enough information to be of any use.
Though, honestly, I find the translation from Spanish to be really difficult to follow in some places, so I could be way off on my interpretation of some of it.
It's pretty obvious that these cables are a scam preying on people who care about their sound systems but who don't understand enough of the technical aspects to avoid buying overpriced crap.
But, it's worse than that.
Some of the people I've seen defending this stuff comes from audiophiles themselves. People who can recite the formulas related to the physics of speakers and audio-connections from memory. People who in theory could build a set of really good speakers and have likely built tube amps at some point.
People who claim to have "golden ears" which can identify the species of fly by the tone of their farts in a blind listening. Guys who swear up and down they can hear a slightly off-note from a 1954 recording on a direct-to-vinyl pressing and why that's important.
If it was only the guys at Best Buy or the people who fell for Monster Cable, I'd agree with you. But to hear someone who seemingly knows all about the technology -- well, that just baffles my brain.
It seems that some people truly believe this stuff. Though, as someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the placebo affect get stronger the more expensive the placebo. I'm not convinced that it's only people who don't understand the technology who fall for this -- at least they have an excuse of being duped and needing to defend their actions.
People used to think that hooking your DVD player and amp up with an optical connect versus a coaxial connect would make for better sound.
Of course, it was the same thing. Since both are carrying digital data, how is one stream of digital data any better? The reality was, it wasn't in any way shape or form.
Same applies here -- it's still digital. Now, the SATA cables might be faster, which could lead to some improvement in music. Generally, though, this smacks of snake oil.
Your scenario has nothing to do with "location awareness,"
So, if you read the part of the post where I quoted the poster saying "why are so many people always offended by the notion of targeted advertising? "...
You might realize I'm not specifically discussing Facebook. I am, in fact, saying why I object to targeted advertising in a broader sense.
Because it has a really bad habit of being subject to scope creep and sale of this information to other people, who aggregate it with even more data, and come up with a far more detailed set of information about you.
if *you* disclose this information publicly, it's your own fault
Have you seen the crap people put on their Twitter and Facebook pages? The existence of Twitter Poop supports my point nicely.
Agreed that's why the Government shouldn't be able to record every conversation I have.
The problem is, we've already seen what happens when the Government is the only one prohibited from doing this.
There's all sorts of information the government isn't allowed to gather domestically without running afoul of something. The problem is, they merely buy the information from a corporate entity, and the whole thing becomes legal.
What used to be the "poisoned well" is now the drinking fountain.
So, what stops the CIA from forming a shell company whose job it is to install surveillance audio everywhere, buy the data, and the do a wide-scale domestic spying program?
When technology gets out ahead of laws, that's exactly what happens. If you think it couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't happen... well, I don't agree with that conclusion. You have but to look at warrantless wiretapping to know damned well it will.
Nah he figures he'll get much less attention by going around wearing a ski mask.
Oh, come now, it's a Luchadore mask and tights.:-P
But, seriously, unless you are being recorded (both audio and visual), conducting business in plain sight in a crowded area has long been considered to be about as private as you can get without being conspicuous about it. You're about as anonymous as you can get -- unless you are truly being tailed that is.
I was specifically talking about blanket recording of everything everybody does in public and the possibility that everybody should assume everything they say, ever, is recorded.
How do you have an expectation of privacy when you're in public? Do you go around waving your arms and yelling "Don't look at me!"
I expect that I can be seen. But, if I'm in a park and move away from everybody in order to discuss something out of earshot of everybody else, I don't expect that it would be legal for all of the trees to be simply recording everything that happens on the off beat chance somebody, at some time is doing something shady/illegal.
Privacy doesn't mean that I get to walk around with an invisible cloak and nobody will ever know I'm there. It means being able to take reasonable steps to ensure that the conversation you're engaged in is only heard by the parties involved. Being out of ear shot of a 3rd party is a reasonable expectation that the content of the conversation is private.
Do I want all my conversations recorded, no, but I've tried to live with the motto of "Say what you mean and mean what you say". I wont say anything about someone unless I am willing to say it to their face and I think that is something missing from society today.
It's not about what you say about someone. It's about friggin' thoughtcrime.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? Are you a homosexual? Do you disagree with the policies of the current government?"
Sometimes, allowing people to record everything you do isn't about catching liars, as it is about controlling what you do. There's all sorts of ways that allowing recording without any restrictions might cause all sorts of legal issues.
It also throws open the door for massively widespread government surveillance without any warrants or oversight, because it's clearly legal to just go ahead and do it. God knows how many more even broader interpretations will be contrived by people with enough motivation to give themselves permission to do something.
I wonder if this means it is still illegal to record police in public...since some cities have laws against that.
Hell, does this pave the way to just simply record everyone in public, all of the the time, and just say you no longer have any real expectation of privacy anymore?
Man, Orwell had so much stuff right it makes me want to cry some days.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, OK. Thanks for the info -- I've not heard the term argot before now.
Of course, now I need to go and see if I speak with a Canadian Raising or not, and figure out if my dipthong is showing -- I think that would be embarrassing. :-P
Oh, you're wrong. That would never happen -- they're more likely to come along and twist the meaning to infuriate their beliefs than do that.
*grin* I kid, I kid.
Cheers
But, truthfully, did anybody need to have this explained to them?
"Law enforcement agency seeks translators to decode wiretaps for language they don't speak. Background check required."
Other than the reference to Lil' Wayne, is TFS even ambiguous?
Well, we know you won't be getting the job. :-P
Well, part of the problem is that certain sub-dialects are intended to obfuscate the meaning.
Cockney Rhyming Slang evolved to make it difficult to for police and those not "in the know" to understand what was being said.
If you're not part of the group, you're not supposed to know WTF they're saying. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't hire someone to help you out with the finer points. :-P
Speak for yourself. I was insensitive before I got here. :-P
If we called it a cheese wheel, would that be close enough? :-P
Maybe innocently, but not by intent. I interpreted your post to mean that the newer translations were inherently better because they would use a more modern language -- I was thinking that I didn't want Shakespeare to read like "Yo, Hamlet, 'sup forsooth?" :-P
Now that I re-read it (and the above post) I see that you mean more that the translation is simply better because it's had the benefit of more careful thought.
My bad for misinterpreting what you said -- I thought you were advocating a translation which would be more in the vernacular. Methinks reading comprehension doth suffer on Fridays. :-P
Cheers
Really?? Oh, my bad. It showed up as one of my google hits, and re-reading it I see that it's saying we only see about 50% of it.
As paywalls go, that's not actually that bad. :-P
Profit? Sure. Outright gouging? Nope.
Profit isn't some holy concept that needs to be pursued at all costs. You can be profitable and not be an asshole about it. Charging me the same amount for an electronic copy as the physical copy when the electronic copy costs you nothing is being an asshole. Charging me the same for the electronic copy and injecting ads into it? Not bloody likely.
When they cease to be in the business of selling me books, and instead become in the business of selling my eyeballs, then they get no business. Then they get no profits.
Some companies seem to think that because their business model relies on selling ads to a 3rd party that I'm somehow obligated to play their game and view their ads.
The same goes for people who buy advertising, they would argue that fast forwarding on my PVR "robs" them because they paid for the ad. They didn't pay me, and I am under no obligation to them for anything.
Well, for lots of us who aren't going to be doing "scholarly" reads and analysis of this stuff, the point is largely moot. Most people will never compare the several translations of a single work. As funny as your anecdote is about the Greek plays being "effectively in Jive" -- I don't want a modernized form of my classics when I read them. That would detract from it I think.
Now, I realize at some point if you're talking about something sufficiently old, it is necessarily modernized because of the sheer amount of time. But, I don't want to read something which now reads like a strange contemporary translation.
The "olde tyme" version is generally what I'm looking for, and since I can't read in other languages, I'll settle for something as close to the original as possible. So, for me, if it's a 70+ year old translation, that's even better.
On a completely unrelated note -- years after I stopped going to church, I was in one for a wedding and they were using an "updated" version of the services. I found the language so jarring since it got rid of all of the archaic stuff I expected to hear. It made me cringe. Then again, I guess some people would still prefer Latin. :-P
Ummm ... no. When Gutenberg built his press, he made publications more open, not less. Copyright came after.
According to this, Gutenberg built his press in the 1400s, and copyright came about in the 1700s.
Check the facts elsewhere as you choose, but Gutenberg cannot be blamed for copyright. That's why the current Project Gutenberg carries his name.
Then you want Project Gutenberg.
No ads, free content from the public domain. Compatible with damned near every e-book reader. Hell, I download Gutenberg titles directly through iTunes.
You won't get the latest author, or anything published recently unless the author made it free. But, there's a 30,000+ titles available.
In all honesty, I couldn't remember the author's name, and figured the title character would be more recognizable to most people anyway. :-P
I'm not familiar with any of his other work, but Don Quixote has been on my to-read list for a long time.
Good luck with that. The "license" for the electronic book-like thing you "purchased" will say you can't return it. It will be a take the money and run scenario.
I agree though. How they can sell an electronic copy of a book for the same as the actual book and not be making truckloads of profit off it completely eludes me.
Hear hear. Project Gutenberg has been the source of all of my eBooks -- I've really been enjoying reading through Jules Verne, HG Wells, Dante, Don Quixote, and all sorts of classics that have been on my list for years.
There's so much stuff out there that's really good and now freely available that it's mind-boggling. Yeah for Project Gutenberg and their work!!
If I understand the garbled translation, I think that the airline failed to enter into their computers in a timely manner that there had been existing problems ...
Essentially, a compounding of human error and a virus-ridden computer prevented the whole redundant system from working correctly. Basically, if you break screw up enough of the steps along the way, your redundant system doesn't have enough information to be of any use.
Though, honestly, I find the translation from Spanish to be really difficult to follow in some places, so I could be way off on my interpretation of some of it.
But, it's worse than that.
Some of the people I've seen defending this stuff comes from audiophiles themselves. People who can recite the formulas related to the physics of speakers and audio-connections from memory. People who in theory could build a set of really good speakers and have likely built tube amps at some point.
People who claim to have "golden ears" which can identify the species of fly by the tone of their farts in a blind listening. Guys who swear up and down they can hear a slightly off-note from a 1954 recording on a direct-to-vinyl pressing and why that's important.
If it was only the guys at Best Buy or the people who fell for Monster Cable, I'd agree with you. But to hear someone who seemingly knows all about the technology -- well, that just baffles my brain.
It seems that some people truly believe this stuff. Though, as someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the placebo affect get stronger the more expensive the placebo. I'm not convinced that it's only people who don't understand the technology who fall for this -- at least they have an excuse of being duped and needing to defend their actions.
People used to think that hooking your DVD player and amp up with an optical connect versus a coaxial connect would make for better sound.
Of course, it was the same thing. Since both are carrying digital data, how is one stream of digital data any better? The reality was, it wasn't in any way shape or form.
Same applies here -- it's still digital. Now, the SATA cables might be faster, which could lead to some improvement in music. Generally, though, this smacks of snake oil.
So, if you read the part of the post where I quoted the poster saying "why are so many people always offended by the notion of targeted advertising? " ...
You might realize I'm not specifically discussing Facebook. I am, in fact, saying why I object to targeted advertising in a broader sense.
Because it has a really bad habit of being subject to scope creep and sale of this information to other people, who aggregate it with even more data, and come up with a far more detailed set of information about you.
Have you seen the crap people put on their Twitter and Facebook pages? The existence of Twitter Poop supports my point nicely.
The problem is, we've already seen what happens when the Government is the only one prohibited from doing this.
There's all sorts of information the government isn't allowed to gather domestically without running afoul of something. The problem is, they merely buy the information from a corporate entity, and the whole thing becomes legal.
What used to be the "poisoned well" is now the drinking fountain.
So, what stops the CIA from forming a shell company whose job it is to install surveillance audio everywhere, buy the data, and the do a wide-scale domestic spying program?
When technology gets out ahead of laws, that's exactly what happens. If you think it couldn't/wouldn't/hasn't happen ... well, I don't agree with that conclusion. You have but to look at warrantless wiretapping to know damned well it will.
Oh, come now, it's a Luchadore mask and tights. :-P
But, seriously, unless you are being recorded (both audio and visual), conducting business in plain sight in a crowded area has long been considered to be about as private as you can get without being conspicuous about it. You're about as anonymous as you can get -- unless you are truly being tailed that is.
I was specifically talking about blanket recording of everything everybody does in public and the possibility that everybody should assume everything they say, ever, is recorded.
I expect that I can be seen. But, if I'm in a park and move away from everybody in order to discuss something out of earshot of everybody else, I don't expect that it would be legal for all of the trees to be simply recording everything that happens on the off beat chance somebody, at some time is doing something shady/illegal.
Privacy doesn't mean that I get to walk around with an invisible cloak and nobody will ever know I'm there. It means being able to take reasonable steps to ensure that the conversation you're engaged in is only heard by the parties involved. Being out of ear shot of a 3rd party is a reasonable expectation that the content of the conversation is private.
It's not about what you say about someone. It's about friggin' thoughtcrime.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? Are you a homosexual? Do you disagree with the policies of the current government?"
Sometimes, allowing people to record everything you do isn't about catching liars, as it is about controlling what you do. There's all sorts of ways that allowing recording without any restrictions might cause all sorts of legal issues.
It also throws open the door for massively widespread government surveillance without any warrants or oversight, because it's clearly legal to just go ahead and do it. God knows how many more even broader interpretations will be contrived by people with enough motivation to give themselves permission to do something.
Hell, does this pave the way to just simply record everyone in public, all of the the time, and just say you no longer have any real expectation of privacy anymore?
Man, Orwell had so much stuff right it makes me want to cry some days.