Um, it's the opposite. When you quote a term you indicate it's not yours, but comes from a source. Standard and correct practice, where by using the quote the reporters distance themselves from the particular terms used. See this BBC news story for an example.
Except that Google will not be 'blacklisting' blog sites - they just recently *bought* the biggest blog site (blogger.com). Surely they didn't but blogger in order to reduce the weight of its content.
To the main point though, I don't see a problem here. "The Second Superpower" is by no means a common phrase with a fixed meaning that's been "hijacked" and redefined. Two months ago the phrase meant exactly nothing, and you could attribute to it any metaphorical meaning you wished (if you had thought of it then). It's a very cool phrase indeed, but it's 100% abstract and loaded with ideology. It's brand new and it can take on many meanings and be pulled in various directions.
Those who complain about having somehow been deprived of the catchy slogan would do better to use the same power of GoogleNet to their advantage - by writing about it, defining it as they see fit, and linking to it. Because this is how it works.
Google works in the opposite direction, too. Try 'hacker'. This term too was "hijacked" and burneded with a negative meaning, much to the dismay of "true" hackers. But goggle it and you'll be pleasantly surprised - only because enough people keep using the term in the original, untainted meaning. That's how it's supposed to work, and I believe it's a good thing.
Moderators on crack, the parent is not a troll, he's just about right.
Read any introductory article on XML, or the first chapter of a book - it's so plain and simple and inviting and looks like a great idea. By page 50 of the book you're crawling through a dense pile of industrial trash. A book on XML I bought lists over thirty classes in OpenXML implementation - over THIRTY classes, that's hundres of methods; do I want to to dig into this just to read and write a simple file of records? Where simple and robust alternatives exist? Hell, no.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
You're makling good points, esp. about how competitors would be tempted to use the term deceptively. But it's water under the bridge now. The linguistic fact is people are using "to google" as a generic verb meaning to search [or: to find] stuff on the net.
WordSpy is simply recording the usage, much like Wired's Jargon section does, or like ESR's Jargon File, or like OED always has. Threatening legal action against a lexicographer is really dumb. The lexicographers didn't invent the word, nor are they promoting its usage.
What WordSpy could do - what I would do in their place - is to add a footnote to the entry, viz. "Capitalized, the term is a trademark of Google. The company discourages generic use of the word" or such.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
The parent is not "insightful" - it's shallow. If you're going to be so protective of your email address, you might as well ditch it altogether.
I work as a freelancer. My website hosts my CV, as do several online databases, where companies go to look for people of my profession. The CV of course includes not one, but several of my email addresses, because, in the long run, this translates directly into payable work.
I write software for fun (not profit). I even do email support, so my email address is again right there in plain html, and displayed by every software archive site I've ever uploaded my stuff to.
But this is the point of having an email address in the first place, isn't it? I could be as protective of it as the parent suggests, except by doing so I would lose much more than I am losing now (in terms of time and net-related costs). But to me, it's not only a matter of give and take: I refuse, on principle, to obfuscate my email address; I refuse to give in to spammers. When people start to hide their email contact information en masse, then spammers have won and email has become usleess.
Not sure what you mean by "non-flashing". When Opera 4 first appeared as adware, I ditched it the first time it showed a banner with several "stop" signs, in red and white, each flashing at a different interval. (I don't remember what the banner was advertizing, nor do I wish to.)
I just saw a very simliar banner in 7.0, several graphical elements flashing out of sync. If I had epilepsy, I might have sued[1] the thoughtless idiots; since I don't, I just went back to IE and Moz.
[1] Hyperbole. I've never sued anyone and have no intention to. But those banners are absolutely abhorrent.
I would agree with this sentiment, but it's being said for the benefit of the uneducated public. CNN said people in Texas saw the falling debris and were calling the police, saying "We're being attacked!" The one-track mind is a collective one.
I don't think it is very hard to go to http://windowsupdate.micosoft.com and find what Microsoft thinks you need to update.
Funny that in order to install some of these patches you have to drop security settings to default (or lower), otherwise you'll get no joy from the windowsupdate page in the first place.
And you *must* be using IE.
If security patches from MS were regular executables that you could download from convenient mirrors (with a download manager, say, since IE's downloader it very unreliable), wouldn't it be a better solution?
I've declined several Win2K updates simply because MS site wouldn't let me have them unless I lowered security level in IE. Oh, and the one time I did download a service pack, I ended up having to shut down both the firewall and http proxy software.
Funny - I thought the role of a writer / commentator is to write / comment on current events (amnong other things). When would Bring have to publish his article for you to be comfortable - five years from now? He's making a controversial point, because this is the whole idea, in the face of like two billion people wanting to See The Move Right About Now.
So he did the same for Star Wars, and if I had his writing skill I'd have written more or less the same piece back then, because the sight of two billion people gloating about mindless eyecandy is thoroughly disgusting if you haven't been successfully force-fed this anti-intellectual stance in the first place.
I find Brin's current article more interesting than the previous one, largely because LOTR I was actually a great movie, based on an incredibly influential book. (It's relatively easy to bash SW.) No matter how great something is, when two billion people start gloating about it, it's time to take a step back, in that I agree with Brin 100% and I am grateful for the piece he wrote.
There are freeware (no source code, but no $$$ either) alternatives to nearly all the pieces of software you mention, except WindowBlinds I suppose. If you insist on installing trial versions of shareware packages, don't be surprised by the pop-ups and nags. Pay for it, or replace it with freeware. As for RealOne, the installer shits all over your system, but it's not a big deal to delete all the shortcuts and bookmarks, and to stop the app from automatically launching on startup. (There's freeware that will protect you from that, look for "StartupCPL" or "Startup Manager" and "Startup Monitor", all fully functional at $0 cost.)
As with a Linux system, your Windows machine must be maintained, so maintain it.
Exactly. I love LOTR I (Two Towers has yet to be shown in my part of the world) but with this movie, there are two questions: how good are the special effects, and how faithful it is to the book. Solaris is not so easy to rank.
I'm not forgetting them in the least. What Orwell wrote were parables more than S-F, and he's considered 'mainstream', anyway, so I wasn't thinking oh him when I posted. Bradbury and Heinlein - I know them well, and they are fine, but I stand by what I said about Lem. Huxley is know for how many books that turned literature and modern thought on its side? Lem's every novel does this. Every single one.
Re:Why is everyone pushing this film?
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Maybe because as Tolkien was probably the most gifed 'fantasy' writer, so Lem is arguably the greatest artist science-fiction has ever had. (PKD's probably the only other contender, but PKD also produced more dreck than Lem has.)
But judging from the reviews I've seen of the movie, it does no justice to the book. Not that it's easy; Solaris is not a very cinematic novel; it is all about memory and knowledge and science and emotion. Really not a good candidate for Hollywood treatment; they should have picked "The Invincible" instead, which has a comparable philosophical payload and the added bonus of cool gear and kick-ass alien-battling (they win, we lose), including an interesting vision of a totally automated nuclear war machine. It also has a classic, direct storyline, on the premise of "Let's land on this planet and see who offed our guys.", which gets answered in a very innovative, unexpected way like you've never seen in an S-F movie yet.
I belived junk fax analogy was an avenue of hope until about April this year, when a U.S. court ruled that ban on junk faxes violated the firstr amendment. See this Politech post. And fax.com are back in business, check their site.
"Best thing was that you could drag from one application into another to have it load in there. Neat. But very wierd."
Weird and _horrible_, if it meant that you couldn't save with keyboard alone. I mean, in oder to save a file I had to use the mouse? I write a lot in my work (translation) and I often hit Ctrl+S even in midsentence. Any UI that required me to use the mouse when saving would make my work so inefficient it's scary to even think of.
This is the single stupidest thing to be said in a political discussion: your opponent criticizes the establishment/government/president - and you say s/he "hates America". This is monumentally stupid.
...until people like Ashcroft start saying it ("whoever disagrees with me...") and then it it's not stupid anymore, it's despotism and misuse of power. Congrats, you're in good company.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, it's the opposite. When you quote a term you indicate it's not yours, but comes from a source. Standard and correct practice, where by using the quote the reporters distance themselves from the particular terms used. See this BBC news story for an example.
That it does.
Except that Google will not be 'blacklisting' blog sites - they just recently *bought* the biggest blog site (blogger.com). Surely they didn't but blogger in order to reduce the weight of its content.
To the main point though, I don't see a problem here. "The Second Superpower" is by no means a common phrase with a fixed meaning that's been "hijacked" and redefined. Two months ago the phrase meant exactly nothing, and you could attribute to it any metaphorical meaning you wished (if you had thought of it then). It's a very cool phrase indeed, but it's 100% abstract and loaded with ideology. It's brand new and it can take on many meanings and be pulled in various directions.
Those who complain about having somehow been deprived of the catchy slogan would do better to use the same power of GoogleNet to their advantage - by writing about it, defining it as they see fit, and linking to it. Because this is how it works.
Google works in the opposite direction, too. Try 'hacker'. This term too was "hijacked" and burneded with a negative meaning, much to the dismay of "true" hackers. But goggle it and you'll be pleasantly surprised - only because enough people keep using the term in the original, untainted meaning. That's how it's supposed to work, and I believe it's a good thing.
So go Inform yourself.
Moderators on crack, the parent is not a troll, he's just about right.
Read any introductory article on XML, or the first chapter of a book - it's so plain and simple and inviting and looks like a great idea. By page 50 of the book you're crawling through a dense pile of industrial trash. A book on XML I bought lists over thirty classes in OpenXML implementation - over THIRTY classes, that's hundres of methods; do I want to to dig into this just to read and write a simple file of records? Where simple and robust alternatives exist? Hell, no.
...or this:
Haiku machine
You're makling good points, esp. about how competitors would be tempted to use the term deceptively. But it's water under the bridge now. The linguistic fact is people are using "to google" as a generic verb meaning to search [or: to find] stuff on the net.
WordSpy is simply recording the usage, much like Wired's Jargon section does, or like ESR's Jargon File, or like OED always has. Threatening legal action against a lexicographer is really dumb. The lexicographers didn't invent the word, nor are they promoting its usage.
What WordSpy could do - what I would do in their place - is to add a footnote to the entry, viz. "Capitalized, the term is a trademark of Google. The company discourages generic use of the word" or such.
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
The parent is not "insightful" - it's shallow. If you're going to be so protective of your email address, you might as well ditch it altogether.
I work as a freelancer. My website hosts my CV, as do several online databases, where companies go to look for people of my profession. The CV of course includes not one, but several of my email addresses, because, in the long run, this translates directly into payable work.
I write software for fun (not profit). I even do email support, so my email address is again right there in plain html, and displayed by every software archive site I've ever uploaded my stuff to.
But this is the point of having an email address in the first place, isn't it? I could be as protective of it as the parent suggests, except by doing so I would lose much more than I am losing now (in terms of time and net-related costs). But to me, it's not only a matter of give and take: I refuse, on principle, to obfuscate my email address; I refuse to give in to spammers. When people start to hide their email contact information en masse, then spammers have won and email has become usleess.
Not sure what you mean by "non-flashing". When Opera 4 first appeared as adware, I ditched it the first time it showed a banner with several "stop" signs, in red and white, each flashing at a different interval. (I don't remember what the banner was advertizing, nor do I wish to.)
I just saw a very simliar banner in 7.0, several graphical elements flashing out of sync. If I had epilepsy, I might have sued[1] the thoughtless idiots; since I don't, I just went back to IE and Moz.
[1] Hyperbole. I've never sued anyone and have no intention to. But those banners are absolutely abhorrent.
I would agree with this sentiment, but it's being said for the benefit of the uneducated public. CNN said people in Texas saw the falling debris and were calling the police, saying "We're being attacked!" The one-track mind is a collective one.
Funny that in order to install some of these patches you have to drop security settings to default (or lower), otherwise you'll get no joy from the windowsupdate page in the first place.
And you *must* be using IE.
If security patches from MS were regular executables that you could download from convenient mirrors (with a download manager, say, since IE's downloader it very unreliable), wouldn't it be a better solution?
I've declined several Win2K updates simply because MS site wouldn't let me have them unless I lowered security level in IE. Oh, and the one time I did download a service pack, I ended up having to shut down both the firewall and http proxy software.
How about a band that actually exists in its classic lineup and keeps making new music? New album in 2002 and still performing. Going as strong as they were in 1969.
You're fine then, as long as you're consistent about it... :)
find . -type f | xargs egrep -i "dalmation" ...and you just got zero results, because of the misspelling.
Funny - I thought the role of a writer / commentator is to write / comment on current events (amnong other things). When would Bring have to publish his article for you to be comfortable - five years from now? He's making a controversial point, because this is the whole idea, in the face of like two billion people wanting to See The Move Right About Now.
So he did the same for Star Wars, and if I had his writing skill I'd have written more or less the same piece back then, because the sight of two billion people gloating about mindless eyecandy is thoroughly disgusting if you haven't been successfully force-fed this anti-intellectual stance in the first place.
I find Brin's current article more interesting than the previous one, largely because LOTR I was actually a great movie, based on an incredibly influential book. (It's relatively easy to bash SW.) No matter how great something is, when two billion people start gloating about it, it's time to take a step back, in that I agree with Brin 100% and I am grateful for the piece he wrote.
There are freeware (no source code, but no $$$ either) alternatives to nearly all the pieces of software you mention, except WindowBlinds I suppose. If you insist on installing trial versions of shareware packages, don't be surprised by the pop-ups and nags. Pay for it, or replace it with freeware. As for RealOne, the installer shits all over your system, but it's not a big deal to delete all the shortcuts and bookmarks, and to stop the app from automatically launching on startup. (There's freeware that will protect you from that, look for "StartupCPL" or "Startup Manager" and "Startup Monitor", all fully functional at $0 cost.)
As with a Linux system, your Windows machine must be maintained, so maintain it.
Exactly. I love LOTR I (Two Towers has yet to be shown in my part of the world) but with this movie, there are two questions: how good are the special effects, and how faithful it is to the book. Solaris is not so easy to rank.
I'm not forgetting them in the least. What Orwell wrote were parables more than S-F, and he's considered 'mainstream', anyway, so I wasn't thinking oh him when I posted. Bradbury and Heinlein - I know them well, and they are fine, but I stand by what I said about Lem. Huxley is know for how many books that turned literature and modern thought on its side? Lem's every novel does this. Every single one.
But judging from the reviews I've seen of the movie, it does no justice to the book. Not that it's easy; Solaris is not a very cinematic novel; it is all about memory and knowledge and science and emotion. Really not a good candidate for Hollywood treatment; they should have picked "The Invincible" instead, which has a comparable philosophical payload and the added bonus of cool gear and kick-ass alien-battling (they win, we lose), including an interesting vision of a totally automated nuclear war machine. It also has a classic, direct storyline, on the premise of "Let's land on this planet and see who offed our guys.", which gets answered in a very innovative, unexpected way like you've never seen in an S-F movie yet.
Solaris? I say skip the flick and read the book.
Try this one: http://cyberiad.info/english/main.htm
I belived junk fax analogy was an avenue of hope until about April this year, when a U.S. court ruled that ban on junk faxes violated the firstr amendment. See this Politech post. And fax.com are back in business, check their site.
"Best thing was that you could drag from one application into another to have it load in there. Neat. But very wierd."
Weird and _horrible_, if it meant that you couldn't save with keyboard alone. I mean, in oder to save a file I had to use the mouse? I write a lot in my work (translation) and I often hit Ctrl+S even in midsentence. Any UI that required me to use the mouse when saving would make my work so inefficient it's scary to even think of.
Great, you've solved storage. Now solve TRANSIT, like the parent says.
"if you hate America that much..."
This is the single stupidest thing to be said in a political discussion: your opponent criticizes the establishment/government/president - and you say s/he "hates America". This is monumentally stupid.
...until people like Ashcroft start saying it ("whoever disagrees with me...") and then it it's not stupid anymore, it's despotism and misuse of power. Congrats, you're in good company.