I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to "put you in your place." Personally, I'm happy that there are people who care about what words mean, and when they are being used correctly.
As for your other comment, while I appreciate the difficulties that can arise when unfamiliar terms or phrases are used, I respectfully disagree that colorless, bland clarity and concision should be the ultimate goal of all communication.
If metaphor and colorful language were eliminated from daily usage altogether (with the exception of "poetry and romance novels", as I believe you put it), life, IMO, would be much more boring.:-)
To quote Mark Twain: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
Well, I can understand your confusion from reading the m-w definition, but your conclusion is a false one.
"Usurp" (in colloquial English) is sometimes used as a colorful synonym for "supplant", especially when the one being replaced is viewed as being part of the status quo. It's often used humorously, to imply that the new "leader" doesn't actually deserve their newfound position. In this case, the implication seems to be that gaining fame and success by using 'controversial' advertisements is an invalid tactic.
English is a subtle, complex language, and many verbs have layers of meaning.
reference:
http://www.answers.com/usurp&r=67
"To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully."
Don't worry, some of us have "learned our language.":-)
"We wanted to guide people to sites that would represent Microsoft positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who want to kick Microsoft out of town would have some difficulty doing that," says Microsoft spokesman Drent Tuffy.
My hometown has a lively V:TM LARP group, and aside from frightening people waiting for the bus late at night, they are a very entertaining group to observe. (not intentionally, I'm afraid.)
This is what we get for having nearby military facilities -sigh-
I suppose the sad part is that I get the reference.
However, the item is question is a loofah, which comes from a gourd--a plant, not an animal.
To keep this on-topic, even to this day, most potters use natural sponges for shaping on the wheel: the shape and texture is very hard to reproduce with synthetics, even though they cost a lot more ($10 and up, for a good 2" sponge)
I strongly disagree. GIMP will destroy photoshop if it can be 70% as functional, as easy to use or easier, and easy to install on Mac, Windows, and Linux. If it ever reaches that state it will begin to absolutely crush Photoshop.
Well, only time will tell. In an infinite universe, that could happen. If it does, I'll be very, very surprised. My money's on Adobe.
So, what kind of a timeframe would you expect for this turnaround? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
What would be the measure of success? Adobe ceasing development? Colleges replacing PS classes with GIMP 1A? Forgive my skepticism.
Adobe's interfaces tend to be pretty bad, actually
Bad in what sense? Over the years I've worked with a lot of designers who adore (most) Abobe interfaces... I imagine that you would find it difficult to back up that statement in any sort of objective sense.
I guess you could mean that it's non-intuitive for the absolute beginner, who is coming into it without any background. (I can't really judge that too much, as I've been using their apps on a daily basis since 1987 or so... it's like breathing to me)
However, with the exception of Elements and Acrobat, Adobe interfaces are designed by and for the professional who lives, eats and breathes this stuff. It's not designed for the casual user to pick up, it's designed for the guy who--like me--uses it 8-10 hours/day. It's a completely different dynamic. Some things you only really notice when you're swapping between Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and After Effects.
Like any powerful tool, there's a learning curve, but ask any large group of professional designers how they like the major Adobe apps, and (aside from a few gripes related to specific issues) you'll get a pretty positive response. Contrast this with, for example, Quark xPress users, who almost universally seem to loathe the software, although they couldn't do without it.
This is part of why GIMP has such an uphill battle and why the people working on it don't seem to understand that: Photoshop is not only good enough, it's very, very good at what it does. There's no great hue and cry to replace it, in fact the only real arguement is the cost of the software: a non-issue to the vast majority of the professionals who make a living with it. Why? Using it, I make enough every day or two to buy the damn thing from scratch. Any ad agency, newspaper or art department regards the upgrades as the cost of doing business....so what does GIMP have to do to supplant Photoshop? It doesn't have to be "as good." Not at all. It has to be BETTER. And not just in the interface, either. It has to be functionally capable of something that designers want to do that Photoshop can't. It's a tough row to hoe, and it's a big part of why nothing has really competed with PS since the day it was introduced.
Oh, and it would have to get rid of the name, too.
The problem with this is, human review isn't easily scalable, and humans makes mistakes. Through laziness, incompetence, or ignorance.
Also, they get such a frigging VAST quantity of traffic that they would be forced to only respond to the more egregious offenders, leaving the other 99% unchecked, making it seem worthless to the people who bothered to "report" it, because 99% of the time, their complaints will seemingly be ignored....and suppose a mistake occurs and a good site is banned. What's the appeal process? An additional review?
I imagine questions like these are why they haven't implemented something like this already: they do EVERYTHING with an algorithm. It's their very nature.
Actually, you're such a lost cause, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You resort to insults instead of arguments. Maybe it's a poor education, or maybe you just weren't hugged enough as a child. Either way, it's a waste of time to even bother responding to you.
Ah... food for thought. You're right about Warhol, of course. Though, he also believed that his work was art, which changes things a bit. In addition to his quest for money and fame, he was obsessed with redefining and stretching the boundaries of art, like the dadaists.
It's obviously not a cut-and-dried, black and white line. I remember years ago when I was doing a lot of ceramics, there would be 3 groups of people who would come through: the artists, the crafters, and a large group that straddled the line: neither one nor the other, or perhaps both at the same time.
It's an amazingly hard thing to quantify, but there is a real difference. Quite often you'd see someone who identified with one group or the other strongly, but really 'belonged' in the other category. Of course, this is all subjective and non-quantifiable.:-)
What a fantastically well-reasoned, witty and insightful commentary. My goodness, have you considered getting your own talk show? Your masterful command of the English language leaves me all a-quiver! "Ridicules." Brilliant!
I bow before your obviously superior intellect. All hail! All hail #672391, "nate nice"!
Fear him! Praise him! Love him, for he is your god!
But "art", unlike "beauty", is not in the eye of the beholder: it's in the will and intention of the creator of the work. Look up Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. It makes the point most succinctly.
If you can show ANY evidence that the creators of GTA were trying to create a work of art, please do so. The soul of art is intention. The creators were intending to create controversy, money, and at most, a fun diversion. Please give any links that show otherwise.
Even so, that wouldn't make it great, merely a poor work of art. Although I admit that bit is mildly subjective.
Further, I posit that your argument that my argument is invalid, is in itself invalid! So there! Neener-neener! (we could go on like this all day, I hope you realize.)
However, I think what these discussions miss is the idea that the behavior has to be viewed in context.
In ACO, these were the actions of a narrator who's clearly depraved, loathsome, and yet pitiable at the same time. It's uncomfortable for the reader, because you both identify with the character, and are horrified by him. This is why it's great art. It teaches compassion without condoning the horror.
GTA takes away all that context. There are no repercussions for bad behavior, quite the opposite. I'm not saying that this is always a bad thing, but I certainly wouldn't give it to my 12-year old, whereas I wouldn't necessarily have that reservation about ACO.
You're right, I haven't listened to the radio in the game. Perhaps it's a deep, insightful social commentary that flew right past me.
OK, so lets actually enforce the ratings system we have. What's the down-side?
Here's an interesting question: is an interactive medium held to the same standards as a non-interactive one? Should it be? Are the effects identical? Is an interactive medium more compelling than a static medium, or less? Why?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention to "put you in your place." Personally, I'm happy that there are people who care about what words mean, and when they are being used correctly.
:-)
As for your other comment, while I appreciate the difficulties that can arise when unfamiliar terms or phrases are used, I respectfully disagree that colorless, bland clarity and concision should be the ultimate goal of all communication.
If metaphor and colorful language were eliminated from daily usage altogether (with the exception of "poetry and romance novels", as I believe you put it), life, IMO, would be much more boring.
To quote Mark Twain: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
-m
Well, I can understand your confusion from reading the m-w definition, but your conclusion is a false one.
:-)
"Usurp" (in colloquial English) is sometimes used as a colorful synonym for "supplant", especially when the one being replaced is viewed as being part of the status quo. It's often used humorously, to imply that the new "leader" doesn't actually deserve their newfound position. In this case, the implication seems to be that gaining fame and success by using 'controversial' advertisements is an invalid tactic.
English is a subtle, complex language, and many verbs have layers of meaning.
reference:
http://www.answers.com/usurp&r=67
"To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully."
Don't worry, some of us have "learned our language."
m-
Here's what MS public relations had to say:
"We wanted to guide people to sites that would represent Microsoft positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who want to kick Microsoft out of town would have some difficulty doing that," says Microsoft spokesman Drent Tuffy.
m-
...the weirdest part about this is, DELLRumors hasn't said a peep about this yet!
m-
On the bright side, at least they didn't crash.
m-
Thats why I d/l at 6 Mbits/ second.
So that would only take you... what, only 20.83 years or so? Yeah, that's WAY better.
I can't understand the measurements they're using... can someone state this in terms of Libraries of Congress per second?
m-
Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Sleep! Sleep!
My hometown has a lively V:TM LARP group, and aside from frightening people waiting for the bus late at night, they are a very entertaining group to observe. (not intentionally, I'm afraid.)
This is what we get for having nearby military facilities -sigh-
m-
Yes, it's a broad definition. In fact, it's an extremely broad definition. ...but that's what the definition is.
Like the definition of "herb": defined (iirc) as any plant without a woody stem.
m-
Er, seamonkeys (brine shrimp) are zooplankton. If it can't swim against the current (on a macroscopic level), and it isn't a plant, it's zooplankton.
Yes, this means most jellyfish are macroscopic zooplankton.
m-
Remember that natural selection works on a generational basis, not an individual basis.
:-)
When you consider that rodents breed far, far faster than primates, it makes sense that they would also evolve far, far faster.
It would take a lot less time for non-essential code to get worked out of the system through random mutation.
I'm not a biologist either, but I remember my classes.
m-
I suppose the sad part is that I get the reference.
However, the item is question is a loofah, which comes from a gourd--a plant, not an animal.
To keep this on-topic, even to this day, most potters use natural sponges for shaping on the wheel: the shape and texture is very hard to reproduce with synthetics, even though they cost a lot more ($10 and up, for a good 2" sponge)
m-
...followed up by a Slashdot first: a First Post that's both Funny and Insightful.
If anybody wants me, I'll be outside waiting for the sky to turn black and the seas to turn to blood.
m-
Does that mean you do see some black there? Or not?
What?
-m
I strongly disagree. GIMP will destroy photoshop if it can be 70% as functional, as easy to use or easier, and easy to install on Mac, Windows, and Linux. If it ever reaches that state it will begin to absolutely crush Photoshop.
Well, only time will tell. In an infinite universe, that could happen. If it does, I'll be very, very surprised. My money's on Adobe.
So, what kind of a timeframe would you expect for this turnaround? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
What would be the measure of success? Adobe ceasing development? Colleges replacing PS classes with GIMP 1A? Forgive my skepticism.
m-
Adobe's interfaces tend to be pretty bad, actually
...so what does GIMP have to do to supplant Photoshop? It doesn't have to be "as good." Not at all. It has to be BETTER. And not just in the interface, either. It has to be functionally capable of something that designers want to do that Photoshop can't. It's a tough row to hoe, and it's a big part of why nothing has really competed with PS since the day it was introduced.
Bad in what sense? Over the years I've worked with a lot of designers who adore (most) Abobe interfaces... I imagine that you would find it difficult to back up that statement in any sort of objective sense.
I guess you could mean that it's non-intuitive for the absolute beginner, who is coming into it without any background. (I can't really judge that too much, as I've been using their apps on a daily basis since 1987 or so... it's like breathing to me)
However, with the exception of Elements and Acrobat, Adobe interfaces are designed by and for the professional who lives, eats and breathes this stuff. It's not designed for the casual user to pick up, it's designed for the guy who--like me--uses it 8-10 hours/day. It's a completely different dynamic. Some things you only really notice when you're swapping between Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and After Effects.
Like any powerful tool, there's a learning curve, but ask any large group of professional designers how they like the major Adobe apps, and (aside from a few gripes related to specific issues) you'll get a pretty positive response. Contrast this with, for example, Quark xPress users, who almost universally seem to loathe the software, although they couldn't do without it.
This is part of why GIMP has such an uphill battle and why the people working on it don't seem to understand that: Photoshop is not only good enough, it's very, very good at what it does. There's no great hue and cry to replace it, in fact the only real arguement is the cost of the software: a non-issue to the vast majority of the professionals who make a living with it. Why? Using it, I make enough every day or two to buy the damn thing from scratch. Any ad agency, newspaper or art department regards the upgrades as the cost of doing business.
Oh, and it would have to get rid of the name, too.
m-
The problem with this is, human review isn't easily scalable, and humans makes mistakes. Through laziness, incompetence, or ignorance.
...and suppose a mistake occurs and a good site is banned. What's the appeal process? An additional review?
Also, they get such a frigging VAST quantity of traffic that they would be forced to only respond to the more egregious offenders, leaving the other 99% unchecked, making it seem worthless to the people who bothered to "report" it, because 99% of the time, their complaints will seemingly be ignored.
I imagine questions like these are why they haven't implemented something like this already: they do EVERYTHING with an algorithm. It's their very nature.
m-
Dude...
In Korea, only old people try to come up with new memes. -sigh-
m-
If it was Canadian beer, he probably got the Medal of Honor.
Honestly, Moosehead? Molson? Labatt's? There's a reason that Canada imports a lot of its beer.
m-
Actually, you're such a lost cause, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You resort to insults instead of arguments. Maybe it's a poor education, or maybe you just weren't hugged enough as a child. Either way, it's a waste of time to even bother responding to you.
Which reminds me.
m-
Ah... food for thought. You're right about Warhol, of course. Though, he also believed that his work was art, which changes things a bit. In addition to his quest for money and fame, he was obsessed with redefining and stretching the boundaries of art, like the dadaists.
:-)
It's obviously not a cut-and-dried, black and white line. I remember years ago when I was doing a lot of ceramics, there would be 3 groups of people who would come through: the artists, the crafters, and a large group that straddled the line: neither one nor the other, or perhaps both at the same time.
It's an amazingly hard thing to quantify, but there is a real difference. Quite often you'd see someone who identified with one group or the other strongly, but really 'belonged' in the other category. Of course, this is all subjective and non-quantifiable.
m-
What a fantastically well-reasoned, witty and insightful commentary. My goodness, have you considered getting your own talk show? Your masterful command of the English language leaves me all a-quiver! "Ridicules." Brilliant!
I bow before your obviously superior intellect. All hail! All hail #672391, "nate nice"!
Fear him! Praise him! Love him, for he is your god!
m-
I agree, there are lots of idiots in the world.
But "art", unlike "beauty", is not in the eye of the beholder: it's in the will and intention of the creator of the work. Look up Marcel Duchamp's Fountain. It makes the point most succinctly.
If you can show ANY evidence that the creators of GTA were trying to create a work of art, please do so. The soul of art is intention. The creators were intending to create controversy, money, and at most, a fun diversion. Please give any links that show otherwise.
Even so, that wouldn't make it great, merely a poor work of art. Although I admit that bit is mildly subjective.
Further, I posit that your argument that my argument is invalid, is in itself invalid! So there! Neener-neener! (we could go on like this all day, I hope you realize.)
m-
I apologize if I "misread between the lines".
However, I think what these discussions miss is the idea that the behavior has to be viewed in context.
In ACO, these were the actions of a narrator who's clearly depraved, loathsome, and yet pitiable at the same time. It's uncomfortable for the reader, because you both identify with the character, and are horrified by him. This is why it's great art. It teaches compassion without condoning the horror.
GTA takes away all that context. There are no repercussions for bad behavior, quite the opposite. I'm not saying that this is always a bad thing, but I certainly wouldn't give it to my 12-year old, whereas I wouldn't necessarily have that reservation about ACO.
You're right, I haven't listened to the radio in the game. Perhaps it's a deep, insightful social commentary that flew right past me.
m-
OK, so lets actually enforce the ratings system we have. What's the down-side?
Here's an interesting question: is an interactive medium held to the same standards as a non-interactive one? Should it be? Are the effects identical? Is an interactive medium more compelling than a static medium, or less? Why?
m-
Yeah, I agree, but that's for behavior which people believe (mistakenly, perhaps) affects only them.
Think of it this way, how many parents will buy cigs and booze for their kids?
You're right, some idiots will ignore ANYTHING, but it isn't an excuse not to try.
m-