I, at least, meant what I wrote. See the other references.
Ok, I looked in Websters. Pedophile is a word, "pedicator" is not. So, I still don't know what you mean.
You're doing a good job at raising my ire. This is good for neither of us.:-(
"Websters" is hardly the end-all and be-all of whether something constitutes a `word' or not. Most of us laugh at "Websters", you know. The OED is a good starting place, much better than any old "Websters" silliness, but even that isn't absolute. Words aren't what you think they are. They derive from many sources, and anyone, especially a native speaker, has full licence to invent new ones.
In this case, however, I did not. In fact, the word in question has seen use for around twenty-four centuries at least, and probably more. I suppose you'd try to tell me that fajitas and quedadillas "weren't words" either, just because "Websters" was ignorant of them.
Furthermore, "Websters" is not a well-defined term. Any one can publish a "Websters". And many people have. And most of them are crap.
Most importantly, I already posted a reference in this thread which, if one were to follow the link, would in graphic and offensive detail explain precisely what the word means, and why. Today, I choose not to violate the delicate sensibilities of the gentle readership of this august forum by printing verbatim such foul material as to be found in that link. Kindly respect that position. Here's another such link that the prurient may read if they're interested.
The alleged connection to pædophile is suspect at best, since the pædo- stem did not appear in pedicator. Circa 110 AD, Suetonius wrote in De Vita Caesarum, Divus Iulius (The Lives of the Caesars, The Deified Julius), citing the earlier C. Licinius Calvus, the following: Bithynia quicquid et pedicator Caesaris umquam habuit.
I don't see why pedicator would be related to pedometer or pedology. I think you're confused pæd- (often written paed-) and ped-. The prevalent America spelling of pædophile as pedophile not only confuses those of us accustomed to and reliant upon proper stemming, it probably also annoys the pedestrians and podiatrists, with the only folks happy with the confusion being the pædogogues.:-)
Strange. I must have missed saying that "TV makes you stupid", per your allegation. It's really much more complicated than that. I said that my mind is not for rent. This isn't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
When I started doing helpdesk and sysadmin work, users were expected to read the manuals. We would always answer their questions, but we also included a polite reference to the appropriate documentation. After a few examples, we only got calls about the obscure stuff.... When did users decide they didn't need to read the docs, not even the brief field descriptions on the screen?
Problem #1: ENOMAN
Here's what happened, in a nutshell: more often than not, there no longer is a manual!
This is a grave problem. It widens the gap that separates the clueless user from the priesthood of gurus. It returns us to the bad old days when only the sacred priesthood held the keys to the arcane lore locked away in hidden tomes and passed on through oral tradition. The Unix philosophy of putting all reference manuals online in one definitive location (/usr/man), accessible with either a dedicated tool (man) or with generic ones (grep string/usr/man/man?/man.*) has been lost to us.
Instead of coherent, unified, and centrally located reference manuals, we are stuck with lame help buttons; make-shift, per-tool documentation in an infinite variety of different locations and formats; and, more often than not, no manual whatsoever.
You won't find one single scapegoat here: there's plenty of blame to go around. Here's a partial list of the guilty parties, in no particular order:
The non-Unix systems that never embraced the notion of unified, online documentation.
The tech support staff who assume that `the manual' has a well-known meaning to the listener, and that this suffices for explanation.
The numerous new Unix users who, coming from a non-Unix (or even, non-computer) background, were never told that the complete programmers reference manual was sitting right there online, waiting for them.
An emphasis by Unix types on programmers' reference material over users' tutorial material, which, of course, aren't the same thing at all.
The authors of software systems who completely disdain the need to produce reference documentation. Think of how many libraries and programs you install these days whose functions are undocumented.
The users who are expecting giant monolithic bloatware, and therefore think that all help information should be available from within a program.
The programmers who seek to appease the previously named users, and thus cut everyone else off. They often invent a different layout design for each major subsystem.
The authors of software systems who, unhappy with existing mechanisms, decide to `innovate' and so invent a completely idiosyncratic doc standard. That means that you can no longer use generic tools to access all docs. This doesn't scale, because for each new tools, you have to learn how to access its documentation.
The authors of software systems who do not translate their program-specific documentation into a generic format to be integrated with the rest of the system. This means that you cannot use generic searching or printing tools anymore. All you have is a random patchwork system.
The distribution providers (read: providers of Linux-based operating systems) who disavow any responsibility for creating a coherent system. They sell systems "as is", and claim that it's free software, so there's nothing they can do. They like to play responsibility-avoidance games, such as:
Sometimes these distributors try to shunt their responsibility to the authors by saying that they can't force authors of free software to write documentation. That's true, but they have no business installing undocumented software on their distributions.
Sometimes they blame the authors for inventing their own doc mechanism. Yes, those people are at fault, but as the distributor, the buck stops there. It's their responsibility as a systems integrator to produce an integrated, coherent system.
Sometimes they try to blame you the user. `Hey, it's free software. If you don't like it, fix it yourself.' This is so egregiously wrong that it leaves the listener speechless.
No matter how you cut it, the distributors are being negligent. They aren't selling a system. They're selling a random bag of trinkets.
The RPMs, tarfiles, make install rules, and distribution providers which allow you to install software that's been stripped of its documentation. So, in this case, the docs exist, but you don't get them.
The makers of documentation tools who haven't upgraded them to understand how to follow SEE ALSO links. For example, how many man programs do you know that do this? Why not?
There. Is everyone here sufficiently ashamed or pissed off?:-) If there's anybody left whom I didn't accuse of being a party to the problem, let me know and I'll write you in, too.:-)
Anyway, it all boils down to the issue that when you tell the user to RTFM, they have no idea what that means. Even when they do know what the M is, said manual or may not exist--especially on Linux. If the manual does exist, it's highly unclear how to access it, especially with newer software, which hides its docs in idiosyncratic formats, locations, or websites. Another issue is that the user might not be a tool user: they might not have the skills to search the docset effectively in any other fashion than prohibitively tedious reading of every line.
This all contributes to why RTFM gets shouted more often today than before, yet is less effective than it used to be. The end result is that there are more unhappy people on both sides of that exchange.
Problem #2: Actual Learning Unwanted
I've only outlined here the problems of a proper manual not existing, or being difficult to access. There's at least one other important issue; possibly more important, in fact, than the manual's existence or accessibility. It's called willingness to learn. Often the problem resides in the fact that we're talking about users who don't want understanding.
They just want a quick fix, an immediate solution. They don't want to read, to learn. They do not see the computer and its software as a fascinating puzzle to work out, nor do they see the value in studying something. They certainly don't have a problem-solving mentality. They just want their answers, and they want them now.
The difference between inquisitive students in a classroom environment and petulant users who come to a help desk (whether real or virtual) is astounding. These helpdesk supplicants don't think of themselves as students, and they do not want to learn. Understanding is irrelevant to them. Only results count.
No, the point is just that rather than throwing something out, they open it up on the way out the door. So what? Would you rather it were completely lost to the world? (And I'm not even clear that that's what's happening here, but that does seem to be what you were grinching over, so that's what I'm addressing.)
Kindly wipe that Stallmanesque `g' from the name of Mr. Torvald's kernel. It's insulting.
One more thing: open sourcing something does not mean `giving it to Linux'. It means giving it to the whole wide world! Try not to see everything through Linux-colored glasses. I know it's hard, but please, for everyone's sake, do please try.
Ok. I give up. Why was this posted under the "GNU" category? Have they announced that they're going to GPL their code? If so, I missed it. I shouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that a company opening up their source code would do so via the GPL. Maybe so, maybe not. But not an automatic.
it has been obvious for a long time, that when the writers on slashdot think opensource, they are actually just thinking linux. and this is why i have been reading slashdot less and less
That was very well said. Thank you. And while I can't *exactly* moderate it up, perhaps this will help. (And don't rag on me: I've never done this before. I think it's an important point.)
Correction: I misposted the link to the LOTR page. I gave a fan page. Apparently, this is the official one. Sorry about that. It's very hard to read with lynx, however.:-(
There seems to be a lot of mistrust that the Ender movie can accurately portray the Card's book. But is this really necessary? Is it okay to have a somewhat different story? Have you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Did you enjoy Blade Runner? I think they were different, but both good.
Aren't the two media of books and film fundamentaly different? Do you think there's something about Ender that specifically does not lend itself to a movie format? Or do you just not trust the production team? I think Ender is feasible, although don't know how it will work out. Certainly having Card write the screenplay means that no one will be able to say that it was contrary to the author's wishes. But has Card any screenplay experience?
Which books have successfully translated into movies? Which have failed? What do you think the cause was? I believe that no single cause exists. Consider Dune as movie and book. I don't think many people were very happy with the movie. I don't think it was the actors, but the time allotment. Can Ender be told in the 2½ hours allotted? Is there too much internal dialogue for it to work out, or is there enough action?
A more important movie coming up for next Christmas (or the following one) is the first of three installments to The Lord of the Rings. Details are at the The Lord of the Rings movie page, with casting photos and FAQs/gossip available as well, plus an IMDB entry. In this case, it's not going to be too short the way Dune was, since it's going to be three movies. I don't know that even Card dreams of doing the whole Ender quartet as movies. I hope not.
My Webster doesn't have "pedicator" in it. What does it mean?
I was trying to be slightly circumspect, lest anyone be needlessly offended. You can look it up in these verba cloacae. More naughty bits are available on the obscene Latin page.
Sorry. I meant that the boys in the school weren't supposed to identify with them. I wasn't talking about the reader. There are several levels at play here.
I imagine they've stricken "bugger" from the script because of its obvious interpretation as "pedicator". The people who say "you dirty old bugger" are much more apt to be offended than those who say "what a cute little bugger he is!" So in the interests of avoiding a non-kid-viewable rating, they might have dodged the word. Perhaps it's even on the unapproved list; I don't know.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if pedication weren't precisely the connotation that Card intended. You were not supposed to identify with or in any way like the Buggers.
The idea that something which must be paid for though peaceful submission to advert-driven brainwashing is somehow `free' is nothing short of Orwellian newspeak, the truth-denying language of Big Brother's rule in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The material is not free of charge, because you must pay for it with your mind. This is a high, high cost--one far too high for anyone who values their mind to blithely pay out. My mind is not for rent, with apologies to Rush.
The material is not free of restriction, because it has a severe condition for use: you must open up your brain to its manipulative tendrils. In fact, it's completely about restriction: restricting your mind, the most severe of all possible restrictions. It used to be you had to become a POW to be subjected to brain-washing. Now everyone gratefully submits themselves to this tacit torture.
As Neil Postman said, ``Contempt, rather than celebration, is the proper response to advertising and the system that makes it possible.''
And yes, I do practice what I preach. I have no television for this very reason. I will not pay for those programs by sacrificing my mind to trivialized sound-bytes and deceptive adverts.
Eric, at the risk of drawing you into the Dark Side, I'd like to coyly mention a certain Perl module by Damian Conway of Monash University in Australia. Damian's module allows a program to generate hiakus instead of boring error messages. Most remarkably, his entire paper on this work is itself rendered in haiku format.
Here's the start:
Abstract
Before use Coy: run code...read rebuke. After use Coy: run code...haiku!
Introduction
Error messages strewn across my terminal. A vein starts to throb.
Their reproof adds the injury of insult to the shame of failure.
When a program dies what you need is a moment of serenity.
The Coy.pm module brings tranquillity to your debugging.
The module alters the behaviour of die and warn (and croak and carp).
It also provides transcend and enlighten, two Zen alternatives.
Like Carp.pm, reports errors from the caller's point-of-view.
But it prefaces the bad news of failure with a soothing poem.
Haiku as error messages
The use of haiku to couch an error message is by no means new.
The easiest way to ornament errors is with a "canned" haiku.
Salon magazine suggested this approach in 1998.
They asked readers to submit error messages written as haiku.
The winning entries are now widely known. The best of them is perhaps:
Three things are certain: Death, taxes, and lost data. Guess which has occurred.
But just as canned fish soon grow less appetizing, so too canned poems.
Inevitably, constant repetition robs them of their piquance.
Besides, there are too many error messages that need a haiku.
Perl's diagnostics alone would require just under 500.
And, of course, there's an endless supply of user- defined messages.
What you don't undestand is that if you are not for us, you are against us. Richard Stallman's New Year's resolutions are truths to live by. I believe that the GNU project is our last, best hope to free ourselves from the tyranny of nonfree software and man's inhumanity to his fellow man. We must oppose all nonfree software, and support only GNU software. I know I am not alone in my abhorrence to someone else making money off of my work. It's as though I were a slave.
I see that Sunday night church services in Cambridge have let out already.:-)
Thank you for your carefully constructed posting. I hope you will not be offended if I opine that despite your care, I feel that you've omitted something crucial.
By not fighting against closed, proprietary drivers, you're just repeating the evil that Bill has wrought. I realize you seem to be trying to do the right thing, and that in your own heart and mind you are a kind and generous and reasonable person. But I believe that by caving in and saying, "Please, Mr Manufacturer, just my system at least," that you are displaying the same symptoms that got us all into this closed mess in the first place. I never want to see a piece of hardware that's not only made for a particular operating system, that runs on that system alone.
I don't even want to get a floppy with my C++ Journal that contains Wintel-only software. But that's another issue.
They shut out the MVS users, and I did not speak up because I was not an MVS user. They shut out the VMS users, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a VMS user. They shut out the Sun users, and I did not speak up because I was not a Sun user. They shut out the BSD users, and I did not speak up because I was not a BSD user. Then they shut me out, and there was no one left to speak up for me.
Following up to myself to clarify: I wasn't trying to talk about DIVX. I was thinking of DVD, and devices in general, that come with "Wintel only" stamped on them, like Win Modems.
True, we did not lionize the intellectuals and give them access to political power, and that's a damn good thing. Unlike what we have now.
Intellectuals with political power in America? Hello? I really don't think so. Some would argue for Mario Cuomo, but I don't think we've seen an `intellectual' with any political power in this country since Woodrow Wilson. In fact, the media-driven, ephemeral nature of our shallow society seems to preclude intellectuals from rising to power. The flickering attention spans and non-existent analytical skills of the general public render them largely immune to intellectual discourse. Remember that we're talking about a country in which being a "dummy", an "idiot", or a non-reader is touted as a virtue. I see no intellectual movement whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
"Websters" is hardly the end-all and be-all of whether something constitutes a `word' or not. Most of us laugh at "Websters", you know. The OED is a good starting place, much better than any old "Websters" silliness, but even that isn't absolute. Words aren't what you think they are. They derive from many sources, and anyone, especially a native speaker, has full licence to invent new ones.
In this case, however, I did not. In fact, the word in question has seen use for around twenty-four centuries at least, and probably more. I suppose you'd try to tell me that fajitas and quedadillas "weren't words" either, just because "Websters" was ignorant of them.
Furthermore, "Websters" is not a well-defined term. Any one can publish a "Websters". And many people have. And most of them are crap.
Most importantly, I already posted a reference in this thread which, if one were to follow the link, would in graphic and offensive detail explain precisely what the word means, and why. Today, I choose not to violate the delicate sensibilities of the gentle readership of this august forum by printing verbatim such foul material as to be found in that link. Kindly respect that position. Here's another such link that the prurient may read if they're interested.
The alleged connection to pædophile is suspect at best, since the pædo- stem did not appear in pedicator. Circa 110 AD, Suetonius wrote in De Vita Caesarum, Divus Iulius (The Lives of the Caesars, The Deified Julius), citing the earlier C. Licinius Calvus, the following: Bithynia quicquid et pedicator Caesaris umquam habuit.
I don't see why pedicator would be related to pedometer or pedology. I think you're confused pæd- (often written paed-) and ped-. The prevalent America spelling of pædophile as pedophile not only confuses those of us accustomed to and reliant upon proper stemming, it probably also annoys the pedestrians and podiatrists, with the only folks happy with the confusion being the pædogogues. :-)
Strange. I must have missed saying that "TV makes you stupid", per your allegation. It's really much more complicated than that. I said that my mind is not for rent. This isn't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Problem #1: ENOMAN
Here's what happened, in a nutshell: more often than not, there no longer is a manual!
This is a grave problem. It widens the gap that separates the clueless user from the priesthood of gurus. It returns us to the bad old days when only the sacred priesthood held the keys to the arcane lore locked away in hidden tomes and passed on through oral tradition. The Unix philosophy of putting all reference manuals online in one definitive location (/usr/man), accessible with either a dedicated tool (man) or with generic ones (grep string /usr/man/man?/man.*) has been lost to us.
Instead of coherent, unified, and centrally located reference manuals, we are stuck with lame help buttons; make-shift, per-tool documentation in an infinite variety of different locations and formats; and, more often than not, no manual whatsoever.
You won't find one single scapegoat here: there's plenty of blame to go around. Here's a partial list of the guilty parties, in no particular order:
- The non-Unix systems that never embraced the notion of unified, online documentation.
- The tech support staff who assume that `the manual' has a well-known meaning to the listener, and that this suffices for explanation.
- The numerous new Unix users who, coming from a non-Unix (or even, non-computer) background, were never told that the complete programmers reference manual was sitting right there online, waiting for them.
- An emphasis by Unix types on programmers' reference material over users' tutorial material, which, of course, aren't the same thing at all.
- The authors of software systems who completely disdain the need to produce reference documentation. Think of how many libraries and programs you install these days whose functions are undocumented.
- The users who are expecting giant monolithic bloatware, and therefore think that all help information should be available from within a program.
- The programmers who seek to appease the previously named users, and thus cut everyone else off. They often invent a different layout design for each major subsystem.
- The authors of software systems who, unhappy with existing mechanisms, decide to `innovate' and so invent a completely idiosyncratic doc standard. That means that you can no longer use generic tools to access all docs. This doesn't scale, because for each new tools, you have to learn how to access its documentation.
- The authors of software systems who do not translate their program-specific documentation into a generic format to be integrated with the rest of the system. This means that you cannot use generic searching or printing tools anymore. All you have is a random patchwork system.
- The distribution providers (read: providers of Linux-based operating systems) who disavow any responsibility for creating a coherent system. They sell systems "as is", and claim that it's free software, so there's nothing they can do. They like to play responsibility-avoidance games, such as:
- The RPMs, tarfiles, make install rules, and distribution providers which allow you to install software that's been stripped of its documentation. So, in this case, the docs exist, but you don't get them.
- The makers of documentation tools who haven't upgraded them to understand how to follow SEE ALSO links. For example, how many man programs do you know that do this? Why not?
There. Is everyone here sufficiently ashamed or pissed off?- Sometimes these distributors try to shunt their responsibility to the authors by saying that they can't force authors of free software to write documentation. That's true, but they have no business installing undocumented software on their distributions.
- Sometimes they blame the authors for inventing their own doc mechanism. Yes, those people are at fault, but as the distributor, the buck stops there. It's their responsibility as a systems integrator to produce an integrated, coherent system.
- Sometimes they try to blame you the user. `Hey, it's free software. If you don't like it, fix it yourself.' This is so egregiously wrong that it leaves the listener speechless.
No matter how you cut it, the distributors are being negligent. They aren't selling a system. They're selling a random bag of trinkets.Anyway, it all boils down to the issue that when you tell the user to RTFM, they have no idea what that means. Even when they do know what the M is, said manual or may not exist--especially on Linux. If the manual does exist, it's highly unclear how to access it, especially with newer software, which hides its docs in idiosyncratic formats, locations, or websites. Another issue is that the user might not be a tool user: they might not have the skills to search the docset effectively in any other fashion than prohibitively tedious reading of every line.
This all contributes to why RTFM gets shouted more often today than before, yet is less effective than it used to be. The end result is that there are more unhappy people on both sides of that exchange.
Problem #2: Actual Learning Unwanted
I've only outlined here the problems of a proper manual not existing, or being difficult to access. There's at least one other important issue; possibly more important, in fact, than the manual's existence or accessibility. It's called willingness to learn. Often the problem resides in the fact that we're talking about users who don't want understanding.
They just want a quick fix, an immediate solution. They don't want to read, to learn. They do not see the computer and its software as a fascinating puzzle to work out, nor do they see the value in studying something. They certainly don't have a problem-solving mentality. They just want their answers, and they want them now.
The difference between inquisitive students in a classroom environment and petulant users who come to a help desk (whether real or virtual) is astounding. These helpdesk supplicants don't think of themselves as students, and they do not want to learn. Understanding is irrelevant to them. Only results count.
Kindly wipe that Stallmanesque `g' from the name of Mr. Torvald's kernel. It's insulting.
One more thing: open sourcing something does not mean `giving it to Linux'. It means giving it to the whole wide world! Try not to see everything through Linux-colored glasses. I know it's hard, but please, for everyone's sake, do please try.
If I missed the announcement, please tell me.
Correction: I misposted the link to the LOTR page. I gave a fan page. Apparently, this is the official one. Sorry about that. It's very hard to read with lynx, however. :-(
Aren't the two media of books and film fundamentaly different? Do you think there's something about Ender that specifically does not lend itself to a movie format? Or do you just not trust the production team? I think Ender is feasible, although don't know how it will work out. Certainly having Card write the screenplay means that no one will be able to say that it was contrary to the author's wishes. But has Card any screenplay experience?
Which books have successfully translated into movies? Which have failed? What do you think the cause was? I believe that no single cause exists. Consider Dune as movie and book. I don't think many people were very happy with the movie. I don't think it was the actors, but the time allotment. Can Ender be told in the 2½ hours allotted? Is there too much internal dialogue for it to work out, or is there enough action?
A more important movie coming up for next Christmas (or the following one) is the first of three installments to The Lord of the Rings. Details are at the The Lord of the Rings movie page, with casting photos and FAQs/gossip available as well, plus an IMDB entry. In this case, it's not going to be too short the way Dune was, since it's going to be three movies. I don't know that even Card dreams of doing the whole Ender quartet as movies. I hope not.
Sorry. I meant that the boys in the school weren't supposed to identify with them. I wasn't talking about the reader. There are several levels at play here.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if pedication weren't precisely the connotation that Card intended. You were not supposed to identify with or in any way like the Buggers.
People thinking that millennium doesn't have two pairs of doubled letters in it. :-(
People thinking that some ten-dollar bills only have nine hundred ninety-nine pennies in them. :-)
As Neil Postman said, ``Contempt, rather than celebration, is the proper response to advertising and the system that makes it possible.''
And yes, I do practice what I preach. I have no television for this very reason. I will not pay for those programs by sacrificing my mind to trivialized sound-bytes and deceptive adverts.
Here's the start:
Darned clever, no?Here are references for you:
I imagine that this module will now allow ending haiku postings on Slashdot.:-)
By not fighting against closed, proprietary drivers, you're just repeating the evil that Bill has wrought. I realize you seem to be trying to do the right thing, and that in your own heart and mind you are a kind and generous and reasonable person. But I believe that by caving in and saying, "Please, Mr Manufacturer, just my system at least," that you are displaying the same symptoms that got us all into this closed mess in the first place. I never want to see a piece of hardware that's not only made for a particular operating system, that runs on that system alone.
I don't even want to get a floppy with my C++ Journal that contains Wintel-only software. But that's another issue.
They shut out the VMS users, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a VMS user.
They shut out the Sun users, and I did not speak up because I was not a Sun user.
They shut out the BSD users, and I did not speak up because I was not a BSD user.
Then they shut me out, and there was no one left to speak up for me.
With apologies to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
Following up to myself to clarify: I wasn't trying to talk about DIVX. I was thinking of DVD, and devices in general, that come with "Wintel only" stamped on them, like Win Modems.
- Why focus on Linux over all free Unix (aka freenix) in general?
- Why just `free' Unix instead of all Unix?
- Why just Unix instead of all systems? What's wrong with (Open)VMS, for example, on an Alpha Workstation?
It would be nice to see us all supporting open systems again instead of just jumping on the Linux cheerleading bandwagon.