Yes, I see where you're coming from, but I think the point you are addressing here is more "can new ideas ever develop?", which, if we accept the principle that language limits thought, is co-extensive with the question, "does language evolve/develop?". Well, clearly the answer to the latter question is, "yes". What I was thinking of, was more, whether translation from one language into another doesn't inevitably translate native concepts into different ideas, their nearest equivalents in the target language. See Heideigger for powerful arguments on why this might be the case.
I found, if not the paper then what seems to be a good precis of it, and read it -- (all this and more) -- it's irrelevant to the subject discussed. I am in some difficulty as to why you thought it would be relevant. Proving that some concepts are cross-lingual impinges not at all on the question of whether all are, which lies at the heart of the "does language limit thought" debate.
The biologist can indeed give a correct scientific answer, if you accept the philosophical underpinnings of the scientist's approach to the problem. Indeed, "correct scientific answer" begs the question, since "correct scientific answer" is defined in terms that are dependent on the philosophy underlying the scientific world view. However, I don't see how this translates to the problem addressed. How exactly have linguists addressed and solved this problem? What experiments have been performed that have disproved the thesis that language does set a limit to what one thinks, for instance? And has any experiment been performed which proves the opposite? A lot of "linguistic science" is closely related to "social science", that is, it is pseudo-science. At any rate, whether the language one speaks limits what one can think is not within the field that linguistics studies: the scientific study of language and its structure relates not at all to the philosophical question of whether or no what particular language one speaks forms and limits one's thoughts.
Fuck off you anti-Catholic bigot. (Yes, this gets a 2, and it deserves it -- unless you'd like anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted on slashdot too? How about goebbelsjII, declaring how deeply he relates to "Open Source"?)
Another nit to pick: the issue of whether or not one's native language restricts what one can think is a philosophical question, so whether linguists agree or disagree with the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" is neither here nor there. After all, one can respect Einstein's contributions to physics without feeling bound thereby to give any great credence to his philosophical outlook. The reverse also applies.
"The Associated Press Libel Manual" -- have you got a link for that, or a source, or an ISBN? Sounds like it could be very useful. Lord knows I don't generally have much time for Katz, but his ranting about "corporatism" does have a kernel of truth: it's hard for the individual to stand up to big corporations on such matters, and often knowing the law can help a great deal.
Hmm, yes, very true. But how many pointy-haired managers does anyone know that do anything more than skim the first few paragraphs? Sad but true. But, yes, of course it's "advertorial": most of the computer press is, unfortunately. Not deliberately, I suspect; sustained exposure to PR releases maybe has a deleterious effect on all but the strong-minded few (Chris Bidmead is a fine example of the latter, though he's a Brit so you might not have heard of him).
Just a small point, but... does anyone else get rather annoyed with the way RedHat gets lumped in with SCO? Linux is a Unix-based OS, so is SCO (loosely-speaking: you know what I mean, to hell with the UNIX(TM) crap); RedHat is NOT an OS, just one way of distributing Linux. Full kudos to RedHat; but it is getting more and more common to use the distribution name as though it meant an OS, which it doesn't. SCO and Linux can be compared; SCO and RedHat can't: it's apples and oranges.
Yeah, this is a funny comment. Not true, though. A good dose of tchrist is the very thing a newbie needs to get them thinking for themselves. No, really! I learned Unix from The Unix Programming Environment, which I think is the book equivalent of tc: "here's the gen, now go figure!".
You've got two different Paul Dunnes confuted here. I, the "slashdot" Paul Dunne, am an Irish writer. I am working on Linux Application Development Tools; it should be out sometime this year. Linux for Webmasters feel by the wayside due to differences with the publisher, I'm afraid. The "other" Paul Dunne is an English academic; he edited the two other books you mention
I criticise Katz for two reasons: one, I believe is is a bad writer; two, I believe he is bad for slashdot. As I said in another post, I'd rather/. didn't become ZDnet, with professional hacks spouting off on all and sundry, and a tawdry little comments section tacked on underneath each article for us plebs. I'm not here as a writer: I'm here as a Linux user, because once upon a time/. was the place to be for anyone interested in Linux.
I don't know Jon Katz, so I can't say whether I like him or not. I do object strongly to his writing here, because in my view he contributes nothing, and indeed has a harmful effect. So, yes, I do just want him to go away. Thanks for reading what I wrote, by the way; most responders, especially those urging me to re-read Katz's article, evidently hadn't done so.
I was here on slashdot when Katz's first article appeared. Taken as a whole, his writings here function as advertising, pure and simple. At least, that is the best gloss I can put on it. Because if he means this drivel to be anything more than PR blurbs for his books, he is suffering from severe delusion.
Have you considered subscribing to the Jobserve mailing list? They'll send you a daily list of jobs that match a filter you set up, or everything they get if you so wish. They're not Linux-specific, but these days they are listing plenty of Linux contracts, as well as lots more Unix work, every day.
And there you have it in a nutshell: "we Katz-kiddies rule here now. If you don't like it, fuck off" -- said in the name of free speech, of course. Of course, you are tilting at straw men. No-one is arguing that Katz shouldn't post comments on/. -- he can post as many as he likes, as can you or I or anyone else. But his present position is something else. However, since you are unable to understand any criticism of Katz as being anything other than an attack on free speech, I am doubtless talking to the wall here. So it goes.
The flaw with this argument as I see it is that slashdot is not and is not meant to be an on-line equivalent of a traditional newspaper or magazine, a place where professional writers "fire and forget" so to speak. The central feature of slashdot is discussion, and this surely should include the author of the piece that sparks all the discussion. Otherwise, what differentiates/. from those tacky reader response forms on so many news/opinion pages these days? Replying to comments isn't an option for a slashdot author, just because it shouldn't be a job for those authors. They should be people like you and I, submitting for posting stuff that they consider important ("News for Nerds. Stuff that matters", remember?), and then joining in the debate. Otherwise all we've got here is ZDNet.
Point taken; although it says who the post is by right at the top, so it's easy enough to skim on by. But the larger point remains. People who say "if you don't like it, don't read it" are missing the point. Slashdot is becoming Katzdot; that makes it no longer slashdot. The type of articles Katz specialises in attract a different type of audience than a site subtitled "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Again, do a websearch like '+"Jon Katz" +"slashdot"' and see the sort of shit you come up with. For a lot of people, slashdot is Jon Katz. That is an apalling thought.
In Katz's usage, "positive feedback" does not mean "constructive crticism". Nor, to be fair, in most other peoples'. I and others are providing negative feedback: we don't like what he writes. We have no intention to help him "improve" it -- this ain't Writing 101.
Then perhaps you sould read the article again. It's pretty carefully-written, actually. He starts out all reasonable, making a distinction between death threats and criticism (how noble of him!); then ends up saying " As one who posts regularly and is on the receiving end of positive as well as snarky feedback". Two types of feedback, see? Those who agree with him, and the snarky kind, i.e. the flames. Now, since the *only* public response Katz makes to any replies to his articles is to complain about flamers, doesn't it seem as though he regards all negative criticism as flaming? If he thinks slashdot is such a wonderful, "new media" thing, why isn't he responding to proper criticism? Why only to the flames? By responding only to the flames (and that with an article, not with comments, be it noted) he is implying that that is the only sort of criticism he receives.
By the way, anyone can write about important topics. It's what they write that matters.
Thank you for your contribution. If you don't like my posts, don't read them and quit whining. That argument sound familiar? Bunch of crap when you stop to think about it, no?
I fail to understand why so many people respond like this to the replies to a Jon Katz article. I mean, you don't have to read the replies if you don't wish to. You don't even have to know we exist: just "walk on by". But no, it seems some folks here on here would rather get rid of us completely, and deny us any right to post to slashdot. I don't always agree with what they have to say, but I never get angry over it. (No prizes for those who can point out the many lapses of logic in an argument of this type: they are too obvious).
Well, that's one way of looking at it I suppose: "it could be worse". Except, I don't much care what Dvorak writes, because it's for a site I don't visit, and for a site that serves a very different purpose than slashdot. When slashdot is exploited by Katz, on the other hand, it does affect me, because I like and use slashdot, and don't want it to turn into Katzdot.
Jon Katz, does your self-importance have no bounds? Is there really nothing else you can write about but yourself? It's true that Joyce was always writing about himself: but you're no James Joyce. I am sick and tired of seeing well thought-out, constructive, and well-written criticisms of your meandering, self-centered rants dismissed as "flames". This I think is the core reason for your unpopularity on slashdot. You use this forum for a shameless exercise in self-promotion; and when those of us who like it for what is was and could be complain, we receive the one-fingered salute. This will be the case no matter what effort goes in to engaging with you. You talk elsewhere about "new media" and the importance of interactivity; yet there you are, expounding from your slashdot pulpit, and lordily proclaiming to the assembled throng below when you have done, "you may comment now!". But you never respond in a substantive way to any comments. But then, why should you? After all, we are only "flamers".
Now, why am I being so hard on Katz? There is one big reason: I don't want/. to slide further down the same path as Usenet. Slashdot is not and never was a free-for-all forum. It is editing in two ways: by Rob & Co. chosing what and what not to post, and by those arbitrarily chosen for moderatorial duties. Without effective editorial control, any forum rapidly sinks to the level of lowest common denominator. In some ways, slashdot has gone as far as is possible to counteract this tendency, with moderation and meta-moderation supplmenting the editorial team; only to throw these advantages away by promoting a vapid windbag as part of the team, effectively both writer and editor -- for who believes Katz's slashdot posts are subject to the same controls as ordinary contributions?
It used to be different. Slashdot was made up mainly of submitted stories: that is, slashdot readers were also slashdot columnists: a "story by RobLimo" or or CmdrTaco or whoever was normally a posting of something a/. reader had sent in, with the powers that were at slashdot functioning as editors of a kind. Now, it's different. Now, ironically, it is "old media" with a vengeance. Know-it-all journalists decide what slashdot will cover: setting the agenda, then graciously allowing the unwashed masses to comment on their wisdom -- though, never, you'll note, getting seriously involved in the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I see where you're coming from, but I think the point you are addressing here is more "can new ideas ever develop?", which, if we accept the principle that language limits thought, is co-extensive with the question, "does language evolve/develop?". Well, clearly the answer to the latter question is, "yes". What I was thinking of, was more, whether translation from one language into another doesn't inevitably translate native concepts into different ideas, their nearest equivalents in the target language. See Heideigger for powerful arguments on why this might be the case.
I found, if not the paper then what seems to be a good precis of it, and read it -- (all this and more) -- it's irrelevant to the subject discussed. I am in some difficulty as to why you thought it would be relevant. Proving that some concepts are cross-lingual impinges not at all on the question of whether all are, which lies at the heart of the "does language limit thought" debate.
The biologist can indeed give a correct scientific answer, if you accept the philosophical underpinnings of the scientist's approach to the problem. Indeed, "correct scientific answer" begs the question, since "correct scientific answer" is defined in terms that are dependent on the philosophy underlying the scientific world view. However, I don't see how this translates to the problem addressed. How exactly have linguists addressed and solved this problem? What experiments have been performed that have disproved the thesis that language does set a limit to what one thinks, for instance? And has any experiment been performed which proves the opposite? A lot of "linguistic science" is closely related to "social science", that is, it is pseudo-science. At any rate, whether the language one speaks limits what one can think is not within the field that linguistics studies: the scientific study of language and its structure relates not at all to the philosophical question of whether or no what particular language one speaks forms and limits one's thoughts.
Fuck off you anti-Catholic bigot. (Yes, this gets a 2, and it deserves it -- unless you'd like anti-Semitic propaganda to be posted on slashdot too? How about goebbelsjII, declaring how deeply he relates to "Open Source"?)
Another nit to pick: the issue of whether or not one's native language restricts what one can think is a philosophical question, so whether linguists agree or disagree with the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" is neither here nor there. After all, one can respect Einstein's contributions to physics without feeling bound thereby to give any great credence to his philosophical outlook. The reverse also applies.
"The Associated Press Libel Manual" -- have you got a link for that, or a source, or an ISBN? Sounds like it could be very useful. Lord knows I don't generally have much time for Katz, but his ranting about "corporatism" does have a kernel of truth: it's hard for the individual to stand up to big corporations on such matters, and often knowing the law can help a great deal.
Hmm, yes, very true. But how many pointy-haired managers does anyone know that do anything more than skim the first few paragraphs? Sad but true. But, yes, of course it's "advertorial": most of the computer press is, unfortunately. Not deliberately, I suspect; sustained exposure to PR releases maybe has a deleterious effect on all but the strong-minded few (Chris Bidmead is a fine example of the latter, though he's a Brit so you might not have heard of him).
Well, it sounds like they don't know what the fuck they are talking about; but that's hardly news.
Just a small point, but... does anyone else get rather annoyed with the way RedHat gets lumped in with SCO? Linux is a Unix-based OS, so is SCO (loosely-speaking: you know what I mean, to hell with the UNIX(TM) crap); RedHat is NOT an OS, just one way of distributing Linux. Full kudos to RedHat; but it is getting more and more common to use the distribution name as though it meant an OS, which it doesn't. SCO and Linux can be compared; SCO and RedHat can't: it's apples and oranges.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, Sig, but right now, you're at (Score:1, Funny)... hmm, maybe Rob wasn't kidding...
Yeah, this is a funny comment. Not true, though. A good dose of tchrist is the very thing a newbie needs to get them thinking for themselves. No, really! I learned Unix from The Unix Programming Environment, which I think is the book equivalent of tc: "here's the gen, now go figure!".
I criticise Katz for two reasons: one, I believe is is a bad writer; two, I believe he is bad for slashdot. As I said in another post, I'd rather /. didn't become ZDnet, with professional hacks spouting off on all and sundry, and a tawdry little comments section tacked on underneath each article for us plebs. I'm not here as a writer: I'm here as a Linux user, because once upon a time /. was the place to be for anyone interested in Linux.
I was here on slashdot when Katz's first article appeared. Taken as a whole, his writings here function as advertising, pure and simple. At least, that is the best gloss I can put on it. Because if he means this drivel to be anything more than PR blurbs for his books, he is suffering from severe delusion.
Have you considered subscribing to the Jobserve mailing list? They'll send you a daily list of jobs that match a filter you set up, or everything they get if you so wish. They're not Linux-specific, but these days they are listing plenty of Linux contracts, as well as lots more Unix work, every day.
And there you have it in a nutshell: "we Katz-kiddies rule here now. If you don't like it, fuck off" -- said in the name of free speech, of course. Of course, you are tilting at straw men. No-one is arguing that Katz shouldn't post comments on /. -- he can post as many as he likes, as can you or I or anyone else. But his present position is something else. However, since you are unable to understand any criticism of Katz as being anything other than an attack on free speech, I am doubtless talking to the wall here. So it goes.
The flaw with this argument as I see it is that slashdot is not and is not meant to be an on-line equivalent of a traditional newspaper or magazine, a place where professional writers "fire and forget" so to speak. The central feature of slashdot is discussion, and this surely should include the author of the piece that sparks all the discussion. Otherwise, what differentiates /. from those tacky reader response forms on so many news/opinion pages these days? Replying to comments isn't an option for a slashdot author, just because it shouldn't be a job for those authors. They should be people like you and I, submitting for posting stuff that they consider important ("News for Nerds. Stuff that matters", remember?), and then joining in the debate. Otherwise all we've got here is ZDNet.
Point taken; although it says who the post is by right at the top, so it's easy enough to skim on by. But the larger point remains. People who say "if you don't like it, don't read it" are missing the point. Slashdot is becoming Katzdot; that makes it no longer slashdot. The type of articles Katz specialises in attract a different type of audience than a site subtitled "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Again, do a websearch like '+"Jon Katz" +"slashdot"' and see the sort of shit you come up with. For a lot of people, slashdot is Jon Katz. That is an apalling thought.
In Katz's usage, "positive feedback" does not mean "constructive crticism". Nor, to be fair, in most other peoples'. I and others are providing negative feedback: we don't like what he writes. We have no intention to help him "improve" it -- this ain't Writing 101.
By the way, anyone can write about important topics. It's what they write that matters.
Thank you for your contribution. If you don't like my posts, don't read them and quit whining. That argument sound familiar? Bunch of crap when you stop to think about it, no?
Ah, the joy of receiving enlightenment from those more intellectually well-equipped than oneself! Words fail me.
I wonder how Columbus would have fared with an attitude like that?
I fail to understand why so many people respond like this to the replies to a Jon Katz article. I mean, you don't have to read the replies if you don't wish to. You don't even have to know we exist: just "walk on by". But no, it seems some folks here on here would rather get rid of us completely, and deny us any right to post to slashdot. I don't always agree with what they have to say, but I never get angry over it. (No prizes for those who can point out the many lapses of logic in an argument of this type: they are too obvious).
Well, that's one way of looking at it I suppose: "it could be worse". Except, I don't much care what Dvorak writes, because it's for a site I don't visit, and for a site that serves a very different purpose than slashdot. When slashdot is exploited by Katz, on the other hand, it does affect me, because I like and use slashdot, and don't want it to turn into Katzdot.
Now, why am I being so hard on Katz? There is one big reason: I don't want /. to slide further down the same path as Usenet. Slashdot is not and never was a free-for-all forum. It is editing in two ways: by Rob & Co. chosing what and what not to post, and by those arbitrarily chosen for moderatorial duties. Without effective editorial control, any forum rapidly sinks to the level of lowest common denominator. In some ways, slashdot has gone as far as is possible to counteract this tendency, with moderation and meta-moderation supplmenting the editorial team; only to throw these advantages away by promoting a vapid windbag as part of the team, effectively both writer and editor -- for who believes Katz's slashdot posts are subject to the same controls as ordinary contributions?
It used to be different. Slashdot was made up mainly of submitted stories: that is, slashdot readers were also slashdot columnists: a "story by RobLimo" or or CmdrTaco or whoever was normally a posting of something a /. reader had sent in, with the powers that were at slashdot functioning as editors of a kind. Now, it's different. Now, ironically, it is "old media" with a vengeance. Know-it-all journalists decide what slashdot will cover: setting the agenda, then graciously allowing the unwashed masses to comment on their wisdom -- though, never, you'll note, getting seriously involved in the discussion.