No, it's a problem because stupid companies get a Class B address space, and then firewall/nat everything to one address, effectively wasting 65534 addresses that could be used elsewhere.
Nationwide TV ads want to reach as many people as possible. how many of those are aired in "ghettoese"?
I think more and more each day. You do understand what I'm saying after mirroring it back to me. I think that what's the 'majority' version of English is still radically in flux from day to day, year to year. Remember Valley Girls? Remember Beatniks? Hippies? Each cultural event makes an imprint on the generations that follow. Phrases are dropped just as fast as new ones are picked up ('swell', 'why I outta...'). That's what makes American English so beautiful. It never stands still. Add to it the return to ethnic dialects and influences, and you have a really volatile stew.
It just really irks me when people say 'speak English' in the middle of San Diego or criticize people for using slang or trendy language as being dumb or ignorant. Sometimes those words and phrases better articulate the idea or concept that's being made. Let alone the fact that this may have been THE WAY THEY WERE TAUGHT TO SPEAK! It doesn't make it wrong. Just different. Difference is what makes us strong.
You have missed the point entirely. My point was that there can't possibly be a 'standard' version of English because the US is built with so many dialects, ethnic cultures, and regional perspectives, that whatever form of English you choose, there will be modifications to it. What students are taught in the south versus the midwest or the west coast vary by large degrees. Sure, a noun is a noun, but given the bilingual nature of our heritage, influences from the media (MTV, Puffy, Regis Philbin, Dubya), and technology (SMS, chat, etc), it's impossible to say that there's one and only one Proper English. I find that I only hear this belief from people who are too white, too insecure, or too narrowminded to understand that language is constantly changing and adapting to the people that use it. It has nothing to do with who's hiring you, because they don't speak any differently than the kid behind the counter at Taco Bell when it all comes down to it. Sounds like just another tool for people to use to separate mankind rather than unite it. If we followed your path of people being forced to speak 'Proper English' then thou would not speaketh the way thou doth today.
It's not so much two technologies as much as it's two methodologies.
I see two obvious paths. The first being the distributed GUPster/DNS method, where a central store has meta data and a pointer to the location of value data. You could store your profile anywhere, including your home workstation. You could easily break down your profile to only allow relevant access, so that an e-commerce app only has access to purchase info, and your cell phone only has access to contact info. The ideal mechanism would require your PERMISSION for a request to be fulfilled. This is how I wish your credit report worked. Anyone can access your credit report with just a bare request. But if they had to have your PERMISSION, then you'd get a lot less junk mail offering those credit cards.
Obviously you could store info for application specific values in this mechanism as well. So it's not just preferences, but nitty gritty app data. I think it's more important to have a mechanism that's adoptable first. Standards for data containers will get developed as apps utilize this functionality. It seems obvious that XML would be the method of choice for storing this.
The downside of this is that wherever your info is located has got to be accessable 24x7, which might make the home workstation less ideal. Another possible downside might be being inundated by requests/confirmations for accessability. But you could get around this with PKI, similar to the way you 'allow' content from certain keys to be downloaded or trusted implicitly in IE.
The other method would be a centralized Passport-like system, where most of the goodies are stored in a massive central database. I don't see the paranoid going for this, and I don't see the model deviating much from the current credit report type model that's in place. ie. you don't get to know who's accessing your data and for what purpose until it's too late. But I do see this as more acceptable in the business world because there is a single point of contact for implementation and sales of the system. There is merit in the idea that there is a single point of contact for failure, if that were to happen. This would definitely be abused though. Call it the cynic in me.
I would hope that both systems would be available and we could let the market decide which is best. Consumer choice is always the best option, as it keeps development brisk and customer care in an upright position. And there will always be issues that arise that we cannot possibly imagine until implementation time.
We're not talking about being incoherant. We're talking about the difference between someone saying 'bling bling' and another person saying 'cool' to express approval. Why is it that it's only ignorant elitist white people who have a problem with dialect and cultural adaptation to the English language? Like you have to be on welfare and have no dad in order to say 'Ima bussa cap in yo ass'.
this post is not based in fact at all. There's no way that Leann grossed $300M for Curb, as that is several times what Curb's revenues are in a year. As for her problems with her parents, who really knows the details to that. Based upon her appearance on Cribs, she's not hurting for cash.
It's already poisoning the industry. All the marketing and development resources get applied to stuff that reaches the lowest common denominator of listener. Boy Bands. Brittney. Watered down Hip Hop. These are all products of the industry focusing on the best ROI they can generate with their funds. Why nurture and develop an artist that's going to take 10 years to truly develop (U2, REM) when you can just market the fuck out of some teeny bopper crap that will go multi-platinum immediately?
Think of the music industry as being the venture capital industry. They've only got a limited set of funds to work with. They're going to be attracted to artists that have proven to generate a return, regardless of the artistic intent, and they are going to ignore opportunities that, while innovative or avant garde, are simply not going to generate a large enough market to make the investment worthwhile.
If profits continue to elude the labels, and costs for marketing and distribution continue to rise, then obviously they are going to become more and more risk averse. As we all know, that tends to give us more of the same and far less creativity.
You're right. This is the right way to approach the problem. But it will never work. For centuries, artists have capitulated to this arrangement - that being 'selling' their creative output to someone else who finances the production, rather than the consumer of their production. This was instituted during the Rennaissance and hasn't really changed since. The reason why it hasn't changed is simple.
A) It works. Artists get paid. Quality and consistency get rewarded over time. And there is a mature machine for the merchandising and marketing of that product. Surprisingly, the labels actually do a good job of A&R, career development, artist management, and marketing. It's in their best interest to do so. A deviation from this would definitely not be as effective, especially initially, as the current system. It's basically the devil you know versus the devil you don't.
B) There's always going to be some chump that takes the money and runs. Look at the current state of music. Most of the 'artists' that are on the charts are there for the pure purpose that it's a rewarding career and nothing more. Learn to produce music that sells and you'll get rich. It's that simple. Having something to say is purely a byproduct of that experience, not the main driver. So why buck the trend for artistic integrity or changing the paradigm? There's no incentive when you're making millions of dollars for going along with the program.
anyone else notice that the video for Under Pressure is filled with old news footage and movie footage whose copyrights had expired? Irony at its finest.
I will give you that a Dr. Who film needs to be done. Not only is it great sci-fi, but it was the longest running sci-fi teevee show ever.
But your comment that Blade Runner is somehow superior to Tron concerns me. Granted, Blade Runner's story was crafted by one of the greatest sci-fi authors in the 20th century. And the film adaption barely captures most of the themes of Dick's book and certainly not some of the more visionary issues (the mood organ being a great metaphor for a current state of prozac popping society). But the film looks absolutely dated today. The dreary backdrop is obviously out of touch with today's green movement as is the ridiculous notion of space travel that infected all pre-Apollo sci-fi artists. Tron is much more relevant to today than Blade Runner ever has hope to be. Let alone Ridley Scott's penchant for smoke everywhere.
This movie is amazingly prescient, especially after seeing the revised DVD package (the original DVD was a very poor digitization of a very poor film print) and getting to hear the methodology and intent of the producers and writers.
The movie tackles many themes, most of which are incredibly relevant today. It was the first movie to really enter the world of computer culture and its users. It was the first movie to truly use CGI as an integral part of the production process. It emphasizes the contrast between the traditional and the future by marrying CGI with printed film effects and animation. It sheds light on the struggles of programmers as artists and the businessmen who exploit their work. It contrasts our concepts of religion and faith with an age filled with machines and science. It foreshadows the Internet and our reliance on it. It hints at the struggles of privacy, security, and integrity in technology. It intimately details the struggles of a dominating force that oppressess technological evolution and liberty (ahemmicrosoftcoughibmsniff). It immerses the viewer in a world that is so fantastically different looking from the real world that it's obvious that you are not here. It opens the door to the concept of virtual reality and realistic simulation. It marries a half synthesized half traditional soundtrack to further underline the contrasts between the real and the virtual worlds. It gives us a brief picture of a moment in time when video games were the rage and the future influence of technology in our lives had not yet been understood. I could go on and on.
Regardless of what you may think of the effects or the plot devices or the acting (all of which I think are above par for movies of that era), the fact that the writers nailed so many things on the head, despite being self confessed techno neophytes, is simply amazing. When I look at the movie, I can't think of one theme that isn't incredibly relevant to our world today. Compare that to War Games, which seems silly nowadays.
Apple will never go Intel, despite the fact that the Mac OS has existed on Intel in one way, shape, or form for over 10 years in various R&D projects within Apple. Because Jobs will never allow it.
To do so would be admitting that Apple is just an OS vendor, and not a creator of Insanely Great tools. Jobs has and always will think of the product as the BMW of the computer world - highly refined and engineerd and priced as such. There's no economic benefit to go Intel, there's no (real) market benefit to go Intel, and it would violate Steve's ego too much.
This is a rumour that comes out once every 2 or so years so that Apple stock can make some volume on the stock.
Sounds like Beatkit Brand Toxicism{tm}. My suggestion? Dig out some old Consolidated ceedees and wallow in the enevitable uselessness of raging against the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda like all the 2Pac records...
maybe not the BBB, but perhaps something like Consumer Reports or another watchdog-like group.
No, it's a problem because stupid companies get a Class B address space, and then firewall/nat everything to one address, effectively wasting 65534 addresses that could be used elsewhere.
Nationwide TV ads want to reach as many people as possible. how many of those are aired in "ghettoese"?
I think more and more each day. You do understand what I'm saying after mirroring it back to me. I think that what's the 'majority' version of English is still radically in flux from day to day, year to year. Remember Valley Girls? Remember Beatniks? Hippies? Each cultural event makes an imprint on the generations that follow. Phrases are dropped just as fast as new ones are picked up ('swell', 'why I outta...'). That's what makes American English so beautiful. It never stands still. Add to it the return to ethnic dialects and influences, and you have a really volatile stew.
It just really irks me when people say 'speak English' in the middle of San Diego or criticize people for using slang or trendy language as being dumb or ignorant. Sometimes those words and phrases better articulate the idea or concept that's being made. Let alone the fact that this may have been THE WAY THEY WERE TAUGHT TO SPEAK! It doesn't make it wrong. Just different. Difference is what makes us strong.
You have missed the point entirely. My point was that there can't possibly be a 'standard' version of English because the US is built with so many dialects, ethnic cultures, and regional perspectives, that whatever form of English you choose, there will be modifications to it. What students are taught in the south versus the midwest or the west coast vary by large degrees. Sure, a noun is a noun, but given the bilingual nature of our heritage, influences from the media (MTV, Puffy, Regis Philbin, Dubya), and technology (SMS, chat, etc), it's impossible to say that there's one and only one Proper English. I find that I only hear this belief from people who are too white, too insecure, or too narrowminded to understand that language is constantly changing and adapting to the people that use it. It has nothing to do with who's hiring you, because they don't speak any differently than the kid behind the counter at Taco Bell when it all comes down to it. Sounds like just another tool for people to use to separate mankind rather than unite it. If we followed your path of people being forced to speak 'Proper English' then thou would not speaketh the way thou doth today.
It's not so much two technologies as much as it's two methodologies.
I see two obvious paths. The first being the distributed GUPster/DNS method, where a central store has meta data and a pointer to the location of value data. You could store your profile anywhere, including your home workstation. You could easily break down your profile to only allow relevant access, so that an e-commerce app only has access to purchase info, and your cell phone only has access to contact info. The ideal mechanism would require your PERMISSION for a request to be fulfilled. This is how I wish your credit report worked. Anyone can access your credit report with just a bare request. But if they had to have your PERMISSION, then you'd get a lot less junk mail offering those credit cards.
Obviously you could store info for application specific values in this mechanism as well. So it's not just preferences, but nitty gritty app data. I think it's more important to have a mechanism that's adoptable first. Standards for data containers will get developed as apps utilize this functionality. It seems obvious that XML would be the method of choice for storing this.
The downside of this is that wherever your info is located has got to be accessable 24x7, which might make the home workstation less ideal. Another possible downside might be being inundated by requests/confirmations for accessability. But you could get around this with PKI, similar to the way you 'allow' content from certain keys to be downloaded or trusted implicitly in IE.
The other method would be a centralized Passport-like system, where most of the goodies are stored in a massive central database. I don't see the paranoid going for this, and I don't see the model deviating much from the current credit report type model that's in place. ie. you don't get to know who's accessing your data and for what purpose until it's too late. But I do see this as more acceptable in the business world because there is a single point of contact for implementation and sales of the system. There is merit in the idea that there is a single point of contact for failure, if that were to happen. This would definitely be abused though. Call it the cynic in me.
I would hope that both systems would be available and we could let the market decide which is best. Consumer choice is always the best option, as it keeps development brisk and customer care in an upright position. And there will always be issues that arise that we cannot possibly imagine until implementation time.
works great until the power goes out at home.
If that's not splitting hairs, then I don't know what is. Your reply just exemplifies my point.
We're not talking about being incoherant. We're talking about the difference between someone saying 'bling bling' and another person saying 'cool' to express approval. Why is it that it's only ignorant elitist white people who have a problem with dialect and cultural adaptation to the English language? Like you have to be on welfare and have no dad in order to say 'Ima bussa cap in yo ass'.
It's Flint, MI, but I'm sure Grand Funk Railroad appreciates the nod! ;-)
It's America, if we were to speak the 'proper' language, it would most likely be Cherokee.
this post is not based in fact at all. There's no way that Leann grossed $300M for Curb, as that is several times what Curb's revenues are in a year. As for her problems with her parents, who really knows the details to that. Based upon her appearance on Cribs, she's not hurting for cash.
yes, because let's enforce racial stereotypes by preaching that you need to be a certain color in order to speak a certain way. Smart.
Think of the music industry as being the venture capital industry. They've only got a limited set of funds to work with. They're going to be attracted to artists that have proven to generate a return, regardless of the artistic intent, and they are going to ignore opportunities that, while innovative or avant garde, are simply not going to generate a large enough market to make the investment worthwhile.
If profits continue to elude the labels, and costs for marketing and distribution continue to rise, then obviously they are going to become more and more risk averse. As we all know, that tends to give us more of the same and far less creativity.
You're right. This is the right way to approach the problem. But it will never work. For centuries, artists have capitulated to this arrangement - that being 'selling' their creative output to someone else who finances the production, rather than the consumer of their production. This was instituted during the Rennaissance and hasn't really changed since. The reason why it hasn't changed is simple. A) It works. Artists get paid. Quality and consistency get rewarded over time. And there is a mature machine for the merchandising and marketing of that product. Surprisingly, the labels actually do a good job of A&R, career development, artist management, and marketing. It's in their best interest to do so. A deviation from this would definitely not be as effective, especially initially, as the current system. It's basically the devil you know versus the devil you don't. B) There's always going to be some chump that takes the money and runs. Look at the current state of music. Most of the 'artists' that are on the charts are there for the pure purpose that it's a rewarding career and nothing more. Learn to produce music that sells and you'll get rich. It's that simple. Having something to say is purely a byproduct of that experience, not the main driver. So why buck the trend for artistic integrity or changing the paradigm? There's no incentive when you're making millions of dollars for going along with the program.
anyone else notice that the video for Under Pressure is filled with old news footage and movie footage whose copyrights had expired? Irony at its finest.
But your comment that Blade Runner is somehow superior to Tron concerns me. Granted, Blade Runner's story was crafted by one of the greatest sci-fi authors in the 20th century. And the film adaption barely captures most of the themes of Dick's book and certainly not some of the more visionary issues (the mood organ being a great metaphor for a current state of prozac popping society). But the film looks absolutely dated today. The dreary backdrop is obviously out of touch with today's green movement as is the ridiculous notion of space travel that infected all pre-Apollo sci-fi artists. Tron is much more relevant to today than Blade Runner ever has hope to be. Let alone Ridley Scott's penchant for smoke everywhere.
This movie is amazingly prescient, especially after seeing the revised DVD package (the original DVD was a very poor digitization of a very poor film print) and getting to hear the methodology and intent of the producers and writers. The movie tackles many themes, most of which are incredibly relevant today. It was the first movie to really enter the world of computer culture and its users. It was the first movie to truly use CGI as an integral part of the production process. It emphasizes the contrast between the traditional and the future by marrying CGI with printed film effects and animation. It sheds light on the struggles of programmers as artists and the businessmen who exploit their work. It contrasts our concepts of religion and faith with an age filled with machines and science. It foreshadows the Internet and our reliance on it. It hints at the struggles of privacy, security, and integrity in technology. It intimately details the struggles of a dominating force that oppressess technological evolution and liberty (ahemmicrosoftcoughibmsniff). It immerses the viewer in a world that is so fantastically different looking from the real world that it's obvious that you are not here. It opens the door to the concept of virtual reality and realistic simulation. It marries a half synthesized half traditional soundtrack to further underline the contrasts between the real and the virtual worlds. It gives us a brief picture of a moment in time when video games were the rage and the future influence of technology in our lives had not yet been understood. I could go on and on. Regardless of what you may think of the effects or the plot devices or the acting (all of which I think are above par for movies of that era), the fact that the writers nailed so many things on the head, despite being self confessed techno neophytes, is simply amazing. When I look at the movie, I can't think of one theme that isn't incredibly relevant to our world today. Compare that to War Games, which seems silly nowadays.
Apple will never go Intel, despite the fact that the Mac OS has existed on Intel in one way, shape, or form for over 10 years in various R&D projects within Apple. Because Jobs will never allow it. To do so would be admitting that Apple is just an OS vendor, and not a creator of Insanely Great tools. Jobs has and always will think of the product as the BMW of the computer world - highly refined and engineerd and priced as such. There's no economic benefit to go Intel, there's no (real) market benefit to go Intel, and it would violate Steve's ego too much. This is a rumour that comes out once every 2 or so years so that Apple stock can make some volume on the stock.
Sounds like Beatkit Brand Toxicism{tm}. My suggestion? Dig out some old Consolidated ceedees and wallow in the enevitable uselessness of raging against the machine.