Oh, for fucksake, that wasn't a troll. Do I need to include fucking semantic markup in every post for people who can't otherwise parse humor? </sarcasm>
Well, your first mistake was thinking Quicktime was a codec: it's a container format, like AVI. Presumably whatever codec they've used to encode the video and/or audio streams isn't supported under your Linux build of Quicktime.
I eagerly look forward to someone using this to add MST3K type commentary to state of the union addresses.
Those are, uh... live. Allegedly.
Adding commentary to a live-broadcast television event via (what I understand to be) a pre-recorded, non-streaming technology might prove just a little difficult to effect.
I don't see the two options as mutually exclusive. As things stand, traditional bound books still maintain a host of advantages over newer electronic delivery media (including portable e-book readers/tablet PCs) primarily in terms of superior resolution, lower power requirements, and a highly intuitive, tactile user interface which enables easier random-access than any software mechanism yet devised. On the other hand, digitized works offer other advantages, including complete-text searchability (though one might argue that a well-compiled index can sometimes provide more meaningful search capabilities than simple text-matching) and remote access to vast bodies of written material with minimal storage-space requirements. In a perfect world, I'd have equal access to both.
(And yes, people who "don't read classic literature" are, perforce, less completely educated -- or at the very least, less cultured. I make no claims regarding intelligence, however.)
I'm really not terribly concerned with ESL-speakers occasionally making a hash of the language -- that kind of thing is entirely to be expected with non-native speakers of any language, and hardly represents a serious threat to the language itself. It's the supposedly native English speakers who not only can't be troubled to learn to use their own language properly, but collectively insist on bringing it down to their abysmal level who bug the fuck out of me.
I truly sympathize with your frustration, but if someone in your household is actually utilizing the service such that you find it necessary to continue paying for it, you can't really claim that you're paying $80/month for two hours a week of television...
You're correct, in part: I'm afraid I didn't phrase my assertion very carefully. I did, however, quite consciously qualify my statement: typically, "evolution" (in its metaphorical sense as opposed to its strict scientific definition) is used to signify an increase in sophistication and specialization. Your points, however, are well-taken, though I'm far from convinced that the language must necessarily lose sophistication and specificity of meaning in order to evolve to meet the demands of global usage.
Evolution is far from the only agent of change, and hardly the most common: perhaps the "E" word you're thinking of is "entropy".
"Evolution" is typically used to mean an increase in organization and sophistication, while entropy describes the natural tendency of all systems toward chaos, in the absence of opposing forces. I leave it to the reader to consider which term most accurately describes the majority of changes we're currently seeing in popular usage of the English language.
With the amount of grease produced in big cities and the disposal costs in landfills, it appears that the natural place for CWT to build their next plant isn't near rural poultry plants, but Manhattan.
Of course, given the readily-available technology to run diesel engines on vegetable oil with no additional processing, this may simply be redundant...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, for fucksake, that wasn't a troll. Do I need to include fucking semantic markup in every post for people who can't otherwise parse humor?
</sarcasm>
Fucking modbots.
Obviously you've never seen an optical S/PDIF (TOSLink) connector...
Yeah! Yeah! Wait! I know! let's fire the entire editorial staff!!!
Well, your first mistake was thinking Quicktime was a codec: it's a container format, like AVI. Presumably whatever codec they've used to encode the video and/or audio streams isn't supported under your Linux build of Quicktime.
Show me where else I can buy a 15" laptop for $2000 that isn't made of plastic.
[...]
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but -- that Titanium iBook? Not really titanium.
I eagerly look forward to someone using this to add MST3K type commentary to state of the union addresses.
... live. Allegedly.
Those are, uh
Adding commentary to a live-broadcast television event via (what I understand to be) a pre-recorded, non-streaming technology might prove just a little difficult to effect.
Nonsense. All you're lacking is a cigarette lighter...
Ah yes, the Tic-Tac-Toe of strategy board games...
Uh, I think that's what the AC was pointing out...
Technically, I don't believe that's the misspelling the GP was referring to...
As from "photon".
Funny? Fuck that, this is +5 Insightful.
...Damn. That's gotta go in a .sig somewhere.
I don't see the two options as mutually exclusive. As things stand, traditional bound books still maintain a host of advantages over newer electronic delivery media (including portable e-book readers/tablet PCs) primarily in terms of superior resolution, lower power requirements, and a highly intuitive, tactile user interface which enables easier random-access than any software mechanism yet devised. On the other hand, digitized works offer other advantages, including complete-text searchability (though one might argue that a well-compiled index can sometimes provide more meaningful search capabilities than simple text-matching) and remote access to vast bodies of written material with minimal storage-space requirements. In a perfect world, I'd have equal access to both.
(And yes, people who "don't read classic literature" are, perforce, less completely educated -- or at the very least, less cultured. I make no claims regarding intelligence, however.)
Having read TFA, I find myself struck by nothing so much as how very much like a blog entry this alleged "article" reads...
Sure, don't mention it.
~A. Bibliophile
That's 'elitist', you illiterate dunce.
Not reliably, no. Compliance with this functionality varies considerably by browser.
I'm really not terribly concerned with ESL-speakers occasionally making a hash of the language -- that kind of thing is entirely to be expected with non-native speakers of any language, and hardly represents a serious threat to the language itself. It's the supposedly native English speakers who not only can't be troubled to learn to use their own language properly, but collectively insist on bringing it down to their abysmal level who bug the fuck out of me.
I truly sympathize with your frustration, but if someone in your household is actually utilizing the service such that you find it necessary to continue paying for it, you can't really claim that you're paying $80/month for two hours a week of television...
You're thinking of mutation, I'm afraid.
You're correct, in part: I'm afraid I didn't phrase my assertion very carefully. I did, however, quite consciously qualify my statement: typically, "evolution" (in its metaphorical sense as opposed to its strict scientific definition) is used to signify an increase in sophistication and specialization. Your points, however, are well-taken, though I'm far from convinced that the language must necessarily lose sophistication and specificity of meaning in order to evolve to meet the demands of global usage.
I am also fluent in Texan too.
I guess we can at least agree that you're not particularly fluent in English.
Evolution is far from the only agent of change, and hardly the most common: perhaps the "E" word you're thinking of is "entropy".
"Evolution" is typically used to mean an increase in organization and sophistication, while entropy describes the natural tendency of all systems toward chaos, in the absence of opposing forces. I leave it to the reader to consider which term most accurately describes the majority of changes we're currently seeing in popular usage of the English language.
With the amount of grease produced in big cities and the disposal costs in landfills, it appears that the natural place for CWT to build their next plant isn't near rural poultry plants, but Manhattan.
Of course, given the readily-available technology to run diesel engines on vegetable oil with no additional processing, this may simply be redundant...