The Google service does, however, show the relative strength of many mainstream queries in Pensacola: "Nascar," "surfing" and "Nintendo" all beat "orgy."
Lawyers can select any word combination that is helpful to them. Nothing here more than a new way to load an argument.
You're splitting hairs, so let me make another distinction, one which I think is more accurate.
I agree that fuck can never be a curse per se, but that's because of a category mistake. A curse is a kind of discourse, and fuck is just a word. But as a word, it contains the connotations you point out. Thus, it remains a curse word.
So fuck is not a curse simpliciter, but certainly a curse word.
My point is that you can't make the word as innocent as "doch" (I don't know about you, but I know German), and keep it at the level of a grammatical particle, or mere formless sound. Convention does in fact dictate that this word is taboo, or used to break taboos. To argue otherwise to change reality, not to describe it.
Of course, I remain open to the possibility that reality can and does change, and that the word may lose its taboo, but only when enough speakers think like you do. But that change will probably not come from native speakers. I have lived in non-English-speaking countries most of my adult life, and work with Dutch-speaking kids in my free time. They drop f-bombs everywhere, at school, at home, in front of me - for them, the word simply does not have that same force abroad. But it will take a long time before that affects us native-speakers (among whom I assume but don't know you number).
I admire Carlin's serious attitude toward the social power of comedy, but Lenny Bruce certainly broke more ground than Carlin, plus Bruce was funnier. And once we add Bill Hicks and subtract "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," Carlin's historical balance is not looking so good. Of course, I am speaking only of him as a performer and artist.
Carlin's classic material tended to rant about things he hated, with the implication that he - and those who agree with him - are superior. I don't find that a particularly excellent trait for an artist. From Bruce and Hicks I get a much greater sense of social critique. I am prepared to defend the qualitative difference between the rants of Carlin and those of Hicks, but I should stay on topic.
Hard for a layman to tell a photo of a Velázquez from a photo of its model. Like everything else, today's artists just have better tools. A good painter could have fooled the FBI in 1920, only easier than with a computer-generated image today.
The cameras weren't as good then, so it would have been harder to tell a photo of a model from a photo of a painting of the model. The cameras were not in color. Nobody expected a photo of a painting to be anything but a photo.
So, in fact it would be easy to tell the difference, and impossible to fool the FBI, since Velázquez did not paint in black and white. Any image in colour would, by definition, not be a "real image" (whatever philosophical and or legal implications that may have). Beyond praising the genius Velázquez, what's your point?
And as a matter of my opinion, I find it beggars belief to suggest that any painting has ever been close enough to photo-realism to fool close, but non-optically aided, inspection. To suggest it would back in the 1920s is too imply amazing credulity. Trompe l'oeil only works at a distance.
From the Dept. of Redundancy Dept.: Check out the directions to Ottawa they provide - from Windsor, Kitchener, and Toronto. All of them are on the same highway (the mighty 401), and to the west of Ottawa. D'oh!
Google Docs is easy to get started with and works for most people
i would use gdocs more often if i could do endnotes / footnotes with it.
lack of these is a deal-killer for me, and i imagine many in the academic world. the idea of chipping away at a paper in different offices and around the world is quite appealing to me, especially if i can collaborate on it.
well, i do stand corrected. living outside of north america for quite some time has left gaping holes in my knowledge of tv culture... i guess JB got it from carl.
Don't forget that his theory of atomism clashed with the Trent's doctrine of transubstantiation. Redondi thinks the heliocentrism controversy was designed to cover that up, although his position is a bit weak, and smacks of conspiracy.
I agree - (UW '92) - back then, I heard Microsoft indeed hired more grads from UW then anywhere else (could never verify that). At any rate, I did get hired at IBM (long since left), from an English programme!
Join the Imprint - that rocked way back when - we were always pissing of the engineers with obscure record and film reviews. It seemed all they cared about was Monty Python.
I certainly espouse the ideals of human rights, but the gp points out that these rights are only as strong as any given government's will to protect them. Not only that, but it is possible to read this sort of protection as imposition (see the problems with Islamic head-scarfs in secular countries such as the Netherlands and Turkey).
I also disagree that the content of certain human rights spring up spontaneously. What we know as human rights is a Western import, and thus inspired by Christianity (not even stemming from Greco-Roman philosophy, which had no concept of the universal rights of human beings, only citizens).
I do believe that what we consider human rights are simply the embodiment of a 'beneficial' swing in the movement of what Nietzsche called the will to power. I mean (to put in the least technical language possible): the strongest wins, and luckily (for us) the winning side espouses human 'rights' that concur with our opinions, which is only natural because these our the basis of our culture.
Somehow, I sense that "tool" is too broad of a word, or perhaps too distorted of a definition, to be used when referring to, well, tools. If I give a thousand monkeys one typewriter each, does that typerwriter become considered as an extension? I can understand a pair of pliers being considered a mechanical extension to the hand, but what about the actually pressing of keys?
well, a tool needs a purpose, so monkeys on a typewriter would not constitute tool usage, ihmo.
but this points out that perhaps we could see the tool as an extension of consciousness, as opposed to the body?
not that i want to enter into dualism here (far from it), but more because when a tool functions well, we do not notice it.
only when it breaks, is missing, or unsuitable - in a word - only when it does not work - do we notice it, which is remarkably like how we respond to sickness - the body becomes an object of consciousness.
I recently gave a talk in Brussels, and there were definitely a few creationists there, but I suspect that they were American, or at least North American. The thing is, they were not yokals, but highly paid expats.
Clearly, once information becomes trivial to find, at least two things will arise:
More and more stress on how that information is handled.
An incredible burden on missing information
To the first: as we read (and know), Google can't really help that; education is irreplaceable. But to the second: it will be assumed that everyone can know everything. But if this is assumed, nothing my work shows ignorance of can be excused. I cannot imagine a PhD defense in the future!
Slashdot Mirror
Bad robot
Lawyers can select any word combination that is helpful to them. Nothing here more than a new way to load an argument.
You're splitting hairs, so let me make another distinction, one which I think is more accurate.
I agree that fuck can never be a curse per se, but that's because of a category mistake. A curse is a kind of discourse, and fuck is just a word. But as a word, it contains the connotations you point out. Thus, it remains a curse word.
So fuck is not a curse simpliciter, but certainly a curse word.
My point is that you can't make the word as innocent as "doch" (I don't know about you, but I know German), and keep it at the level of a grammatical particle, or mere formless sound. Convention does in fact dictate that this word is taboo, or used to break taboos. To argue otherwise to change reality, not to describe it.
Of course, I remain open to the possibility that reality can and does change, and that the word may lose its taboo, but only when enough speakers think like you do. But that change will probably not come from native speakers. I have lived in non-English-speaking countries most of my adult life, and work with Dutch-speaking kids in my free time. They drop f-bombs everywhere, at school, at home, in front of me - for them, the word simply does not have that same force abroad. But it will take a long time before that affects us native-speakers (among whom I assume but don't know you number).
I admire Carlin's serious attitude toward the social power of comedy, but Lenny Bruce certainly broke more ground than Carlin, plus Bruce was funnier. And once we add Bill Hicks and subtract "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," Carlin's historical balance is not looking so good. Of course, I am speaking only of him as a performer and artist.
Carlin's classic material tended to rant about things he hated, with the implication that he - and those who agree with him - are superior. I don't find that a particularly excellent trait for an artist. From Bruce and Hicks I get a much greater sense of social critique. I am prepared to defend the qualitative difference between the rants of Carlin and those of Hicks, but I should stay on topic.
Flame on ...
So, in fact it would be easy to tell the difference, and impossible to fool the FBI, since Velázquez did not paint in black and white. Any image in colour would, by definition, not be a "real image" (whatever philosophical and or legal implications that may have). Beyond praising the genius Velázquez, what's your point?
And as a matter of my opinion, I find it beggars belief to suggest that any painting has ever been close enough to photo-realism to fool close, but non-optically aided, inspection. To suggest it would back in the 1920s is too imply amazing credulity. Trompe l'oeil only works at a distance.
you can already download FF 3 RC 1 from portable apps. it works great for me.
From the Dept. of Redundancy Dept.: Check out the directions to Ottawa they provide - from Windsor, Kitchener, and Toronto. All of them are on the same highway (the mighty 401), and to the west of Ottawa. D'oh!
... and at least six other major language families
i would use gdocs more often if i could do endnotes / footnotes with it.
lack of these is a deal-killer for me, and i imagine many in the academic world. the idea of chipping away at a paper in different offices and around the world is quite appealing to me, especially if i can collaborate on it.
Dr. Wu - can you hear me doctor?
and I shared a soi with her. ...
well, i do stand corrected. living outside of north america for quite some time has left gaping holes in my knowledge of tv culture ... i guess JB got it from carl.
will check that show out - thanks
I don't need no instructions to know how to ROCK!
Don't forget that his theory of atomism clashed with the Trent's doctrine of transubstantiation. Redondi thinks the heliocentrism controversy was designed to cover that up, although his position is a bit weak, and smacks of conspiracy.
mathNews - wow. Totally forgot about that ... Yeah, no mathie could write for Imprint, now that I think about it.
I agree - (UW '92) - back then, I heard Microsoft indeed hired more grads from UW then anywhere else (could never verify that). At any rate, I did get hired at IBM (long since left), from an English programme!
Join the Imprint - that rocked way back when - we were always pissing of the engineers with obscure record and film reviews. It seemed all they cared about was Monty Python.
To get it, you must live in the USA. That's a heavy burden to get a 'free' magazine.
Hope you guys can fix everything with your election.
I certainly espouse the ideals of human rights, but the gp points out that these rights are only as strong as any given government's will to protect them. Not only that, but it is possible to read this sort of protection as imposition (see the problems with Islamic head-scarfs in secular countries such as the Netherlands and Turkey).
I also disagree that the content of certain human rights spring up spontaneously. What we know as human rights is a Western import, and thus inspired by Christianity (not even stemming from Greco-Roman philosophy, which had no concept of the universal rights of human beings, only citizens).
I do believe that what we consider human rights are simply the embodiment of a 'beneficial' swing in the movement of what Nietzsche called the will to power. I mean (to put in the least technical language possible): the strongest wins, and luckily (for us) the winning side espouses human 'rights' that concur with our opinions, which is only natural because these our the basis of our culture.
i thought for sure that would be a link to sponge bob ...
mod me to oblivion ...
well, a tool needs a purpose, so monkeys on a typewriter would not constitute tool usage, ihmo.
but this points out that perhaps we could see the tool as an extension of consciousness, as opposed to the body?
not that i want to enter into dualism here (far from it), but more because when a tool functions well, we do not notice it.
only when it breaks, is missing, or unsuitable - in a word - only when it does not work - do we notice it, which is remarkably like how we respond to sickness - the body becomes an object of consciousness.
Windows Se7en - how 1337
I recently gave a talk in Brussels, and there were definitely a few creationists there, but I suspect that they were American, or at least North American. The thing is, they were not yokals, but highly paid expats.
i always knew creationism was porn, but i thought it was intellectual porn. now i know otherwise...
Amen.
Clearly, once information becomes trivial to find, at least two things will arise:
To the first: as we read (and know), Google can't really help that; education is irreplaceable. But to the second: it will be assumed that everyone can know everything. But if this is assumed, nothing my work shows ignorance of can be excused. I cannot imagine a PhD defense in the future!