Vernacular is approximately equal to dialect. Both describe the variation of a language spoken by a specific group. An accent is part of a dialect, but the inverse is not true.
I read and write quite well, especially when compared to my peer group - but when I am in their presence, I revert to the speech patterns that I learned in childhood. Likewise, I understand that the correct pronunciation is "nuclear", and I would use it as such in a formal setting. Among local friends, however, I am much more likely to use "nucular".
For what it is worth, the biggest issues I've had with the English language is that I read a lot when I was young, and often came upon words in text that I had never encountered in speech. I would assign a phonetic pronunciation to the word, learn it by context, and move on. The worst of these was "adjacent". I still have trouble, years later, saying "ad-ja-cent" instead of how it sounds in my head - "a-jay-sent". I have to make a real effort to use it correctly.
As for your stereotype, you'll find it quite wrong. Did you see any Christian decals on my site? I didn't think so.
When everyone around you says "ain't", "y'all", and yes, even "nucular", that's how you speak in those surroundings. I agree that it isn't appropriate from national-level politics, but to pretend that it is somehow ignorant isn't really fair. Rough and unpolished, yes - proof of subpar intelligence? Not even close.
For the record, "y'all" seems to be spreading north - I've heard it uttered many times by "those people" (See? I just made fun of my own stereotype!)
Out of curiosity, where did you go to school? It was definitely pronounced "nucular" here in northern Arkansas - in fact, one of my coworkers here was a reactor engineer on a LA-class nuclear submarine in the US Navy - he pronounces it "nucular".
Just to make you feel better, though, I do have a Gadsden flying on a pole outside my home. My own car is fairly low-key, but I have a teabag decal on the windshield near the corner, and "Molon Labe" in classical Greek on the top of the rear window. It's a '97 Honda Accord, not a 4x4 F-150, though, so you're going to have to adjust your mental image of me at least a little bit.
"Nucular" is the vernacular in half the country. I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of dialects, and you can go to hell if you want to judge me based on my accent.
I don't believe that Israel is an acknowledged nuclear power. Yes, it is clear to anyone with half a brain that they have lots and lots of canned sunshine, but as far as international diplomacy goes, I believe they are a non-nuclear state.
"Where laws are tolerable, I tolerate them. Where they are intolerable, I break them. I am free because I alone am responsible for my actions and their consequences"
No, the courts stated they did not have jurisdiction over ISP, not that they wouldn't support it. Strictly speaking, the Judicial branch doesn't support or oppose anything - they rule based on Constitutionality and judicial precedent.
If the area in front of your beachfront condo is owned by Shell, too damned bad. It's not your land - just because you were enjoying it doesn't give you claim over it.
You can influence the large powerful corporation by not buying their product - or by purchasing their common stock, if they are publicly traded (like Shell).
Oh, wireless tech will continue to improve, and I look to it to be the next great leap in bandwidth, as it will spur competition from traditional ISPs.
If the monopoly company institutes a "higher teir" that satisfies the market, for less than what a competitor can provide the service, how is that a loss?
Is your desired result "unfiltered traffic", or is it "break up the evil monopoly"?
There is no such thing as a coercive monopoly, absent government.
You seem to have a general hatred for Capitalism. That's fine, but please don't generalize quite so much. I don't recall ever "running to the government" for anything.
My argument is that alternative ISPs would be profitable if they could offer a service that the monolith was not - e.g., unfiltered content.
I've never once thought that companies have my best interest in mind - that's rather dumb, actually. Companies have the interest of their shareholders in mind. You, however, seem to be operating under the delusion that the government has your best interest in mind.
Government regulation seems like a short-term fix -- but once you give government the power to wield over a medium like that, it is very very difficult to stop it or limit it. Add in the fact that corporation, by their very nature, have a very large say in public policy, and you are advocating giving business a more powerful tool to do what it should already be doing on it's own.
But go ahead and write me off because I'm a "tinfoil-hat Fox News watcher". Never mind the fact that my positions are actually thought-out and reasoned, and are supported by history. Or that I tend to read/watch Al-Jazeera, the BBC, applicable blogs as much as I do Fox.
Next, you'll tell me that tea parties are "angry white men", right?
I think that is why this concerns me so much --- not because of the arrest of some militiamen in Michigan who may or may not have been crossing an arbitrary legal line, but that the enforcement tools of the federal government are obviously being used in political ways.
Giles and O'Keefe do a sting op on ACORN, and they are prosecuted under shaky wiretapping laws - ACORN is obviously breaking the law in the video, and are ignored. The Hutaree are attacked and basically broken up. The Blank Panther guys up North that were standing outside the polling location blatantly trying to intimidate voters had all charges dropped - the list goes on and on.
We were a nation of laws, not of men. It's trouble to me that this seems to no longer be the case.
While I don't necessarily agree that planning and training "operations" against the government should be illegal per se, I don't feel comfortable taking a side. I hope the case against them is made publicly available.
Not knowing these guys in particular, but lots of people like them, taking their "training" to the point of establishing dates, times, and locations is not necessarily confirmation that they actually planned to harm anyone. Hell, showing up unarmed and going through the motions isn't even out of the question.
Not saying it's smart, but that's how these guys think. I agree with a lot of it on a philosophical level, but I'm far more pragmatic than to go joining a known militia group, training in open groups, and planning specific actions in a way that can be proven. That's rather asinine.
Now I read the background story - the RPG was a camera w/ a telephoto. Watching again, it is still not apparent in 90% of the time what it is. Even if I were told that it were a camera, in battle, I couldn't have confirmed it.
I have zero doubt about the AKs though. They are quite distinctive in profile, and there three that I have no doubt of - not one.
No, they said they would open fire if they started collecting weapons, but they were loading the wounded. They requested permission to fire anyhow, and were granted it.
Did you watch the footage? I was able to identify at least three individuals of the 8 with AKs slung, and one guy with an RPG-7. The guy with the RPG crouched around a corner and the others were gathered around him, out of sight of the street.
Allow me to repeat - I could *readily identify* that at least three individuals were carrying small arms, and one with an anti-tank weapon.
This was absolutely a good shoot on the individuals at first. Later, the journalists show up in their black SUV/van thingy and try to render aid. Yeah, I get that, but WTF did they think would happen when they showed up to load up the enemy wounded in a war zone?
To be perfectly accurate, everyone is *eligible* to receive a prebate for essential goods. If you don't wish to disclose your earnings to the government, and that's worth foregoing the prebate check, the you may go about your business without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Vernacular is approximately equal to dialect. Both describe the variation of a language spoken by a specific group. An accent is part of a dialect, but the inverse is not true.
I read and write quite well, especially when compared to my peer group - but when I am in their presence, I revert to the speech patterns that I learned in childhood. Likewise, I understand that the correct pronunciation is "nuclear", and I would use it as such in a formal setting. Among local friends, however, I am much more likely to use "nucular".
For what it is worth, the biggest issues I've had with the English language is that I read a lot when I was young, and often came upon words in text that I had never encountered in speech. I would assign a phonetic pronunciation to the word, learn it by context, and move on. The worst of these was "adjacent". I still have trouble, years later, saying "ad-ja-cent" instead of how it sounds in my head - "a-jay-sent". I have to make a real effort to use it correctly.
That's my personal shop, so that makes sense.
As for your stereotype, you'll find it quite wrong. Did you see any Christian decals on my site? I didn't think so.
When everyone around you says "ain't", "y'all", and yes, even "nucular", that's how you speak in those surroundings. I agree that it isn't appropriate from national-level politics, but to pretend that it is somehow ignorant isn't really fair. Rough and unpolished, yes - proof of subpar intelligence? Not even close.
For the record, "y'all" seems to be spreading north - I've heard it uttered many times by "those people" (See? I just made fun of my own stereotype!)
Out of curiosity, where did you go to school? It was definitely pronounced "nucular" here in northern Arkansas - in fact, one of my coworkers here was a reactor engineer on a LA-class nuclear submarine in the US Navy - he pronounces it "nucular".
Just to make you feel better, though, I do have a Gadsden flying on a pole outside my home. My own car is fairly low-key, but I have a teabag decal on the windshield near the corner, and "Molon Labe" in classical Greek on the top of the rear window. It's a '97 Honda Accord, not a 4x4 F-150, though, so you're going to have to adjust your mental image of me at least a little bit.
"Nucular" is the vernacular in half the country. I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of dialects, and you can go to hell if you want to judge me based on my accent.
I don't believe that Israel is an acknowledged nuclear power. Yes, it is clear to anyone with half a brain that they have lots and lots of canned sunshine, but as far as international diplomacy goes, I believe they are a non-nuclear state.
"Where laws are tolerable, I tolerate them. Where they are intolerable, I break them. I am free because I alone am responsible for my actions and their consequences"
No, the courts stated they did not have jurisdiction over ISP, not that they wouldn't support it. Strictly speaking, the Judicial branch doesn't support or oppose anything - they rule based on Constitutionality and judicial precedent.
And by curtailing market forces that would differentiate challengers to the market leader, you are ensuring that doesn't change.
If the area in front of your beachfront condo is owned by Shell, too damned bad. It's not your land - just because you were enjoying it doesn't give you claim over it.
You can influence the large powerful corporation by not buying their product - or by purchasing their common stock, if they are publicly traded (like Shell).
Oh, wireless tech will continue to improve, and I look to it to be the next great leap in bandwidth, as it will spur competition from traditional ISPs.
If the monopoly company institutes a "higher teir" that satisfies the market, for less than what a competitor can provide the service, how is that a loss?
Is your desired result "unfiltered traffic", or is it "break up the evil monopoly"?
There is no such thing as a coercive monopoly, absent government.
Sure I do. Route around damage - there is always a way to do so, given incentive (profit potential) and capital.
It isn't enough of an issue that it is profitable for them to become mainstream, but they do exist.
You seem to have a general hatred for Capitalism. That's fine, but please don't generalize quite so much. I don't recall ever "running to the government" for anything.
My argument is that alternative ISPs would be profitable if they could offer a service that the monolith was not - e.g., unfiltered content.
I've never once thought that companies have my best interest in mind - that's rather dumb, actually. Companies have the interest of their shareholders in mind. You, however, seem to be operating under the delusion that the government has your best interest in mind.
Government regulation seems like a short-term fix -- but once you give government the power to wield over a medium like that, it is very very difficult to stop it or limit it. Add in the fact that corporation, by their very nature, have a very large say in public policy, and you are advocating giving business a more powerful tool to do what it should already be doing on it's own.
But go ahead and write me off because I'm a "tinfoil-hat Fox News watcher". Never mind the fact that my positions are actually thought-out and reasoned, and are supported by history. Or that I tend to read/watch Al-Jazeera, the BBC, applicable blogs as much as I do Fox.
Next, you'll tell me that tea parties are "angry white men", right?
Nah - ISPs may try to shape traffic, but so long as the government stays out of it, two things will happen:
1) Techniques will be developed to circumvent traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing
-or-
2) ISPs will be formed with the specific selling point of having no traffic shaping/filtering/prioritizing.
There is no need for government regulation here - it would only benefit the existing ISPs at the expense of the consumer.
I think that is why this concerns me so much --- not because of the arrest of some militiamen in Michigan who may or may not have been crossing an arbitrary legal line, but that the enforcement tools of the federal government are obviously being used in political ways.
Giles and O'Keefe do a sting op on ACORN, and they are prosecuted under shaky wiretapping laws - ACORN is obviously breaking the law in the video, and are ignored. The Hutaree are attacked and basically broken up. The Blank Panther guys up North that were standing outside the polling location blatantly trying to intimidate voters had all charges dropped - the list goes on and on.
We were a nation of laws, not of men. It's trouble to me that this seems to no longer be the case.
While I don't necessarily agree that planning and training "operations" against the government should be illegal per se, I don't feel comfortable taking a side. I hope the case against them is made publicly available.
Not knowing these guys in particular, but lots of people like them, taking their "training" to the point of establishing dates, times, and locations is not necessarily confirmation that they actually planned to harm anyone. Hell, showing up unarmed and going through the motions isn't even out of the question.
Not saying it's smart, but that's how these guys think. I agree with a lot of it on a philosophical level, but I'm far more pragmatic than to go joining a known militia group, training in open groups, and planning specific actions in a way that can be proven. That's rather asinine.
Any word yet? It's starting to look like a legit (if borderline illegal) sting operation now, but my sources are getting sparse :P
Now I read the background story - the RPG was a camera w/ a telephoto. Watching again, it is still not apparent in 90% of the time what it is. Even if I were told that it were a camera, in battle, I couldn't have confirmed it.
I have zero doubt about the AKs though. They are quite distinctive in profile, and there three that I have no doubt of - not one.
No, they said they would open fire if they started collecting weapons, but they were loading the wounded. They requested permission to fire anyhow, and were granted it.
Did you watch the footage? I was able to identify at least three individuals of the 8 with AKs slung, and one guy with an RPG-7. The guy with the RPG crouched around a corner and the others were gathered around him, out of sight of the street.
Allow me to repeat - I could *readily identify* that at least three individuals were carrying small arms, and one with an anti-tank weapon.
This was absolutely a good shoot on the individuals at first. Later, the journalists show up in their black SUV/van thingy and try to render aid. Yeah, I get that, but WTF did they think would happen when they showed up to load up the enemy wounded in a war zone?
To be perfectly accurate, everyone is *eligible* to receive a prebate for essential goods. If you don't wish to disclose your earnings to the government, and that's worth foregoing the prebate check, the you may go about your business without it.
Goddamnit, now I have to change my luggage combination...
I'm aware - GP inferred that martial law has never been declared.
Pandora has an iPhone app. last.fm has an iPhone app. iPlayer works via h.264.
Of the things you mention only Hulu isn't currently working natively on iPhone.