Indeed. I've even known a (very few) Jews who go to Catholic mass. Both Jews and Christians regard them as a bit weird, but there's nothing inconsistent about it.
Some idiots do hate it just because it isn't full of eye candy. But I think there is a genuinely compelling reason behind some of the complaints: things along the lines of taking a dozen or more clicks/menus/option boxes to do very common tasks. It isn't often that people come out with intelligent complaints about this kind of problem, or pointing to specific issues, and I'm not an expert myself; but I think there's something there. This post, in this discussion, touches on a few.
As a non-Linux-user (currently), I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the parent and claims made elsewhere in this discussion about lcms (described here as a "commonly-agreed-upon color management subsystem"). Can someone clear this up?
You know, come to think of it... I don't actually know if my main home machine has a floppy drive or not. I've never checked. How 'bout that? It does have PS/2 ports though.
How about the fact that it is no longer 3rd century BC... The origin has nothing to do with...
This is true. However, you were making historical claims about the past, not about the present.
And reaching a limit of irritation is not close minded hatred.
This is more debatable, but I disagree: I think that is precisely what close minded hatred is. One way of putting the attitude of religious extremists in the Near East to the USA would be to say that they have reached a limit of irritation. That doesn't excuse them, even though it's completely accurate.
Basically if you want to fight the hordes of ignorant religious fanatics, make sure you get your facts right. Then I'll support you wholeheartedly. If you say that religion is a depraved abuse of intellect and harmful to society, I'll agree with your principles; but if you go making factual claims, get them right.
Heh. Reminds me of an early-ish online automatic translation tool that translated English "internet" into German "beerdigen Netz". Those of you who know both German and English will get the joke:-)
I won't disagree with you about postmodernism -- well, not without heavy qualification, anyway -- I merely wanted to point out that it looks like you're doing the same thing to the postmodernists as the so-called-ad-hominem-ists in this discussion are doing to this Jonathan Zuck person. I agree with the post I cited that the accusations being levelled aginst Zuck aren't in fact ad hominem but poisoning the well: casting doubt on his words on the basis of something like, "well, what can you expect from the president of ACT?" I feel it's worth pointing out that if you substitute "well, what can you expect from a bunch of postmodernists?" it starts to look very similar to your own comment. I won't say, judge not lest ye be judged, or no judging would ever get done (and a lot of postmodernists richly deserve judging), but... that kind of tactic is two-edged. Sorry if I came over harshly, but I just found it ironic:-) Hope you do too.
I too think we could probably just about survive without the distinction, but just a small pernickety point: it's nothing to do with grammar, it's to do with the meanings of words: "fewer" implies number, "less" doesn't. The meaning of a word isn't normally a grammatical point: grammar is about stuff like syntax (stringing words together) and morphology (changing the form of a word, e.g. by adding "-s" on the end of a plural).
The language geeks are out in force today. (Why is it that computer geeks are "geeks", whereas language geeks are "grammar nazis"? Can we start referring to wilfully illiterate slobs as "language lusers"? I think that'd be fair.)
Indeed. In English only pronouns still have a case system: as in I/me/my, you/you/your, he/him/his, she/her/her, it/it/its, we/us/our, they/them/their, who/whom/whose. It's kind of weird that, of all of these, "who/whom" is the only distinction that is routinely ignored. No, I tell a lie: "I/me" gets abused as well. Many people, esp. North Americans, in phrases like "Joe and I" , persistently use "I" regardless of whether Joe and the speaker are the subject or object of the verb.
Sorry, I'm a language teacher.... I guess it shows sometimes.
Calling the Christian god a lord is a political move made by the church
Both parts of this assertion are false. It was a theological move made by the Jewish elders who translated the Talmud into Greek, ca. 3rd century BCE: in order to avoid using the name Yahweh, they used the Greek word kyrios meaning "head of the family/household". Everyone since then has been copying them: it's all pre-Christian. The reason kyrios got translated into English as "lord" was because Anglo-Saxon hlafweard also meant "head of the household", and like kyrios was not primarily a political term at the time.
If you want to tear someone else's arguments apart on the grounds that they're ignorant, try to make sure you're not. It's pretty clear to me which of the two posts above was not motivated by close-minded hatred.
Thank you. This is the most intelligent and informative comment that has so far been posted to this article.
(... apart from getting "e.g." and "i.e." mixed up, which I wouldn't mention except that it caused me to have difficulty comprehending your intention for a moment.)
the prevalence of postmodernism in the universities, where subjectivity (e.g., "whose truth?") reigns supreme
I congratulate you. This is a very fine example of "poisoning the well", as advertised earlier in this thread. I guess it's true that people really do become what they hate.
In some ways -- it doesn't keep bugging me, I can go full-screen, and I don't have to try to lock it down -- but I'd be glad if someone could enlighten me: other than being nagware, are there other ways in which QuickTime is inferior to QuickTime Alternative?
Ironically, this morning someone sent me a Word document that turned out to be white/grey-on-blue when I opened it in Word. Coincidence or what?
Ta for the info, by the way: it didn't really register with me that grey-on-blue went that far back, though now that I think of it, my first computer (an Atari 800 XL) was... grey on blue. It *kind of* makes sense that the colour scheme should have stuck when people switched to GUI systems, though I'm thankful that most people have dropped it now.
Mind you, most Windows-users who use cmd.exe still have white-on-black. Default behaviour can be very powerful; personally I find white-on-anything really annoying.
Presumably it's because they're used to it. Some word processor in the early 90s made white-on-blue almost a standard -- was it an early version of WordPerfect, or was it Word? I forget. Anyway, it's still an option in current versions of Microsoft Word (Tools - Options - General), and you can set OOo up that way too if you want, though that requires a bit more effort. Anyway, yuck.
Thousands might believe you, but I won't. Come on, it is the default "newspaper" of choice for the majority of Brits... and the others, including broadsheets, aren't any less biased, they just put everything into high-falutin' language to make themselves sound poncier. The Times is a tabloid by any reasonable definition. (Rant, rant)
No, I honestly believe that... sad but true. Mind you, it's difficult to find any newspaper that merits the name. I've been told the Sueddeutsche is good, but my German isn't good enough to read that every day. Anyway I don't live in Europe so it's difficult to get them here anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. I've even known a (very few) Jews who go to Catholic mass. Both Jews and Christians regard them as a bit weird, but there's nothing inconsistent about it.
... just like the canonical ones, then.
\afterthought ... but come to think of it I think the lack of CMYK is the most immediate problem.
Some idiots do hate it just because it isn't full of eye candy. But I think there is a genuinely compelling reason behind some of the complaints: things along the lines of taking a dozen or more clicks/menus/option boxes to do very common tasks. It isn't often that people come out with intelligent complaints about this kind of problem, or pointing to specific issues, and I'm not an expert myself; but I think there's something there. This post, in this discussion, touches on a few.
As a non-Linux-user (currently), I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the parent and claims made elsewhere in this discussion about lcms (described here as a "commonly-agreed-upon color management subsystem"). Can someone clear this up?
I think you should read the gpp's last sentence ...
This site is informative. Screenshots: IE6, IE7beta. They look identical to me.
Well, which version of Windows do you think it would fair to compare to Ubuntu 5.10 or Mac OS X 10.4?
Works fine for me. (Opera 8.5, WinXP SP2)
You know, come to think of it ... I don't actually know if my main home machine has a floppy drive or not. I've never checked. How 'bout that? It does have PS/2 ports though.
That should be "pend e nt". I am a male, and both a pedant and pendent. Go me.
Thanks. I guess I should have explained, but somehow a private joke seems funnier ... apologies :-)
The Christian use of this comes from Semitic languages. Further info, also noting similar phrases in other languages and traditions; use of the phrase in the pre-Christian Talmud here, here, and here (apologies that these citations all come from a Christian edition, but the text is basically the same).
Comes from the Talmud. Link.
This is true. However, you were making historical claims about the past, not about the present.
This is more debatable, but I disagree: I think that is precisely what close minded hatred is. One way of putting the attitude of religious extremists in the Near East to the USA would be to say that they have reached a limit of irritation. That doesn't excuse them, even though it's completely accurate.
Basically if you want to fight the hordes of ignorant religious fanatics, make sure you get your facts right. Then I'll support you wholeheartedly. If you say that religion is a depraved abuse of intellect and harmful to society, I'll agree with your principles; but if you go making factual claims, get them right.
Heh. Reminds me of an early-ish online automatic translation tool that translated English "internet" into German "beerdigen Netz". Those of you who know both German and English will get the joke :-)
I won't disagree with you about postmodernism -- well, not without heavy qualification, anyway -- I merely wanted to point out that it looks like you're doing the same thing to the postmodernists as the so-called-ad-hominem-ists in this discussion are doing to this Jonathan Zuck person. I agree with the post I cited that the accusations being levelled aginst Zuck aren't in fact ad hominem but poisoning the well: casting doubt on his words on the basis of something like, "well, what can you expect from the president of ACT?" I feel it's worth pointing out that if you substitute "well, what can you expect from a bunch of postmodernists?" it starts to look very similar to your own comment. I won't say, judge not lest ye be judged, or no judging would ever get done (and a lot of postmodernists richly deserve judging), but ... that kind of tactic is two-edged. Sorry if I came over harshly, but I just found it ironic :-) Hope you do too.
The language geeks are out in force today. (Why is it that computer geeks are "geeks", whereas language geeks are "grammar nazis"? Can we start referring to wilfully illiterate slobs as "language lusers"? I think that'd be fair.)
Sorry, I'm a language teacher .... I guess it shows sometimes.
Both parts of this assertion are false. It was a theological move made by the Jewish elders who translated the Talmud into Greek, ca. 3rd century BCE: in order to avoid using the name Yahweh, they used the Greek word kyrios meaning "head of the family/household". Everyone since then has been copying them: it's all pre-Christian. The reason kyrios got translated into English as "lord" was because Anglo-Saxon hlafweard also meant "head of the household", and like kyrios was not primarily a political term at the time.
If you want to tear someone else's arguments apart on the grounds that they're ignorant, try to make sure you're not. It's pretty clear to me which of the two posts above was not motivated by close-minded hatred.
(... apart from getting "e.g." and "i.e." mixed up, which I wouldn't mention except that it caused me to have difficulty comprehending your intention for a moment.)
I congratulate you. This is a very fine example of "poisoning the well", as advertised earlier in this thread. I guess it's true that people really do become what they hate.
Excellent, thanks.
In some ways -- it doesn't keep bugging me, I can go full-screen, and I don't have to try to lock it down -- but I'd be glad if someone could enlighten me: other than being nagware, are there other ways in which QuickTime is inferior to QuickTime Alternative?
Ta for the info, by the way: it didn't really register with me that grey-on-blue went that far back, though now that I think of it, my first computer (an Atari 800 XL) was ... grey on blue. It *kind of* makes sense that the colour scheme should have stuck when people switched to GUI systems, though I'm thankful that most people have dropped it now.
Mind you, most Windows-users who use cmd.exe still have white-on-black. Default behaviour can be very powerful; personally I find white-on-anything really annoying.
Presumably it's because they're used to it. Some word processor in the early 90s made white-on-blue almost a standard -- was it an early version of WordPerfect, or was it Word? I forget. Anyway, it's still an option in current versions of Microsoft Word (Tools - Options - General), and you can set OOo up that way too if you want, though that requires a bit more effort. Anyway, yuck.
No, I honestly believe that ... sad but true. Mind you, it's difficult to find any newspaper that merits the name. I've been told the Sueddeutsche is good, but my German isn't good enough to read that every day. Anyway I don't live in Europe so it's difficult to get them here anyway.