My wife - comp sci/math major with honors blah blah blah - has been heavily recruited by Google. It hasn't become annoying or anything, but she's been contacted numerous times before and since getting her B.S. She wouldn't take the job anyway because it would cause her to relocate, but I know that she considers the extent of the perks a significant strike against Google.
From on-campus meals to weights to doctors to dry cleaning she considers the extent to which Google tries to be a part of the lives of its employees creepy and cult-like. I think she's exactly the type of person Google wants to hire in terms of talent and ability, but it's clear that their perks are working against such people.
This doesn't mean the perks aren't working in general. There a possibly many more people who enjoy the perks rather than view them with distrust. But clearly some talented people are going to be turned off by extent to which Google attempts to insinuate itself into every aspect of your life.
As for me, I think the perks a bit over-the-top, but I wouldn't mind at all having to do less travel. But my wife enjoys running errands together - it's a chance for family time - and would consider Google to be competing for family time. And I think she has a point. Anyone know anything about work/family balance for people working at Google?
I know this is OT, but it just occurred to me for the first time that if the temperature varies regularly between 100C and -150C, than that must mean that the temperature is regularly around 22C, which is actually quite comfortable. It's just odd to think of the moon having a temperature of 22C at the surface, even if for only a brief time.
Which makes me wonder - if you're standing at a specific place on the moon (or leave a thermometer there) how long would it be in the range of 20 - 25C in its plunge from 100 to -150 (or vice versa).
Like I said - just weird to think of a comfortable temp on the moon even for only a brief period of time.
but if they want to one step ahead they'll have to pull of another innovation.
No, I don't think it quite works that way. Anyone who does Wiimote-like stuff from now on will be an "also-ran" and will have to overcome the first-to-market advantage of the Wii. As long as the capitalize on the Wii controllers, they will own that marketspace and it will be very hard to come and take it from them.
That's the brilliance of their strategy. Pushing pixels is a # game. No company can get a lock on that advantage: all yo have to do is get better benchmarks and you take it from them. But creating a totally new way to play games is not the kind of thing you can just copy. The association is: fun, intuitive game play = Nintendo. Having secured that, it will be a lot cheaper to re-enter the pixel count wars, and anyone that tries to take the fun, intuitive game play from Nintendo will have an uphill battle of it.
Think of the Wii as a proof of concept. Now they know the Wiimote is a hit, and can dump some money into a true 'next-gen' console.
That's exactly how I think of the Wii (which I own). It's basically the GC with just a bit of extra horsepower (but not really enough to call it next gen) and the wiimote input system. It's a stop-gap measure in terms of finance and R&D in that it allows Nintendo to avoid going head-to-head vs. Sony/MS in terms of processing power and at the same time proof-of-concept for a new way to play video games. I think the Wii is really just a launch pad for a new direction for Nintendo, and I'm excited to see what they can do if they combine ease-of-use, affordability, innovation and some more serious horsepower.
Obviously that's a long way in the future so I take that with huge chunks of salt, but I would definitely appreciate a slowing down of next gen arms race propagation.
I agree that not only do the consumers probably want to see the console arms race toned down a bit, but the console makers do as well. The longer a console is on the market, the more money they make.
The exception to this rule, I believe, is Nintendo. I don't think there's any way the Wii can survive for 5 years given the hardware capabilities of the 360 and PS3. Putting out a console w/out hi-def is fine in 2006 and even 2007 because hi-def TV market penetration is still pretty low, but I think that in the next couple of years the Wii is going to go from economical and fun alternative to simply not powerful enough to be taken seriously.
The point of the Wii, I think, was to grab market share using the innovative Wii-mote and for that they needed a release to coincide with the other consoles and a price to beat them. But to really start making headway they need to be in the some graphics league. Not the best, but in the same league.
The advantage is that the Wii is relatively cheap, and I'm betting that the public would be far more forgiving of a new Nintendo console in, say 2010, than another MS or Sony offering.
Look all I'm saying is that parents are paying for internet connectivity to the family computer. They may have no idea that the Wii is capable of latching onto that Wi-Fi. Should they know this? Yes. Are they "dumb as dogshit" if they don't? Hardly.
Actually I am on my way to becoming a grand-parent, my son built and ran his own BBS at the age of 12 (circa 1992).
I'd say that pretty much disqualifies you from being able to comment on parenting and technical issues. Obviously tech is a huge part of your life - it isn't for everyone.
But I'm confused. Why is it more profitable to have 3 popular bands, rather than 12 semi-popular? Surely the profit on each CD (or whatever) sold is much the same regardless of the band name on the front?
Because the real profit is not from CD sales, it's from ticket sales to shows. And shows only make money if A LOT of people show up. If you run 12 shows and 100 people come to each your profit is the ticket sales for 1200 tickets minus the cost of 12 shows. If you only run 3 shows and 1200 people come then you still have 1200 tickets but 3 shows at 4X the size won't cost 4X to put on. So you've made more profit.
Furthermore, the more people who want to go to a show, the more will want to go. If your friends are excited, you'll get excited. This means that if you have 3 shows, you'll probably actually get more than 1200 people wanting to go. So you can sell more tickets AND charge more.
A 12 way market is much stabler, safer and increases profits long term.
Only if profits-per-band are constant. They are not. Cost rises faster as you spread it across multiple bands, and revenue increases as you concentrate it on a few (but not too few) bands. People don't like too much choice.
So the reason you're only hearing 3 bands is because that's enough emo/screamo for most people. Why would they want more of the same from bands they've never heard of? They want a selection of 3 bands from another type of music. That's how the mainstream works.
That kind of goes with what I'm saying. The other 9 are a risk and not, as you said earlier "stabler, safer".
Just because a lot of people get it wrong does not make it right
I actually agree with you, but I don't think that is the case here. This isn't a case of people misunderstanding the word. The word "literally" is being chosen not because of a misunderstanding in its meaning, but precisely because of what it means. As I said earlier, this is analogous to someone saying "I'm not exaggerating" in an obviously exaggerated story.
That's really the main reason I don't have a problem with this usage. In order for the phrase to make any sense at all, you have to actually know what the word "literally" means. Thus it's not changing the word at all, just using it in a way that is patently false.
I have to say it's fun being on the other side of this debate. You're using the exact same defense I used when I saw people misusing words. I still think it's a pretty good defense in general when it actually leads to confusion about what a word means. For example the word "enormity" used to refer explicitly to great evil. But now it frequently means just "really big" - a noun form of "enormous". This obviously leads to contradiction not because the word is being used in the opposite sense, but in a slightly different sense. When journalists refer to the "enormity" of an event, I honestly don't know if they mean how giant it was, or how horribly awful it was (or both). Confusion results, and so I can't reliably use the word in that sense.
This doesn't hold, however, with my use of the word "literally". There's no confusion, and I'm free to use the word "literally" as it was originally intended. Note that from the definition I quoted it has a very specific function as "intensifier before a figurative expression". This restricted and well-defined usage prevents ambiguity. Furthermore the fact that the word means exactly the opposite (as with your alternate definitions of of "honest") helps, as opposes to hindering, clear understanding. It's quite obviously meant as an ironic exaggeration. It's just like when people say "and I'm not exagerating" while telling a story, although they are usually doing just that.
Your very own argument works against you when you say you can't think of an alternative for "literally". That's why the word continues to be used - with no misunderstanding - such as in "a literal translation of..." or "translating literally..."
Your final assertion that my "use is incorrect" is hogswash. Although we may not like it, the rules of grammar came after the development of language. They are more often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Tell me honestly, when someone asks how you are doing, do you respond "well" instead of "good"? I do. But what if you want to say you are doing "excellently"? Would you say that, or would you say "excellent"?
Another great example of a change in grammar I applaud is the transition to using "their" as a third-person, gender-neutral singular pronoun. Some changes take away useful words, and some actually increase the flavor or capacity of our language. I'm quite comfortable that my use of "literally" in this easily-defined and clearly distinguishable way isn't detracting from the literal meaning of the word in any way (irony intended).
Oh, and a final thing, using "figurative" in that instance would have been horrible writing. That would be like using the phrase "metaphorically" whenever I used a metaphor or "allegorically" whenever I use an allegory. It would be redundant, annoying, and bad writing. But, of course, literally correct (wow, I'm still using that word without any ambiguity!).
Sorry bub, your vocabulary nazism is already outdated:
define:literally (type into Google search bar)
# in a literal sense; "literally translated"; "he said so literally" # (intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration; "our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (first entry, note second one)
What you are describing is the *real* reason for DRM. It's not about sales from records. It's about control. The real money comes from building hits. A DRM-free world would mean a democratization of music, and at worst the disappearence of "hit bands" and at least the lack of control on the part of industry execs to predict or even manufacture those bands.
Consider especially the boy-bands of the late 90s. It was literally a money-making machine owned from the industry from start to finish.
But to do this, the industry requires tight control over who listens to what. I'm not some sensationalist saying that they can determine who likes what. But through the use of DRM they can monitor and influence choices. I like emo/screamo. There are DOZENS of bands who play very good music of this genre. About 3 are on the radio. Why? Because it's more profitable to have 3 popular bands than 12 semi-popular bands.
The industry needs to keep the pyramid-shape of the market to be able to siphon the rich profits off the top, and they need to be able to stay at the top of the pyramid.
Are there really any parents out there that are this monumentally stupid, has anyone here met one?
Clearly not a parent. Here's a scenario: family has a cable modem. They use a wireless router. Possibly unsecured, but even if it is kids can probably figure out password (and may even have set it). Parents are concerned about porn and other online activities, so the family computer is in the kitchen or other high-traffic area. No computers in the bedrooms.
But they have no problem putting a TV and a Wii in a bedroom. They are paying nothing extra for the connectivity to the Wii, and the kid could easily get onto the wireless without them ever knowing.
And furthermore, if such parents really do exist then it's little wonder that the "kids are smarter than their parents" because these hypothetical, technologically naive, parents are either suffering from senility or must trully be as dumb as dog shit.
Not grokking wi-if doesn't make someone senile or "dumb as dog shit". There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who just don't do tech, or at least don't understand all of its ramifications.
"It may be a little sensationalist, but the basic point is fine."
That's what the OP (me) wrote. How does this equate to saying "sensationalism wasn't bad if the message was accurate"? I was addressing "the basic point", not the sensationalism or the message as a whole.
Yes it is, simply because sensationalism in and of itself is wrong. Selling an idea without providing concrete evidence for and against is classic car salesmanship in its essence.
Sounds like someone got carried away with a metaphor. The difference is that a car salesman is actually selling something for real: and getting money on false premises. The sensationalism here is not being used to sell a car. And it's not "blatant misinformation". Kids could get porn through the Wii. That doesn't mean you should burn your kids Wii, but parents should be aware of the capabilities of the toys their kids have.
Penny-Arcade did a similar story when some local affiliate did an expose on the fact that your kids can chat with anyone using a DS Lite. It was a sensationalist story, but it's worth trying to keep parents informed of the capacity of their kids toys so that they can make their parenting decisions accordingly.
The fundamental message of this is just: your kids can get online with a Wii. I want parents and *everyone* to know this so that we don't have more silly sue-MySpace type lawsuits when some kid manages to build a bomb online or hook up with a sex predator on a Wii.
It may be a little sensationalist, but the basic point is fine. "Guess what parents, kids can also access teh pr0nz0rz using the PSP, Wii, etc." If they were trying to get the Wii banned or something, that would be one thing, but just trying to help parents do their job (again, with a little extra sensationalism) is really no cause for controversy.
"railroads are just the bright shiny ideal model of a succesful industry today aren't they?"
His whole point was the historical impact, smart ass. Railroads are not as important today as in the 1940s, but try fighting WW2 without them. Try building any seriously industrialized nation without a national railroad system. We may not need them as much now, but if they hadn't been around when we did we probably wouldn't have been able to industrialize to the extent where we could replace them (to some extent) with air traffic (another glorious model of market success, I know).
As an interesting corollary to your fan/fanboy dichotomy, it may just be that extreme circumstances turn fans into fanboys. The worse Sony seems to be fairing (in the public eye if not in the pocket book - although possibly both) the more shrill the fans seem to get. It's like they have to raise their voices to cover the sound of Sony marketing blunders.
So it's quite possible that xbox360 / wii fans would act similarly obnoxiously if their respective consoles were doing as poorly. But the 360 seems a decent enough machine (I own one that was a gift and I'm not thrilled, but it's not bad either) and the Wii is doing fantastically. So the fans don't need to make extra noise
My only question is whether Sony pays you buy the word or by the hour. In either case - they should get their money back. Your fanboishness is so extreme it makes me like that over-priced behemoth even *less*. Whether I'm referring to the company or the console is your pick.
"I do think you were short sighted in your dismissal of the website originally prompting this"
I think the real problem is that you think I dismissed an entire website. I didn't even "dismiss" an entire rant. I just pointed out what I felt were some rather glaring problems in it.
The South has a lot of issues with it. You can't be a Mormon in the Bible belt and not learn about religious intolerance. I just feel that there are productive and unproductive ways to go about it. Ranting and raving is not, I feel productive, nor is associating the negative parts of some of the people who live in the region with the entire region. Even during WW2 I would have thought "FUCK THE GERMANS" would have been a bit over-the-top, although "FUCK THE NAZIS" I would have gotten behind.
See what I mean? If you want to criticize Southern hypocrisy, do so. Don't just throw all of the South into the mix.
Why not? If you're so sure the trend would hold, then please find the statistics. But a naive controlling for income would obviously reverse your findings (since standard of living is so much higher in places like NYC than most of the South). A more detailed controlling for income would have to compare income to relative cost of living or something, and would be interesting to see. Of course you have poor people in the North as well, but to act as though there are no economic disparities is silly. And since it's well-known the economic disparity can influence crime, it seems dishonest to say "let's not go there". I'm just stating that your statistics aren't very valid.
Also, judging me by 1 post on slashdot is rather amusing.
It only takes one intentional anti-semitic comment to find that someone hates Jews. It only takes one racist joke about blacks to see that someone hates blacks. I don't need to find some kind of subtle trend across numerous posts. When you come out and say you hate a certain class of person based on where they live I think that's pretty much bigotry regardless of whether you said it once or 100 times.
to try and claim that fuckthesouth has it all wrong is pretty out there
I only read the one rant. That's all I'm responding to.
You're vehemently pro-life, you bring religion into discussions of most things (from the page or two I read), etc.
I don't think being pro-life makes someone a fundie. There are atheist pro-lifers. In fact, the guy who influenced my pro-life stance more than anyone else *was* an atheist pro-lifer. And I'm not sure when I brought religion into stuff. I tend to keep that off my blog for the most part, unless I'm forgetting something.
You can't blame Real Americans for getting pissed about it.
I'm sorry, Real Americans. Capitalized? Is that like a new club or something? Do you guys carry around cards or something?
I'm sorry but all Americans are "real" Americans in my mind. From the raving lunatic liberals to the raving lunatic conservatives and everyone in between. I'm well aware that if you had to reduce it to 1-d spectrum I'm farther to the right than I am to the left, but claiming to have a monopoly on American genuiness is just to trite to be taken seriously.
I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point out that the South played a major role in the foundation of this country. That's not nitpicking - it gets to the heart of the point about what role the South played in the US. More US Presidents have come from my state - Virginia - than any other state in the nation. That's nitpicking?
Mostly, though, I'm just bemused at this new form of bigotry. "All of you fundies are from down there." Nevermind the fact that I'm obviously not a "fundie". They wouldn't have me if I asked. As far as the other statistics go: it's just too simplistic to bother retorting to. You're not controlling for income, education, or anything else that may be correlated with crime, adultery, etc. I also, for the record, don't really follow college athletics of any kind. I prefer pro-football, soccer, and rugby. But of course - that probably doesn't fit into your narrow conception of what to expect from a Southernor.
But I suppose it's a waste of time to point out that you're a caricature of the thigns you claim to hate: judgmental, prejudiced, and hateful.
Well, I was going to whole-heartedly endorse your post. I'm just waiting until I can buy one. And I still do endorse the post.
But my, that's an angry sig isn't? Why do we have to hate on the South? I don't hate on the North except when Northerners come down here and complain about the weather. Or about the fact that Richmond isn't as big as NYC. In particular, what's with the claim that the Founding Fathers were all northerners? What, Thomas Jefferson doesn't count? George Washington doesn't count? Need I go on?
Plus the small point of fact that the first permanent British settlement on the continent was, you know, Jamestown. In, you know, Virginia. Which is, you know, in the South.
Seriously - can't we just all get along? And play the Wii?
The absence of any moral justification for these pretend wars against real countries is worse than any polemic.
I just can't get worked up about this line of thought. It's just a repeating cycle. Star Trek: Klingons are bad. Movies 1 - 5. No, wait, really we just need to get to know them and understand they are people too. Movie 6. Crap, no we're out of villains. OK, now Romulans are bad. You get the picture.
Not every game can be an accurate reflection of the fact that all people are unique and individual snow flakes. I think it's generally better for a game to show that, but imagine what playing Call of Duty would be like if you had to watch the bio of every single German soldier you shot. It would actually probably be a very artsy and cool experiment, but not exactly a hoot to play through? I think it's not a great idea to weigh down all video games with a bunch of moral baggage and expect them all to accurately depict life. They are games. I think that they should either just have fun and not worry to much about philosophy, or actually deal with it insightfully. Either is OK with me. The only bad option is dealing with it badly.
Funny you mention Ender's Game, my first post originally referenced Card's Empire as an example of a real polemic that I still found enjoyable. Stupid beliefs and strawman characters don't necessarily result in boring plot and dumb dialog.
Which book is Empire? I thought I had read almost all of his books, but if it's a new one I haven't been keeping up. In any case, I guess we just have different tastes in books. Card gets extremely annoying when he gets preachy. He decided to turn the last Bean novel (Shadow of the Hegemon, I think? Or something like that) into a treatise about why homosexuality is bad and abortion is bad. Now I happen to believe both those things, more or less, but I still found his preachiness to detract horribly from his story telling.
Heinlein is another great example of this. Starting with Starship Troopers he began to insert increasing amounts of political dogma and philosophy into his books. When he handled it directly - as in Stranger in a Strange Land or The Moon is Harsh Mistress - it was great. When it became a side-track from the story (as in most of his other later novels) it started to really detract. I think Heinlein, like Card, managed to write decent books in spite of their preachiness, not because of it.
How did you manage to get "24 is anti-Islamic" from my post?
It's just been in the news since the new series started. It wasn't in your post, I was assuming. So my mistake.
How did you manage to get "24 is anti-Islamic" from my post?
I don't even think that message is so obvious. Americans are up to some shady shenanigans in that show. But I don't think this is the kind of political message people had in mind. I mean really - does a game need to argue that terrorism is bad? That's like saying that a game which depicts murder as bad is pushing a philosophical agenda. Technically I suppose you could say that, but realistically everyone thinks that already and it's non-controversial.
I think what people are talking about is a video game that would push some specific agenda that's not universally accepted. Like, say, the idea that all capitalism is always evil and results in nothing but death and destruction as evil fat-cat tycoons grind the faces of poor innocent minorities into the dirt.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife - comp sci/math major with honors blah blah blah - has been heavily recruited by Google. It hasn't become annoying or anything, but she's been contacted numerous times before and since getting her B.S. She wouldn't take the job anyway because it would cause her to relocate, but I know that she considers the extent of the perks a significant strike against Google.
From on-campus meals to weights to doctors to dry cleaning she considers the extent to which Google tries to be a part of the lives of its employees creepy and cult-like. I think she's exactly the type of person Google wants to hire in terms of talent and ability, but it's clear that their perks are working against such people.
This doesn't mean the perks aren't working in general. There a possibly many more people who enjoy the perks rather than view them with distrust. But clearly some talented people are going to be turned off by extent to which Google attempts to insinuate itself into every aspect of your life.
As for me, I think the perks a bit over-the-top, but I wouldn't mind at all having to do less travel. But my wife enjoys running errands together - it's a chance for family time - and would consider Google to be competing for family time. And I think she has a point. Anyone know anything about work/family balance for people working at Google?
I know this is OT, but it just occurred to me for the first time that if the temperature varies regularly between 100C and -150C, than that must mean that the temperature is regularly around 22C, which is actually quite comfortable. It's just odd to think of the moon having a temperature of 22C at the surface, even if for only a brief time.
Which makes me wonder - if you're standing at a specific place on the moon (or leave a thermometer there) how long would it be in the range of 20 - 25C in its plunge from 100 to -150 (or vice versa).
Like I said - just weird to think of a comfortable temp on the moon even for only a brief period of time.
-stormin
but if they want to one step ahead they'll have to pull of another innovation.
No, I don't think it quite works that way. Anyone who does Wiimote-like stuff from now on will be an "also-ran" and will have to overcome the first-to-market advantage of the Wii. As long as the capitalize on the Wii controllers, they will own that marketspace and it will be very hard to come and take it from them.
That's the brilliance of their strategy. Pushing pixels is a # game. No company can get a lock on that advantage: all yo have to do is get better benchmarks and you take it from them. But creating a totally new way to play games is not the kind of thing you can just copy. The association is: fun, intuitive game play = Nintendo. Having secured that, it will be a lot cheaper to re-enter the pixel count wars, and anyone that tries to take the fun, intuitive game play from Nintendo will have an uphill battle of it.
Think of the Wii as a proof of concept. Now they know the Wiimote is a hit, and can dump some money into a true 'next-gen' console.
That's exactly how I think of the Wii (which I own). It's basically the GC with just a bit of extra horsepower (but not really enough to call it next gen) and the wiimote input system. It's a stop-gap measure in terms of finance and R&D in that it allows Nintendo to avoid going head-to-head vs. Sony/MS in terms of processing power and at the same time proof-of-concept for a new way to play video games. I think the Wii is really just a launch pad for a new direction for Nintendo, and I'm excited to see what they can do if they combine ease-of-use, affordability, innovation and some more serious horsepower.
Obviously that's a long way in the future so I take that with huge chunks of salt, but I would definitely appreciate a slowing down of next gen arms race propagation.
I agree that not only do the consumers probably want to see the console arms race toned down a bit, but the console makers do as well. The longer a console is on the market, the more money they make.
The exception to this rule, I believe, is Nintendo. I don't think there's any way the Wii can survive for 5 years given the hardware capabilities of the 360 and PS3. Putting out a console w/out hi-def is fine in 2006 and even 2007 because hi-def TV market penetration is still pretty low, but I think that in the next couple of years the Wii is going to go from economical and fun alternative to simply not powerful enough to be taken seriously.
The point of the Wii, I think, was to grab market share using the innovative Wii-mote and for that they needed a release to coincide with the other consoles and a price to beat them. But to really start making headway they need to be in the some graphics league. Not the best, but in the same league.
The advantage is that the Wii is relatively cheap, and I'm betting that the public would be far more forgiving of a new Nintendo console in, say 2010, than another MS or Sony offering.
Look all I'm saying is that parents are paying for internet connectivity to the family computer. They may have no idea that the Wii is capable of latching onto that Wi-Fi. Should they know this? Yes. Are they "dumb as dogshit" if they don't? Hardly.
Actually I am on my way to becoming a grand-parent, my son built and ran his own BBS at the age of 12 (circa 1992).
I'd say that pretty much disqualifies you from being able to comment on parenting and technical issues. Obviously tech is a huge part of your life - it isn't for everyone.
-stormin
But I'm confused. Why is it more profitable to have 3 popular bands, rather than 12 semi-popular? Surely the profit on each CD (or whatever) sold is much the same regardless of the band name on the front?
Because the real profit is not from CD sales, it's from ticket sales to shows. And shows only make money if A LOT of people show up. If you run 12 shows and 100 people come to each your profit is the ticket sales for 1200 tickets minus the cost of 12 shows. If you only run 3 shows and 1200 people come then you still have 1200 tickets but 3 shows at 4X the size won't cost 4X to put on. So you've made more profit.
Furthermore, the more people who want to go to a show, the more will want to go. If your friends are excited, you'll get excited. This means that if you have 3 shows, you'll probably actually get more than 1200 people wanting to go. So you can sell more tickets AND charge more.
A 12 way market is much stabler, safer and increases profits long term.
Only if profits-per-band are constant. They are not. Cost rises faster as you spread it across multiple bands, and revenue increases as you concentrate it on a few (but not too few) bands. People don't like too much choice.
So the reason you're only hearing 3 bands is because that's enough emo/screamo for most people. Why would they want more of the same from bands they've never heard of? They want a selection of 3 bands from another type of music. That's how the mainstream works.
That kind of goes with what I'm saying. The other 9 are a risk and not, as you said earlier "stabler, safer".
Just because a lot of people get it wrong does not make it right
I actually agree with you, but I don't think that is the case here. This isn't a case of people misunderstanding the word. The word "literally" is being chosen not because of a misunderstanding in its meaning, but precisely because of what it means. As I said earlier, this is analogous to someone saying "I'm not exaggerating" in an obviously exaggerated story.
That's really the main reason I don't have a problem with this usage. In order for the phrase to make any sense at all, you have to actually know what the word "literally" means. Thus it's not changing the word at all, just using it in a way that is patently false.
-stormin
I have to say it's fun being on the other side of this debate. You're using the exact same defense I used when I saw people misusing words. I still think it's a pretty good defense in general when it actually leads to confusion about what a word means. For example the word "enormity" used to refer explicitly to great evil. But now it frequently means just "really big" - a noun form of "enormous". This obviously leads to contradiction not because the word is being used in the opposite sense, but in a slightly different sense. When journalists refer to the "enormity" of an event, I honestly don't know if they mean how giant it was, or how horribly awful it was (or both). Confusion results, and so I can't reliably use the word in that sense.
This doesn't hold, however, with my use of the word "literally". There's no confusion, and I'm free to use the word "literally" as it was originally intended. Note that from the definition I quoted it has a very specific function as "intensifier before a figurative expression". This restricted and well-defined usage prevents ambiguity. Furthermore the fact that the word means exactly the opposite (as with your alternate definitions of of "honest") helps, as opposes to hindering, clear understanding. It's quite obviously meant as an ironic exaggeration. It's just like when people say "and I'm not exagerating" while telling a story, although they are usually doing just that.
Your very own argument works against you when you say you can't think of an alternative for "literally". That's why the word continues to be used - with no misunderstanding - such as in "a literal translation of..." or "translating literally..."
Your final assertion that my "use is incorrect" is hogswash. Although we may not like it, the rules of grammar came after the development of language. They are more often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Tell me honestly, when someone asks how you are doing, do you respond "well" instead of "good"? I do. But what if you want to say you are doing "excellently"? Would you say that, or would you say "excellent"?
Another great example of a change in grammar I applaud is the transition to using "their" as a third-person, gender-neutral singular pronoun. Some changes take away useful words, and some actually increase the flavor or capacity of our language. I'm quite comfortable that my use of "literally" in this easily-defined and clearly distinguishable way isn't detracting from the literal meaning of the word in any way (irony intended).
Oh, and a final thing, using "figurative" in that instance would have been horrible writing. That would be like using the phrase "metaphorically" whenever I used a metaphor or "allegorically" whenever I use an allegory. It would be redundant, annoying, and bad writing. But, of course, literally correct (wow, I'm still using that word without any ambiguity!).
-stormin
Sorry bub, your vocabulary nazism is already outdated:
define:literally (type into Google search bar)
# in a literal sense; "literally translated"; "he said so literally"
# (intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration; "our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (first entry, note second one)
It's official now.
-stormin
What you are describing is the *real* reason for DRM. It's not about sales from records. It's about control. The real money comes from building hits. A DRM-free world would mean a democratization of music, and at worst the disappearence of "hit bands" and at least the lack of control on the part of industry execs to predict or even manufacture those bands.
r ise-drm-not-about-piracy.html
Consider especially the boy-bands of the late 90s. It was literally a money-making machine owned from the industry from start to finish.
But to do this, the industry requires tight control over who listens to what. I'm not some sensationalist saying that they can determine who likes what. But through the use of DRM they can monitor and influence choices. I like emo/screamo. There are DOZENS of bands who play very good music of this genre. About 3 are on the radio. Why? Because it's more profitable to have 3 popular bands than 12 semi-popular bands.
The industry needs to keep the pyramid-shape of the market to be able to siphon the rich profits off the top, and they need to be able to stay at the top of the pyramid.
This is what DRM is really for.
http://kiriath-arba.blogspot.com/2007/01/big-surp
-stormin
Are there really any parents out there that are this monumentally stupid, has anyone here met one?
Clearly not a parent. Here's a scenario: family has a cable modem. They use a wireless router. Possibly unsecured, but even if it is kids can probably figure out password (and may even have set it). Parents are concerned about porn and other online activities, so the family computer is in the kitchen or other high-traffic area. No computers in the bedrooms.
But they have no problem putting a TV and a Wii in a bedroom. They are paying nothing extra for the connectivity to the Wii, and the kid could easily get onto the wireless without them ever knowing.
And furthermore, if such parents really do exist then it's little wonder that the "kids are smarter than their parents" because these hypothetical, technologically naive, parents are either suffering from senility or must trully be as dumb as dog shit.
Not grokking wi-if doesn't make someone senile or "dumb as dog shit". There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who just don't do tech, or at least don't understand all of its ramifications.
-stormin
"It may be a little sensationalist, but the basic point is fine."
That's what the OP (me) wrote. How does this equate to saying "sensationalism wasn't bad if the message was accurate"? I was addressing "the basic point", not the sensationalism or the message as a whole.
-stormin
Yes it is, simply because sensationalism in and of itself is wrong. Selling an idea without providing concrete evidence for and against is classic car salesmanship in its essence.
Sounds like someone got carried away with a metaphor. The difference is that a car salesman is actually selling something for real: and getting money on false premises. The sensationalism here is not being used to sell a car. And it's not "blatant misinformation". Kids could get porn through the Wii. That doesn't mean you should burn your kids Wii, but parents should be aware of the capabilities of the toys their kids have.
Penny-Arcade did a similar story when some local affiliate did an expose on the fact that your kids can chat with anyone using a DS Lite. It was a sensationalist story, but it's worth trying to keep parents informed of the capacity of their kids toys so that they can make their parenting decisions accordingly.
The fundamental message of this is just: your kids can get online with a Wii. I want parents and *everyone* to know this so that we don't have more silly sue-MySpace type lawsuits when some kid manages to build a bomb online or hook up with a sex predator on a Wii.
It may be a little sensationalist, but the basic point is fine. "Guess what parents, kids can also access teh pr0nz0rz using the PSP, Wii, etc." If they were trying to get the Wii banned or something, that would be one thing, but just trying to help parents do their job (again, with a little extra sensationalism) is really no cause for controversy.
-stormin
"railroads are just the bright shiny ideal model of a succesful industry today aren't they?"
His whole point was the historical impact, smart ass. Railroads are not as important today as in the 1940s, but try fighting WW2 without them. Try building any seriously industrialized nation without a national railroad system. We may not need them as much now, but if they hadn't been around when we did we probably wouldn't have been able to industrialize to the extent where we could replace them (to some extent) with air traffic (another glorious model of market success, I know).
-stormin
As an interesting corollary to your fan/fanboy dichotomy, it may just be that extreme circumstances turn fans into fanboys. The worse Sony seems to be fairing (in the public eye if not in the pocket book - although possibly both) the more shrill the fans seem to get. It's like they have to raise their voices to cover the sound of Sony marketing blunders.
So it's quite possible that xbox360 / wii fans would act similarly obnoxiously if their respective consoles were doing as poorly. But the 360 seems a decent enough machine (I own one that was a gift and I'm not thrilled, but it's not bad either) and the Wii is doing fantastically. So the fans don't need to make extra noise
Just a thought.
-stormin
My only question is whether Sony pays you buy the word or by the hour. In either case - they should get their money back. Your fanboishness is so extreme it makes me like that over-priced behemoth even *less*. Whether I'm referring to the company or the console is your pick.
-stormin
"I do think you were short sighted in your dismissal of the website originally prompting this"
I think the real problem is that you think I dismissed an entire website. I didn't even "dismiss" an entire rant. I just pointed out what I felt were some rather glaring problems in it.
The South has a lot of issues with it. You can't be a Mormon in the Bible belt and not learn about religious intolerance. I just feel that there are productive and unproductive ways to go about it. Ranting and raving is not, I feel productive, nor is associating the negative parts of some of the people who live in the region with the entire region. Even during WW2 I would have thought "FUCK THE GERMANS" would have been a bit over-the-top, although "FUCK THE NAZIS" I would have gotten behind.
See what I mean? If you want to criticize Southern hypocrisy, do so. Don't just throw all of the South into the mix.
-stormin
As for controlling for income? Lets not go there.
Why not? If you're so sure the trend would hold, then please find the statistics. But a naive controlling for income would obviously reverse your findings (since standard of living is so much higher in places like NYC than most of the South). A more detailed controlling for income would have to compare income to relative cost of living or something, and would be interesting to see. Of course you have poor people in the North as well, but to act as though there are no economic disparities is silly. And since it's well-known the economic disparity can influence crime, it seems dishonest to say "let's not go there". I'm just stating that your statistics aren't very valid.
Also, judging me by 1 post on slashdot is rather amusing.
It only takes one intentional anti-semitic comment to find that someone hates Jews. It only takes one racist joke about blacks to see that someone hates blacks. I don't need to find some kind of subtle trend across numerous posts. When you come out and say you hate a certain class of person based on where they live I think that's pretty much bigotry regardless of whether you said it once or 100 times.
to try and claim that fuckthesouth has it all wrong is pretty out there
I only read the one rant. That's all I'm responding to.
You're vehemently pro-life, you bring religion into discussions of most things (from the page or two I read), etc.
I don't think being pro-life makes someone a fundie. There are atheist pro-lifers. In fact, the guy who influenced my pro-life stance more than anyone else *was* an atheist pro-lifer. And I'm not sure when I brought religion into stuff. I tend to keep that off my blog for the most part, unless I'm forgetting something.
-stormin
You can't blame Real Americans for getting pissed about it.
I'm sorry, Real Americans. Capitalized? Is that like a new club or something? Do you guys carry around cards or something?
I'm sorry but all Americans are "real" Americans in my mind. From the raving lunatic liberals to the raving lunatic conservatives and everyone in between. I'm well aware that if you had to reduce it to 1-d spectrum I'm farther to the right than I am to the left, but claiming to have a monopoly on American genuiness is just to trite to be taken seriously.
And so I shan't.
-stormin
I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point out that the South played a major role in the foundation of this country. That's not nitpicking - it gets to the heart of the point about what role the South played in the US. More US Presidents have come from my state - Virginia - than any other state in the nation. That's nitpicking?
Mostly, though, I'm just bemused at this new form of bigotry. "All of you fundies are from down there." Nevermind the fact that I'm obviously not a "fundie". They wouldn't have me if I asked. As far as the other statistics go: it's just too simplistic to bother retorting to. You're not controlling for income, education, or anything else that may be correlated with crime, adultery, etc. I also, for the record, don't really follow college athletics of any kind. I prefer pro-football, soccer, and rugby. But of course - that probably doesn't fit into your narrow conception of what to expect from a Southernor.
But I suppose it's a waste of time to point out that you're a caricature of the thigns you claim to hate: judgmental, prejudiced, and hateful.
Oh well. Carry on.
-stormin
Well, I was going to whole-heartedly endorse your post. I'm just waiting until I can buy one. And I still do endorse the post.
But my, that's an angry sig isn't? Why do we have to hate on the South? I don't hate on the North except when Northerners come down here and complain about the weather. Or about the fact that Richmond isn't as big as NYC. In particular, what's with the claim that the Founding Fathers were all northerners? What, Thomas Jefferson doesn't count? George Washington doesn't count? Need I go on?
Plus the small point of fact that the first permanent British settlement on the continent was, you know, Jamestown. In, you know, Virginia. Which is, you know, in the South.
Seriously - can't we just all get along? And play the Wii?
The absence of any moral justification for these pretend wars against real countries is worse than any polemic.
I just can't get worked up about this line of thought. It's just a repeating cycle. Star Trek: Klingons are bad. Movies 1 - 5. No, wait, really we just need to get to know them and understand they are people too. Movie 6. Crap, no we're out of villains. OK, now Romulans are bad. You get the picture.
Not every game can be an accurate reflection of the fact that all people are unique and individual snow flakes. I think it's generally better for a game to show that, but imagine what playing Call of Duty would be like if you had to watch the bio of every single German soldier you shot. It would actually probably be a very artsy and cool experiment, but not exactly a hoot to play through? I think it's not a great idea to weigh down all video games with a bunch of moral baggage and expect them all to accurately depict life. They are games. I think that they should either just have fun and not worry to much about philosophy, or actually deal with it insightfully. Either is OK with me. The only bad option is dealing with it badly.
Funny you mention Ender's Game, my first post originally referenced Card's Empire as an example of a real polemic that I still found enjoyable. Stupid beliefs and strawman characters don't necessarily result in boring plot and dumb dialog.
Which book is Empire? I thought I had read almost all of his books, but if it's a new one I haven't been keeping up. In any case, I guess we just have different tastes in books. Card gets extremely annoying when he gets preachy. He decided to turn the last Bean novel (Shadow of the Hegemon, I think? Or something like that) into a treatise about why homosexuality is bad and abortion is bad. Now I happen to believe both those things, more or less, but I still found his preachiness to detract horribly from his story telling.
Heinlein is another great example of this. Starting with Starship Troopers he began to insert increasing amounts of political dogma and philosophy into his books. When he handled it directly - as in Stranger in a Strange Land or The Moon is Harsh Mistress - it was great. When it became a side-track from the story (as in most of his other later novels) it started to really detract. I think Heinlein, like Card, managed to write decent books in spite of their preachiness, not because of it.
-stormin
How did you manage to get "24 is anti-Islamic" from my post?
It's just been in the news since the new series started. It wasn't in your post, I was assuming. So my mistake.
How did you manage to get "24 is anti-Islamic" from my post?
I don't even think that message is so obvious. Americans are up to some shady shenanigans in that show. But I don't think this is the kind of political message people had in mind. I mean really - does a game need to argue that terrorism is bad? That's like saying that a game which depicts murder as bad is pushing a philosophical agenda. Technically I suppose you could say that, but realistically everyone thinks that already and it's non-controversial.
I think what people are talking about is a video game that would push some specific agenda that's not universally accepted. Like, say, the idea that all capitalism is always evil and results in nothing but death and destruction as evil fat-cat tycoons grind the faces of poor innocent minorities into the dirt.
-stormin