https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

NaNoWriMos just wanna have fun

I consulted with my primary advisor (+Margie Kleerup) about my NaNoWriMo dilemma (what to do, what to do), and she strongly urged me to do something fun.

So, booyah, fun!

Welcome to the first volume of The Scarlet Throne: "Heir Apparent," a space opera full of politics, aliens, flashing swords, swooshing starships, and the throne of a galactic Empire hanging in the balance.

I'm not quite having fun yet, but I've enjoyed doing some worldbuilding. And the fun will, I suspect, come.

(Those with a hankering to make me a writing buddy on NaNoWriMo can track me down there as Three_Star_Dave.)

(Flash Gordon art by Ty Romsa)

#nanowrimo

 

View on Google+

Oh, wait, what, NaNoWriMo?

Yes, it's Day 1 of National Novel Writing Month, and I am (a) 1 day behind already, and (b) really unsure of what the frell I'm doing this year.

#nt




Wait, what, it’s NaNoWriMo time?
I don’t think I’ve ever been as unprepared for National Novel Writing Month as this year. My current unemployment status has me way off-kilter, mentally and emotionally (yes, boo-hoo, s…

View on Google+

Words Mean Things (Civil War Edition)

Language evolves and changes. Words get worn down over time, or drift and find new meanings. Old word stop meaning what they used to. Or sometimes our understanding of words changes, and what was acceptable becomes fraught, for reasons serious or silly.

That said, I'm always a bit leery of intentional efforts to change the language. And when someone suggests it as reflecting a less biased way of using the language, even as they are changing the emotional content of the words to something that conveys an intentionally different (and more vivid) message … red flags start waving in my brain.

Prof. Landis' proposals here may be where the historic / academic language is headed, but I'm not sure I buy it at this point.

For example, I don't find "slave-owner" to be "legitimizing" anything; swapping it out for "enslaver" feels like it is describing something different — a more active role in something that may have been simply a horrid status quo. Passively owning and profiting from slaves may not be any more morally defensible than actively managing and acquiring them, but there seems to me to be a difference between someone who purchases — directly or indirectly — a human being who is already a slave, and someone who brings someone into slavery, the latter of which is what properly an "enslaver" (or even just "slaver") is.

One could argue that turning the newborn of slaves into slaves themselves was active enslavement. But I think it makes the horrifying institution of human chattel slavery into something different than what it was.

Similarly, calling plantations "slave labor camps" doesn't feel like precisely the same thing as, say, the slave labor camps of the Third Reich (where the labor was rented out to a variety of owners but still retained in centralized prisons, as opposed to being owned and housed and used to purpose by a particular owner). That doesn't mean they were any better, to be sure, but the distinction seems a worthwhile one. If "plantation" has associations that feel dismayingly romantic and innocent, perhaps it's better to remind folk of the foulness that underlay the stately colonnaded mansions, like vermin under a rock, not to change the word being used.

Indeed, it seems to me that rather than simply discarding the words through some sort of academic diktat, it would be better to draw comparisons and change the imagery associated with the disapproved words. What did it mean to be a slave-owner, and how did that role contribute to the perpetuation of human misery and torment? What comparisons can properly be made between the lives of the slaves of the antebellum southern plantations and what we would call their circumstances today? Use the words that were given at the time (and have been carried forward), but improve the accuracy of the factual and emotional implications of them, rather than seek out new and intentionally emotion-laden terms in their stead.

Changing language intentionally sometimes results in greater accuracy, but too often is used ideologically to advance an agenda. Better to illuminate and educate and let the implications of the truth behind the words come out, rather than roughshod try and mandate the correctly nuanced words to use. That may be a more difficult and less controllable process, but it avoids Orwellian implications that academics should, frankly, shun rather than embrace.




These Are Words Scholars Should No Longer Use to Describe Slavery and the Civil War

View on Google+

Great Scott!

A look at the origin of Doc Brown's favorite phrase (and a video compilation of every time he said it).




Great Scott! Who Was Scott? The Origin of Doc Brown’s Favorite Phrase, Explained.
Today is Back to the Future Day, the day when we finally reach the precise date of Back to the Future II, survey the fact that we got memes instead of hoverboards, and utter Doc Brown’s favorite exclamation: “Great Scott!” But who was Scott?

View on Google+

On giving negative feedback cross-culturally

Having dealt with both Brits and Dutch (as peers, managers, and subordinates), there's a lot of truth in this article. I would suggest people working cross-culturally give it a look.




How To Say “This Is Crap” In Different Cultures
Different cultures qualify feedback differently.

View on Google+

Grammatical Voices

Because it's important to know the right way to say something.

Originally shared by +Writers Write:

Grammatical Voice
http://bit.ly/1jHHsCp

 

View on Google+

Neo-Grammar

Heh.

Originally shared by +Grammarly.com:

Have a great weekend, everyone!

 

View on Google+

How McDonald's changed the English language

According to this article …

http://logophilius.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-mcdonalds-marketing-made-us-grimace.html

… until the early/mid-1970s, "grimace" was pronounced "grih-MAYS" (rhymes with "face"). But when McDonald's introduced "The Evil Grimace" to their McDonaldLand commercials, they chose to pronounce it "GRIM-miss" — which pronunciation stuck (probably given the fact that it's not a word that's spoken aloud very often).

[http://mcdonalds.wikia.com/wiki/Grimace]

And, yes, it was the "Evil Grimace" originally (for drink-stealing values of evil), and he had an extra set of arms. Just like the Hamburglar was scarier looking when first introduced, too.

View on Google+

"What do they want us to use? Harsh language?"

When it comes to scientific-style papers, there's a significant difference in tone and language choice between folk who support the science of climate change and those who don't. Unfortunately, the latter tends to be more approachable, emotional, and vehement in its message.

Scientific detachment is great for actual scientific debates, but it doesn't play well with casual readers or the media.




Climate scientists write tentatively; their opponents are certain they’re wrong
Careful language contradicts accusations of alarmism in climate science.

View on Google+

Scripting "The Martian"

Here's a faboo interview with Drew Goddard, the screenwriter (and, at one point, the planned director) for "The Martian" about the process of turning the excellent novel into an excellent screenplay. He hits on a lot of the decision points I noted in changing the story the movie (and which, by and large, I agree with).

Originally shared by +Kate Testerman:

Spoilers galore, but very interesting if you've read both the book and seen the movie.




How “The Martian” Went From A Best-Selling Novel To A Blockbuster Film
Screenwriter Drew Goddard explains to BuzzFeed News how he transformed Andy Weir’s beloved book into a script, all the painful cuts and MAJOR SPOILERS ahead!

View on Google+

Looking for a gender-neutral "unmanned" alternative for space flight

Since we've culturally decided that "man" no longer serves as a contemporary synonym for "humanity," the term "unmanned" almost certainly needs to be retired — but apparently that's kind of complicated.

The best, most accurate alternative I see from this article is "uncrewed," which is precise, non-gendered, and similar enough to "unmanned" to sound correct. The problem is that NASA won't use it because it "isn't in the dictionary."

Which is an odd restriction for an agency dedicated to exploring the unknown, if you think about it.

Hey, NASA, to paraphrase another aspirational source, "If you use it, the dictionaries will come." Words don't get put into the dictionary through a permission process. They get put in because they are being used. Use "uncrewed" and the dictionaries will pick it up quickly. Problem solved.

(I do fully agree with +J. Steven York that we should avoid "unstaffed".)




Finding new language for space missions that fly without humans
Historically, human spaceflight was described using the words

View on Google+

Of the F-Bomb and Personal Vocabulary Kinks

It is perhaps a sign of my long years that I do not comfortably use that particular four-letter word. Growing up, that was the nuclear option of vocabulary, the worst possible word one could use. The "F" word trumped even the "S" word, being not only an obscenity but related to (ssshhhh!) sex.

What's remarkable to me, at least, is how commonplace the word has gotten. I haven't heard it from the pulpit or the pundit show or the politician's podium or on prime time network TV yet, but I suspect that will all come in time. And, not unexpectedly, with its widening usage, its become progressively diluted — it's no longer a fighting word, but a (strong) intensifier.

Still, it sets off little alarms in my head for me to actually consider using it in a number of contexts. A post the other day gave me pause (https://plus.google.com/+DaveHill47/posts/ZxheroLTrKz), as it used That Word (as a gerund). When it comes to my blogging, my first reaction is "Hey, my daughter reads this," followed by "Hey, my mother reads this."

(And, yes, I know that both my daughter (at 15) and my mother are well aware of the word, hear the word frequently, and are probably largely, culturally, immune to it — though I don't believe I have ever heard either of them use it in front of me.)

So I told my daughter last night, re that post, "Hey, there was something funny I wanted to show you, but you have to read it because I'm not going to say it aloud," and, after looking at it, she said, "Yeah, I saw that before, it's funny, I have a copy of it saved on my phone."

Kids.

There have been a number of humorous things over the years I've declined to share / repost (or do so publicly) because of that word. It still strikes me as not-quite-right to use in casual, public conversation.

On the other hand, when it comes to creative writing, I have no apprehension about using it as an intensifier, or to characterize individuals (as coarse, angry, or both). And, to be honest, it is a word I have been known to utter aloud on occasions. Usually loudly. Sometimes repeatedly. Often various grammatical forms. Most frequently involving mishaps with tools, household repairs, or whilst driving.

And it does sometimes slip into my day-to-day speech or writing amongst friends — a WTF here and there, a use as an intensifier, or quoting Samuel L Jackson about airborne herpetological infestations, etc. It happens, but not if I think about it (or, if I think about it, then it's very careful and intentional).

The funny thing is, though I find my own use restrained by some inner governor, I really don't take it amiss when others use it (except insofar as I feel comfortable reposting what they said). I'm sure there are outer bounds for that, but if someone says, "That's fucked" or "I told him to fuck off" or something like that — well, that's their speaking style, I do it on occasion, too, and that's what makes human conversation interesting.

As part of this personal contemplation (which is really meant as a discussion of my own verbal quirks than a jeremiad against people these days having potty mouths), I looked up George Carlin's list of "Words you can't use on television" routine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words). "Fuck" is on the list, of course. It's interesting which words / terms remain more taboo than others. Some can be heard on TV these days pretty frequently, and not just on HBO.

Also interesting is the nature of how what words are acceptable has changed. Body function / body part words seem more acceptable now, but words used as pejoratives, as intentional insults, especially about Other groups, are not. The one word that doesn't show up on that list that is more taboo than it was in 1972, and because of that pejorative sense, is the "N" word — which I will write out as an example when it comes up, but not casually, just because it is generally used in a directly and historically hurtful and denigrating fashion.

Another word along those lines — a four letter word on Carlin's list — is one of the few flags that will get me to block someone when used in a pejorative sense (as it nearly always is). Not because it (or any other word) is bad per se, but because the misogynistic sentiment with which it is almost always used is so vile that, honestly, I don't feel the need to be exposed to someone who'd use it that way.

Words are words. The sentiment behind the words is more meaningful than the phonemes, or even the definition.

(It's interesting, if only to me, where in writing this I feel comfortable using words, where I prefer to use quaint circumlocutions around initials, and where I choose not to use the word at all.)

At any rate, there you go. Unlike Captain America, I don't necessarily want people to "watch their language" (except that being aware of one's language is useful part of language usage). It was just a thought that bubbled up to the surface about they ways in which I watch my language, and how that differs (for reasons I don't assume are morally bad) from others around me.

And, yes, I expect to get teased unmercifully by close friends and family about this, in general, or next time I utter something they can point to as a "naughty word." And, yes, I expect some descendant of mine to look at this and marvel at how stuck-up and repressed Great-Grandpa Dave was. We are all children of our times and culture and subculture and family, though. And self-awareness of that is worthwhile.

 

View on Google+

He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken (Correctly)

And here's something to throw into the next nerdly conversation you're having to create a bit of geek-raging controversy: J. K. Rowling confirms that the name of her main baddy in the Harry Potter books — Voldemort — is pronounced with the "t" silent, as the French might (and, in fact, apparently do).

For whatever reason, the movies pronounced it with an audible "t" at the end, which established that version as what most folk use, changing even how the audiobooks were being recorded.

Meanwhile, http://goo.gl/XAdGg .




J.K. Rowling says we’ve been pronouncing Voldemort’s name wrong
J.K. Rowling has revealed on Twitter that she pronounces “Voldemort” differently to most of us.

View on Google+

Of all the sins of "Arrow"

I can critique it for its force-grown interpersonal conflicts. I can slam it for fight choreography that depends way too much on high misses. I can express frustration over how everyone turns to the most nonsensical secret-keeping answer to every difficult situation. I can roll my eyes at the soap opera tropes that would have been right at home on All My Children. I can —

— well, I can forgive it everything except this: that R'as al-Ghul's name is pronounced, not incorrectly, but inconsistently.

[Note: I am halfway through watching S.3. No spoilers, please.]

The name means "Head of the Demon" in Arabic. Properly[] the first part of the name is pronounced "Raysh". And some of the characters do just that.

Others pronounce it "Rass" or "Rahs". Which is incorrect[], but frequently encountered in the general population (and in a lot of media).

But when two people in the same conversation are pronouncing it in two different ways … it just makes me tear my hair out. People don't do that. They'd say, "Oh, is that how you pronounce it?" Or get into an argument or duel over the authoritative way the name of the leader of the Assassin's Guild should be pronounced. Or something. It makes no sense.[**]

Yes, I know, it's a trivial thing to get irked at. But, hey, that's what geekery and nerditude are all about.

[] I believe that "Raysh" is correct. Wikipedia agrees with me. http://www.comicvine.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/how-to-pronounce-ras-al-ghul-657604/ does not, at least somewhat.

[*] https://www.reddit.com/r/arrow/comments/2r29by/no_spoilers_whats_with_the_inconsistent/ is another good discussion of the question, with some very interesting citations going back to Denny O'Neil, who created the character.

The article mentions that the producers have been asked this question and have stated the dual pronunciation is done intentionally, both in a meta fashion (since fandom disagrees about it) and in an in-story fashion (the people who say "Raysh" are League insiders, the ones who say "Rass" aren't).

That's clever, except (a) Merlyn, a former League member, very clearly says "Rass," and (b) plenty of people are still having those conversations with mixed pronunciations, and someone would say something. That's where my frustration lies.

See also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO7_cTXSps8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqwx2XFb1fQ

 

View on Google+

How our body language affects others — and ourselves

We watched this 2012 TED talk by Amy Cuddy at the outplacement meeting I was at today, and it was fascinating, tying into a lot of other research I've read (about how intentionally smiling can relieve stress, or how crossing your ankles raises your blood pressure). The suggestions about actually assuming power poses as a part of going into a stressful encounter is … well, something I'll certainly bear in mind.

It was also, unexpectedly, inspirational.

Worth a watch.

View on Google+

Love the tune, but I can’t quite catch the words

Italian singer Adriano Celentano's catchy 1972 "Prisencolinensinainciusol" is meant to sound like English (from an Italian perspective), but it not actual words, just a gibberish of English phonemes (with a possible occasional "All right!").

It's remarkable, though, how my brain keeps trying to make sense of it all.

(h/t +Boing Boing)

View on Google+

The campaign against "midget"

So this was an interesting article about an effort by "Little People of America" to change the nomenclature the USDA uses about raisin classification from using the term "midget." And the article notes:

The term is offensive to little people, who view it as a slur. They won’t even say it. They call it “the M-word.” […] Little people are trying to eliminate the word from the English lexicon. When they find it in use, they ask for it to be changed. For instance, in February 2013, Gedney Foods, the maker of Cains pickles, agreed to change the name of its “Kosher Dill Midgets” after receiving a complaint.

There is a USDA grade standard for “midget pickles,” too. And some companies make “midget pretzels.” Both terms are on the advocacy group’s radar. So are schools that use “midgets” as their mascots. The Washington Post pulled a Pearls Before Swine comic strip in April 2014 because it used the word.

“We’re trying to eliminate the word whenever used,” Smith said. “Words have an impact on how we think and what we do.”

So I feel … conflicted about this.

On the one hand, I want to respect people who find a term personally degrading. I would not cavil at someone wanting to remove the use of "Nigger" (or "Kike" or "Wop" or "Wetback") from, say, a government classification.

On the other hand, the word "midget" is widely used in a variety of contexts, and if we posit that it should not be applied to Little People (defined, organizationally, as folk 4'10" (say 140 cm) or shorter), that doesn't mean that any use of the word is somehow illegitimate or offensive, just, at most, evocative of a now-unacceptable epithet..

To use a fuzzily applicable equivalency, declining to refer to Germans as "krauts" doesn't mean that we should stop calling pickled cabbage applied to hot dogs as "kraut".

I dunno. I don't really know or fully appreciate how negative or hurtful a word "midget" is. I know that when I've used it, it's never been meant to evoke little people (let alone in a disparaging fashion), but just as a synonym for a "small" or "miniature" version of something. It no more evokes little people (for me) than the words "small" or "miniature".

I confess i get a bit hinky, in an Orwellian sense, when folk talk about eliminating the use of words, for whatever reason. I certainly don't want people to feel degraded by a word that is broadly used for a variety of things — but I am also reluctant to eliminate a word from the language solely because a group of people have decided it is offensive (or, if you will, have found the word being offensively applied to them).




USDA to stop referring to small raisins as ‘midgets’
Little People of America asked the government to stop calling raisins “midgets.”

View on Google+

On The Proper Reading of Spells

Actually ran into a similar situation just yesterday, though in that case it was about handwritten email addresses.

Originally shared by +John Hattan:

 

View on Google+

Where the Orks Are

It's possible to make Orks (or Orcs, or however your copyright lawyer advises you to spell it) something a bit more interesting than either Tolkien or Gygax did. And that's probably a good thing, depending on what kind of campaign / novel you're crafting.

(See also: mob goons, tong thugs, Nazi guards, security bots, pretty much anything that rhymes with "cannon fodder" for your protagonists on the way to the Boss Fight.)




What the Orks Want
Do the Orks have a greater reason for their existence? Or, are they merely story filler like so many fantasy packing peanuts surrounding the nugget of the interesting stuff?

View on Google+

Wait … is that right?

This happens to me with annoying regularity. I'm sure there's a scientific name for the phenomenon.

Originally shared by +Grammarly.com:

I hate it when this happens.

 

View on Google+