| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
warspeakwarspeakPosted May 23, 2003 11:50 UTC (Fri) by sinister (guest, #10221)In reply to: warspeak by danielpf Parent article: The Open Group on UNIX trademark
The problem is that many of these old cliches take on entirely different meanings as time passes. Take the saying "close, but no cigar" for example. Once upon a time it meant exactly as it reads. It was based on the old "strongman" game wherein someone hit a lever with a sledgehammer that then knocked a slider up to ring a bell. If the bell rang, a cigar was awarded to the person ringing it. Now, however, it means anything that closely approximates something without ever reaching that stage. Such is the intent of the phrasing used in Open Group's writings. They used wording that carried certain connotations a one time, but which now are generally accepted to mean something else entirely. To suggest otherwise suggests more that the complainant is just seeking, and finding, reasons to be offended at something.
(Log in to post comments)
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 12:21 UTC (Fri) by fpahl (guest, #11409) [Link] Hey, I thought it said "Please try to be polite and respectful"somewhere. So I'm a hysterical pacifist with an inflamed mind and a delicately balanced chip on my shoulder who would be most at home listening to radio signals from outer space through the fillings in my teeth and am just seeking and finding reasons to be offended at something. Doesn't anyone here share my view? Isn't anyone else disturbed? Four brief points: felix.
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 13:54 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] I think the military analogy for business is longstanding. CEOs reading The Art of War and all that. I agree that it'd be nice to see less pervasive violence in our culture, but I don't think recent events are particularly to blame.As for snow: snow, flakes, blizzard, flurry, slush, powder, drift, sleet...
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 14:43 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Doesn't anyone here share my view? Isn't anyone else disturbed?No, frankly I'm a bit annoyed. I saw 11 postings on this article, and I thought "oh good, there's a discussion going on the UNIX trademark." So I click through and get this nonsense instead. You'll have to forgive me, but having spent a large part of my adult life on a college campus I have a very low tolerance for political correctness and the hysteria that accompanies it.
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 22:35 UTC (Fri) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link] > No, frankly I'm a bit annoyed. I saw 11 postings on this article, and I> thought "oh good, there's a discussion going on the UNIX trademark." So I > click through and get this nonsense instead. You'll have to forgive me, > but having spent a large part of my adult life on a college campus I have > a very low tolerance for political correctness and the hysteria that > accompanies it. So then why are you contributing to this nonsense with comments like that last sentence there? Get rid of it and you have a legitimate complaint. But put it in and... you become one of them. Too bad there's no "Offtopic" filter here, like on Linux Today.
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 15:14 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > c) I may be wrong, but I can't remember ever reading an article> on open software with such a density of military references > before the invasion of Iraq. Well, read the man page of kill(1) - you'll be astonished by a density of military terms there ;-) > d) I didn't take issue only with the metaphorical references, I really don't see how you managed to interpret the example in the original article as a "typical" use. When one wants to make a point, an _important_ example is selected, not necessarily the most probable one. And as to "normal and important" - yes, it's normal and important. Just as army and army service are. Or do you prefer _your_ army using Windows servers instead of Unix?
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 17:41 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Yes, felix, I share your view.It's widely acknowledged (in the Jargon File, for instance) It's also widely acknowledged (throughout the non-Murdoch It is not coincidental that these two countries are the When the public practise of religion, for instance, involves On the other hand, suppose that in another country the public In my experience religious people are a bit funny about this Jonathan
warspeak Posted May 23, 2003 21:58 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] On the other hand, suppose that in another country the public practice of religion prefers to read ancient texts which proclaim that a particular race is the chosen of God and the rightful inheritors of a particular piece of ground. It's then very easy for public figures to justify to the public massive military funding and consistent diplomatic support against all other countries of a state which promotes itself as embodying that race.I assume that you are referring to the nation of Israel, although what this has to do with the UNIX trademark I've absolutley no idea. What's even less clear is who the public figures who are providing "consistent diplomatic support against all other countries..." are. Certainly not George Bush; he's the first U.S. president to openly support a two state "solution." This seems doomed to failure -- Jews and Arabs have been enemies for 4000 years, and I don't think a U.S. president has much chance of changing this. The Israeli/Arab conflict is a graveyard of political careers. Where did I put my asbestos suit?... If you're looking to start a flamewar, you'd be better of trolling at slashdot. The only out-and-out flamewar at LWN was that Mozilla thing about a week ago.
|
|
||||||||||||