quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Only if you sign all of your documents as such
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think the only problem I have with TV Tropes abusing that word to come up with a new term, Blayne, is that the word "anthropic" means something specific. It is an actual philosophical principle already, so reusing the name to apply it more broadly -- and somewhat metaphorically -- seems obnoxious to me. I'd be perfectly okay with calling it something like the Diagetic Principle.
Something means something already so it can't be used for something else but still kinda similar do colour me surprised that I've never heard of such a rule before, oh right. Because it doesn't exist.
"Anthropic" seems to mean: "Of or pertaining to mankind or humans, or the period of humanity's existence" This seems sufficiently vague to be delegated down to things crafted by human hands or to existence in general.
quote: Blayne, which is more important to you: that you get to use TV tropes without explanation as part of incredibly smug posts, or that people stop making fun of you? Cause you seriously do not get to have both.
Serious question. There are things I do that I get made fun of for and I accept those consequences happily. Some things are worth being made fun of for. Just be aware of what you actually value.
I don't see why I should need to bow down to such a absurd dihictomy. Two groups of people encounter a concept, one gets there first and sees it as blue. Group two sees it later and accepts it as blue, but later decide that it could also be purple.
The first group is right in claiming "Huh, isn't it supposed to be blue?" And this version of reality to them is true, as group 2 must concede and agree that it can be blue as it is the original and verifiable meaning; but group 1 likewise cannot deny that group 2 can see it as purple so long as they agree that purple is similar to blue.
IP: Logged |
quote: he first group is right in claiming "Huh, isn't it supposed to be blue?" And this version of reality to them is true, as group 2 must concede and agree that it can be blue as it is the original and verifiable meaning; but group 1 likewise cannot deny that group 2 can see it as purple so long as they agree that purple is similar to blue.
Why is there no crosseyed emoticon? There should be, for moments like this.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Two groups of people encounter a concept, one gets there first and sees it as blue. Group two sees it later and accepts it as blue, but later decide that it could also be purple.
The first group is right in claiming "Huh, isn't it supposed to be blue?" And this version of reality to them is true, as group 2 must concede and agree that it can be blue as it is the original and verifiable meaning; but group 1 likewise cannot deny that group 2 can see it as purple so long as they agree that purple is similar to blue.
You're close to something I'd agree with. If you mean "blue" as a descriptive term for some sensation of blueness, then I don't care if other people have different words for that sensation of blueness. In my studies, I'm quite used to authors using terms which have very different meanings to other authors. I don't worry about which term is correct, I care about how it's used. If I know what the author means with a term, I don't care what term they use. You know, the whole "rose by any other name" shebang.
The problem I have with your example is if another group comes forward and describes something I call "blue" as "purple," I'm going to be confused. When I use "purple," it is in reference to something that provides the sensation of purpleness. If someone describes something as "purple" but is just their term for blueness, that's fine. But I need to know that what they mean by "purple" is exactly what I mean by "blue."
If, on the other hand, when they say purple, it is because to them the object evokes purpleness, I am not forced to concede their term. I do not need to accept their perception of reality. Nor do I need to concede that purpleness is similar to blueness. I might (and probably would) concede the issue because I don't care about the difference, but there's nothing in the example that puts a constraint on what I can plausibly accept.
Likewise, I don't think that the other group would need to accept that it can be blue. If they perceive the object as something which creates the sensation of purpleness, they don't need to accept the "original and verifiable meaning." The original meaning does not pertain to their experience, and they may contest the claim of the "blue-sayers."
I think I became more confusing than I intended to be, so I'll just stop while I'm behind.
ETA:
I agree with OSC's perspective on The Avengers. I also share his concern that studios will get the wrong message about its success and make movies that have The Avenger's shortcomings without its redeeming qualities.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's as if Card didn't really like anything about the film other than the humor yet couldn't bring himself to call it a bad film given the its tremendous popularity. He goes on and on in the review about its negative qualities and his "BUT..." isn't strong enough to convince the reader that the film adequately overcomes those negative qualities. It's obvious he thinks it was a stupid movie, why doesn't he just call it as he sees it?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The *right* thing about The Avengers it that it will hopefully encourage Studio's to experiment with more intramovie continuality. If audiences really liked say an action movie with 2 characters in it, maybe if they decide to make a Romantic Comedy they can win over part of the action movie audience by having a cross over, maybe it's the brother of the character, or maybe the side kick who was a dark horse character etc.
Heck Spielberg is making a movie about Moses apparantly, wouldn't it be cool if the Arc of the Covenant there would be the same arc as in Indiana Jones? Then it becomes a prequel even if its entirely unrelated.
The possibilities are endless, it could be abused sure. But I feel the gain outweighs the cons.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The *right* thing about The Avengers it that it will hopefully encourage Studio's to experiment with more intramovie continuality. If audiences really liked say an action movie with 2 characters in it, maybe if they decide to make a Romantic Comedy they can win over part of the action movie audience by having a cross over, maybe it's the brother of the character, or maybe the side kick who was a dark horse character etc.
Heck Spielberg is making a movie about Moses apparantly, wouldn't it be cool if the Arc of the Covenant there would be the same arc as in Indiana Jones? Then it becomes a prequel even if its entirely unrelated.
The possibilities are endless, it could be abused sure. But I feel the gain outweighs the cons.
When my brother and I talked about the issue after seeing the movie, he came up with the idea of a cross-over where Harry Potter teams up with Batman to take on Sauron.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: An arc is a part of a circle. An ark is a box.
Blayne was referring to the lesser known event, when King Solomon had the Covenant launched by catapult to an undisclosed location for its own safety.
Blayne's suggestion, then, is that Spielberg include this hidden gem of history, and insinuate that the Covenant then lay in this location until 1936.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're an unmarried man, that's your correct title (‘Master’, not Scott’s thing). Admittedly the consensus on what's appropriate has fragmented in the last 100 years or so if there ever was a strong consensus to begin with. But if there's a plurality opinion that would be it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Only if you agree to call me "The Doctor Professor Rabbit". Bowing your head and genuflecting in my presence are considered appropriate thought not obligatory.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
Only if you agree to call me "The Doctor Professor Rabbit". Bowing your head and genuflecting in my presence are considered appropriate thought not obligatory.
quote:When my brother and I talked about the issue after seeing the movie, he came up with the idea of a cross-over where Harry Potter teams up with Batman to take on Sauron.
If you're going to cross universes, why do it to defeat a villian whose already been beat? Why not defeat Bella?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: had the Covenant launched by catapult
>_<
"The Covenant" is not an object that can be launched.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
And you're still insultingly pretentious, but no surprise that it comes from you, or that you need to resort to a condescending tone lacking in substance.
And yes, it was a typo I meant "ark" whatever man.
IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, since Dan didn't say what kind of catapault it was, perhaps you shouldn't be so hasty, hmm?
Maybe it was a conceptual catapult, able to catapault ideas and concepts and thoughts, how do you know? Sheesh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooh, I like that Rakeesh. The arc of the Covenant was not a literal arc, it was the plot arc that took the Covenant from Moses to Solomon to Indiana Jones.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
And you're still insultingly pretentious, but no surprise that it comes from you, or that you need to resort to a condescending tone lacking in substance.
It's too bad 'pretentious' isn't a topic over at tv tropes, so that you'd know what it means.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I get my masters in a year, can I make you all call me Master Lyrhawn?
The awkward period between the Masters and PhD can be difficult on family and friends, but I've found that with enough reminders, "Master" becomes pretty much a new first name.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: אני תוהה כמה טוב גוגל נמצאת לתרגם עברית
I think I figured out what you meant to say, but the grammar is all twisted. Certainly Google won't know how to translate a word that can mean two things.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just reading Gavin Hood's Wikipedia page and found this:
quote: Gavin talked about the political undertones of the new Wolverine movie; "Any movie that is simply about good versus evil...is in my view putting out into the world and certainly into a mass audience and young audience's mind a rather dangerous philosophy, which is that there is good and evil in the simplistic and easily defined way... I think that for the last eight years, we've had that philosophy very much prevalent in the Bush administration that if you're on the side of good, at least as you perceive it, then you can do no evil.
I hope politics don't get brought up on the set while OSC is around. Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I figured out what you meant to say, but the grammar is all twisted. Certainly Google won't know how to translate a word that can mean two things.
What I had it translate was (I think): "I wonder how good google is at translating Hebrew"
In the context of a sentence that sort of thing (words that mean two things) can often be determined with some heuristic rules. I have no idea whether google employs such things. A simple dictionary based word substitution translator isn't very impressive. As someone who is mono-lingual, I can never know how well it did at a translation.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Ah, blayne's haughty defense of all things TV tropes. How novel.
And you're still insultingly pretentious, but no surprise that it comes from you, or that you need to resort to a condescending tone lacking in substance.
It's too bad 'pretentious' isn't a topic over at tv tropes, so that you'd know what it means.
Pretending your better than someone else because of rather arbitrary standards is pretty much the definition.
IP: Logged |
quote:When my brother and I talked about the issue after seeing the movie, he came up with the idea of a cross-over where Harry Potter teams up with Batman to take on Sauron.
If you're going to cross universes, why do it to defeat a villian whose already been beat? Why not defeat Bella?
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: In the context of a sentence that sort of thing (words that mean two things) can often be determined with some heuristic rules.
In my experience, Google Translate fails rather spectacularly at that -- at least with Hebrew and Spanish, the two languages (besides English) that I can read well enough to tell if a translation is any good.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Czech is surprisingly good, considering the inherent difficulties. I would class it as better than the Spanish to English. Particularly in translating Czech into English, google is stunning at times. Partly this is helped by Czech having a larger common-use lexis than most languages, including Spanish.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Japanese is virtually impossible to google translate, even simple sentences.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
For example the above sentence:
quote: 日本人は、Google翻訳でも、簡単な文章には事実上不ࡤ 7;能です。
quote: Nihonjin wa, gūguru hon'yaku demo, kantan'na bunshō ni wa jijitsujō fukanōdesu.
1- It's not supposed to space it out like that. 2- Its translated "Japanese (language)" as "Japanese (people)" 3- I don't even.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
