Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> [And wondering 
>> why I just wasted several months of my life reading such an utterly 
>> horrid book!]
> 
>   Exactly how fast do you read? One word per minute?-o

A few pages, once every few days. Otherwise yuh, that would be pretty 
damn slow! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> You know, I'm not sure I can explain it any better than I already have. 
> If someone says "Here comes with Wicked Witch" when they see your boss 
> walking towards them, that conveys an opinion of your boss. Whistling 
> the theme song (which, in the movie, plays every time the Wicked Witch 
> approaches) also conveys the same thought. But you wouldn't understand 
> either meaning without culture behind it.

Mmm, OK...

I doubt you can learn such things just from reading books though. More 
like going out and actually talking to people...

>>> If you haven't read any Shakespeare, how would you know?
>> Who says I haven't read any Shakespeare?
> 
> Sorry. You didn't.

I didn't read any Shakespeare? Now what on earth makes you think that?

> In any case, that's what it's supposed to do. If some time in your life, 
> someone tells you not to hire some particular lawyer because he's a real 
> shylock, you'll know what it means.

Actually, considering Shylock's character, I'm not 100% sure I know what 
they're trying to imply.

> Of course, there are fewer references to Shakespeare and various operas 
> and such than there are to popular movies, but the movie references will 
> probably not outlive the Shakespeare references either.  I mean, what do 
> you hear more, "Romeo and Juliet" or "Tony and Maria"?

Hell, I haven't heard of that latter one *now*! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Wait... The WWW had a *theme*??
> 
>   It never ceases to amaze my why you are so eager to shout about your
> ignorance about things.

It never ceases to amaze me how you like to remind me what a stupid 
ignorant fool I am at every possible opportunity.

[Or that not knowing fact X qualifies somebody as "ignorant". As if 
there's some magical set of facts that all human beings are innantely 
expected to know...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> "Tax on stupidity" = lottery.  Or on "people who can't do math". :-)

Not really true.

Here's lottery number one:

You give me $1, and I give you a 1/100 chance you will win a $1,000,000 
dollars. Do you take the bet?

Here's lottery number two:

You give me a $1,000,000 dollars, and I give you a 1/100 chance you will 
win $1,000,000,000,000. Do you take the bet?

It's the same expected outcome, you'll note.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> A few pages, once every few days. Otherwise yuh, that would be pretty 
> damn slow! ;-)

For the most part, it's probably pretty difficult to understand a book 
like Alice in Wonderland if you read it that slowly. It's like trying to 
be frightened by a horror movie you only watch for five minutes a day.

And, of course, it helps if you *already* understand some culture so you 
can understand what the symbolism in Alice is actually referring to also.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I doubt you can learn such things just from reading books though. More 
> like going out and actually talking to people...

There's some of that invovled too, yes. ;-)

>>>> If you haven't read any Shakespeare, how would you know?
>>> Who says I haven't read any Shakespeare?
>>
>> Sorry. You didn't.
> 
> I didn't read any Shakespeare? Now what on earth makes you think that?

Sorry.  You didn't say you hadn't read any Shakespeare. Erf.

> Hell, I haven't heard of that latter one *now*! ;-)

That's kind of my point. Look up West Side Story.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> A few pages, once every few days. Otherwise yuh, that would be pretty 
>> damn slow! ;-)
> 
> For the most part, it's probably pretty difficult to understand a book 
> like Alice in Wonderland if you read it that slowly. It's like trying to 
> be frightened by a horror movie you only watch for five minutes a day.
> 
> And, of course, it helps if you *already* understand some culture so you 
> can understand what the symbolism in Alice is actually referring to also.

I have also watched various films of it. Which also completely failed to 
make any senblance of sense.

[Although I think possibly Dune exceeds it in outright 
incomprehensibility...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> I knew that Newtons and kiloponds both measure the same thing (force), 
> 
>> FWIW, I never even *heard* of a "pond" as a unit of measure.
> 
>   Seems like Andrew is not the only one who hasn't read his literature. :P

I never claimed to be widely read. :-) Sadly, by the time I figured out 
why the heck the teachers wanted me reading all that crap, it was too 
late - I'd already graduated.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I doubt you can learn such things just from reading books though. More 
>> like going out and actually talking to people...
> 
> There's some of that invovled too, yes. ;-)

It strikes me that the thing about "culture" is that it is entirely 
dependent on who you hang out with.

(Somebody around the POV-Ray server not knowing what the word "algebra" 
means would get some fairly strange looks. Walk around on the street and 
it's a different story. Now go read Questionable Content and try to 
figure out some of the more obscure references. I just checked with an 
emo kid I know who's dating an indie boy and *she* said it was obscure!)

>>>> Who says I haven't read any Shakespeare?
>>>
>>> Sorry. You didn't.
>>
>> I didn't read any Shakespeare? Now what on earth makes you think that?
> 
> Sorry.  You didn't say you hadn't read any Shakespeare. Erf.

Not only have I *read* several Shakespeare plays, as part of our 
education we were forced to *perform* part of one. [Not Romeo & Juliet, 
mercifully. It was a school for boys, after all...]

I played Shylock.

Best thing about performing Shakespeare: If you make a mistake, nobody 
in the audience will ever know. They can't understand a word you're 
saying, AND THEY DON'T CARE ANYWAY. Really reduces the pressure! ;-)

And next year, I happened to be visiting the school, and they told me 
that Macbeth had just been expelled from the school. Guess who played 
Macbeth's character that year?

And the year after that?

Jesus I'm a sap... :-S

>> Hell, I haven't heard of that latter one *now*! ;-)
> 
> That's kind of my point. Look up West Side Story.

And I'm agreeing. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I have also watched various films of it. Which also completely failed to 
> make any senblance of sense.

Well, no, they aren't going to make sense at all.

Me, I thought the Cyberiad (Stanislaw Lem) was truly wonderful for a 
bizarre book, as well as being fairly deep in many ways. (Not too many 
references to it in culture, mind.)   What amazes me more is that it was 
originally in Polish and translated to English.  (Altho you'd have to 
read it to understand why that's amazing - amazing writing, and an 
amazing translation.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:19:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "Tax on stupidity" = lottery.  Or on "people who can't do math". :-)
> 
> Not really true.
> 
> Here's lottery number one:
> 
> You give me $1, and I give you a 1/100 chance you will win a $1,000,000
> dollars. Do you take the bet?
> 
> Here's lottery number two:
> 
> You give me a $1,000,000 dollars, and I give you a 1/100 chance you will
> win $1,000,000,000,000. Do you take the bet?
> 
> It's the same expected outcome, you'll note.

I meant for lotteries like the Minnesota State Lottery, or Powerball.

Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:03:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

> You must know how it looks when you do that constantly, yet you keep
> doing it again and again.

No moreso than you must know how it looks when you behave like this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Wait... The WWW had a *theme*??
> > 
> >   It never ceases to amaze my why you are so eager to shout about your
> > ignorance about things.

> It never ceases to amaze me how you like to remind me what a stupid 
> ignorant fool I am at every possible opportunity.

  I would have had quite many opportunities to comment on your posts,
but I promised I would stop that. This time I just couldn't resist.

  Besides, when I used the word "ignorant" I used it to mean "doesn't
know things". The negative connotations are your own interpretation.

> [Or that not knowing fact X qualifies somebody as "ignorant". As if 
> there's some magical set of facts that all human beings are innantely 
> expected to know...]

  As I said in the part which you didn't quote, I was not talking about
what you do and don't know, but about your constant eagerness to show your
ignorance.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It strikes me that the thing about "culture" is that it is entirely 
> dependent on who you hang out with.

Ummmm, yes?   <Darren> fighting the urge to say "Duh!" </Darren>

;-)

Seriously, that's kind of what culture *is*.  That's why people talk 
about "Western culture" and "Pop culture" and "Asian culture" and so on. 
The thing about reading "literature" is that lots of different cultures 
(both in time and space) have read the same literature, so it gives you 
  a common background with more people than "emo culture" or "star trek 
culture."

For example, in the Jet Li / Jackie Chan movie that just came out, the 
story is related to a major cultural story involving someone traveling 
from China to India. I'd learned about it in school, as did my Chinese 
wife, so we both knew the background of the characters and such, which 
made it a more enjoyable movie.

> I played Shylock.

And you don't understand what it means to call someone a Shylock?

> Best thing about performing Shakespeare: If you make a mistake, nobody 
> in the audience will ever know. They can't understand a word you're 
> saying, AND THEY DON'T CARE ANYWAY. Really reduces the pressure! ;-)

Heh. Actually, I found Shakespeare to be *way* more interesting when 
performed live than either reading it or seeing it as a movie. It's a 
completely different experience.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.

Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I 
win most of the time.

Losing $1 just doesn't hurt as much as losing $1,000,000.  It's not all 
the numbers in the game. It's also the numbers outside the game.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> It strikes me that the thing about "culture" is that it is entirely 
>> dependent on who you hang out with.
> 
> Ummmm, yes?   <Darren> fighting the urge to say "Duh!" </Darren>
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Seriously, that's kind of what culture *is*.

So why does everybody act surprised that I don't know certain rather 
obscure facts? It's not like everybody knows everything, or lived life 
the exact same way...

> For example, in the Jet Li / Jackie Chan movie that just came out, the 
> story is related to a major cultural story involving someone traveling 
> from China to India. I'd learned about it in school, as did my Chinese 
> wife, so we both knew the background of the characters and such, which 
> made it a more enjoyable movie.

See, now I wouldn't even bother watching such a film, since clearly I 
won't understand any of it.

OTOH, a friend of mine commented on something that happened on the way 
out of the cinema after watching Titanic. Some person says to their 
friend "seriously, apparently it's based on a true story". And their 
friend was like "don't be so stupid! How can it be based on a real story?"

People accuse me of being stupid, but I do realise there was a real ship 
called the Titanic, that really did sink when it hit an iceberg. As 
surely does most of the population?

And then there was that time my mum wanted to go see Jesus Christ 
Superstar. At the end we walked back to the car in silence. And as we 
get into the car, mum goes "well that was a bit depressing". Like, WTF? 
Did you not know he was going to DIE at the end? Have you not read the 
book?!?

To me, not recognising the theme tune to the Wicked Witch of the West 
just isn't on the same level as the two examples above.

>> I played Shylock.
> 
> And you don't understand what it means to call someone a Shylock?

Well let's see now. You could mean that they're just plain evil. Or 
misunderstood. Or an oppressed minority. Or just Jewish. Or any number 
of other possible meanings...

>> Best thing about performing Shakespeare: If you make a mistake, nobody 
>> in the audience will ever know. They can't understand a word you're 
>> saying, AND THEY DON'T CARE ANYWAY. Really reduces the pressure! ;-)
> 
> Heh. Actually, I found Shakespeare to be *way* more interesting when 
> performed live than either reading it or seeing it as a movie. It's a 
> completely different experience.

Depends if the actors know what the hell they're performing or not. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>>   It never ceases to amaze my why you are so eager to shout about your
>>> ignorance about things.
> 
>> It never ceases to amaze me how you like to remind me what a stupid 
>> ignorant fool I am at every possible opportunity.
> 
>   I would have had quite many opportunities to comment on your posts,
> but I promised I would stop that. This time I just couldn't resist.
> 
>   Besides, when I used the word "ignorant" I used it to mean "doesn't
> know things". The negative connotations are your own interpretation.

OK, fair enough. In English it's almost always used with negative intent...

>   As I said in the part which you didn't quote, I was not talking about
> what you do and don't know, but about your constant eagerness to show your
> ignorance.

You don't learn things by pretending to know everything, surely? ;-)

["The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know nothing." Famous 
dead dude.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48582275@news.povray.org...
>
> For example, in the Jet Li / Jackie Chan movie that just came out, the
> story is related to a major cultural story involving someone traveling
> from China to India. I'd learned about it in school, as did my Chinese
> wife, so we both knew the background of the characters and such, which
> made it a more enjoyable movie.

Interesting. I didn't know that. Got a link/reference that I can look up?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> You don't learn things by pretending to know everything, surely? ;-)

  But in the era of the internet the usual thing to do is to look up
the thing on google or wikipedia so that you know what people are talking
about (or if the thing is irrelevant, just shrug and think "I see", or
whatever).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:52:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.
> 
> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I
> win most of the time.

Depends on the game.  I can manage to win pretty consistently at 
blackjack regardless of whether I win individual hands or not - with 
enough money, that's easy to do using a simple geometric progression and 
some restraint to "stick to the plan".  But if I put the idea into 
practice in Las Vegas, I'd probably end up banned from the casinos if I 
won too much.  The house doesn't like to lose, and they don't like when 
people who understand how to turn the odds in their favour show up and 
provide a real-world demonstration that it is in fact possible.

Even still, if you're careful, you can manage to do this and not get 
caught at it - changing tables or casinos frequently makes it very 
difficult for them to track a pattern.  Not following the geometric 
progression exactly also helps make it less obvious.

Some games are rigged closely enough to 50/50 odds that most people don't 
think about the fact that they're not.  Roulette is one like that; IIRC, 
your odds of winning are not 50% but 47%.

> Losing $1 just doesn't hurt as much as losing $1,000,000.  It's not all
> the numbers in the game. It's also the numbers outside the game.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:56:21 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> To me, not recognising the theme tune to the Wicked Witch of the West
> just isn't on the same level as the two examples above.

Hell, I'd never even HEARD of Wicket Witch of the West.  I haven't yet 
bothered to look up what it is, so I'm more clueless than you about 
what's being talked about here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>"Lead on, McDuff"

"Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:53:18 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>
>> In any case, that's what it's supposed to do. If some time in your life, 
>> someone tells you not to hire some particular lawyer because he's a real 
>> shylock, you'll know what it means.
>
>Actually, considering Shylock's character, I'm not 100% sure I know what 
>they're trying to imply.

Shylock in the play is not the Shylock that people think he is. This
is where culture comes in. You need to understand the reference and
the popular understanding of it as well.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:56:21 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>
>>> I played Shylock.
>> 
>> And you don't understand what it means to call someone a Shylock?
>
>Well let's see now. You could mean that they're just plain evil. Or 
>misunderstood. Or an oppressed minority. Or just Jewish. Or any number 
>of other possible meanings...

Mean and/or money lender depending on the context.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Jun 2008 16:44:18 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  Besides, when I used the word "ignorant" I used it to mean "doesn't
>know things". The negative connotations are your own interpretation.

It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
boorish. Quite a bad insult.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:18:12 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Presumably this is why all schoolchildren [in the UK at least] have 
>Shakespear inflicted upon them as a mandatory component of their 
>education. I still can't figure out what good it's supposed to do.
>
It does no good what so ever. The reason is, IM(NS)HO that the
Cultural (large C) grandees think that it should be taught because
Shakespeare is the bard and he is important. And this is coming from
someone who has seen all of his plays at least three times.
Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself. Also the
world view in Shakespeare is too adult for children. 
Which reminds me I must get on with my entry for the TC-RTC "The
Tempest" ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
> boorish. Quite a bad insult.

  First law of interaction between people: Communication will not succeed,
except by random chance.

  Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
worst possible way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
> interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
> worst possible way.

  Corollary: That will happen even if something cannot be interpreted
in more than one way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Jun 2008 18:57:45 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
>> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
>
>  First law of interaction between people: Communication will not succeed,
>except by random chance.
>
I won't argue with that.

>  Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
>interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
>worst possible way.

What do you mean? What are you implying about me? :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Jun 2008 19:01:38 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   Second law of interaction between people: When something can be
>> interpreted in more than one way, someone will interpret it in the
>> worst possible way.
>
>  Corollary: That will happen even if something cannot be interpreted
>in more than one way.

Aye, there's the rub. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48582275@news.povray.org...
>> For example, in the Jet Li / Jackie Chan movie that just came out, the
>> story is related to a major cultural story involving someone traveling
>> from China to India. I'd learned about it in school, as did my Chinese
>> wife, so we both knew the background of the characters and such, which
>> made it a more enjoyable movie.
> 
> Interesting. I didn't know that. Got a link/reference that I can look up?

I *believe* this is the monkey king of the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman

Altho the story they tell there is different from what I remember 
hearing, and I can't seem to easily find references to what I remember 
hearing.

This is another link to something like it:
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelstories/article/monkeyingaroundinchina_1206/
The start of the monkey king's journey to the west (i.e., into India) is 
where the movie itself basically ends. This describes much more like the 
story I remember, with the staff and golden headband.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
> boorish. Quite a bad insult.

Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant 
of what happened last week" or some such. Unfortunately, "ignorant" has 
gotten bad connotations and I don't know any word that means similar 
that doesn't.  "Naive" is about as close as it comes.  (I have said 
people are "computer naive" and it seems to bother people less than 
saying they're "ignorant of computer technology" or some such.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So why does everybody act surprised that I don't know certain rather 
> obscure facts? 

Because many of the facts you say you don't know really aren't very 
obscure, or if they are obscure, shouldn't be obscure in *your* culture. 
(Like, who RMS is. :-)

Now, I'll grant that making movie references (like to the Wicked Witch), 
I discounted that you're in a foreign country and maybe they don't show 
that classic amazingly famous movie on TV every single year. But it *is* 
classic *and* amazingly famous.

> See, now I wouldn't even bother watching such a film, since clearly I 
> won't understand any of it.

It's not that you won't understand it. It's perfectly comprehensible on 
it's own. It's a *bonus* that you already know the characters from 
something else.

It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's 
funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know 
he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.

[1] Stan Lee - the guy who invented most of Marvel's comic book characters.

> People accuse me of being stupid, but I do realise there was a real ship 
> called the Titanic, that really did sink when it hit an iceberg. As 
> surely does most of the population?

They'd say "Why should we? What makes you think we studied the same 
history bits you did?"

That's culture. You *hope* people studied a lot of the same sorts of 
things you did.

> To me, not recognising the theme tune to the Wicked Witch of the West 
> just isn't on the same level as the two examples above.

Actually, I suspect you'd recognise it if you heard it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iQjXPKfWNY

And now if you just saw that video without any context, you'd understand 
the person's opinion of Hillary Clinton, see.

> Well let's see now. You could mean that they're just plain evil. Or 
> misunderstood. Or an oppressed minority. Or just Jewish. Or any number 
> of other possible meanings...

Uh, I think the point is to listen to the judge reprimand of Shylock's 
behavior in order to understand what someone else would mean if they 
called you a Shylock. Don'tcha think? :-)

> Depends if the actors know what the hell they're performing or not. ;-)

Well, true. This was a professionally-staged play, not a high-school 
performance or something. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>>"Lead on, McDuff"
> 
> "Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)

I'm still trying to figure out what Richard's got to do with it.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:57:45 -0400, Warp wrote:

> First law of interaction between people: Communication will not succeed,
> except by random chance.

False, provided that they speak the same language - and I don't mean just 
using the same words and grammar.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:54:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's
> funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know
> he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.

He seems to do a lot of those in the Marvel Comics' movies.  I think he's 
been in each one of them, in fact.

Had a good laugh when he turned up in Iron Man, ostensibly as Hugh 
Heffner.  Of course, he was credited in the credits as playing "himself".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:42:00 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Wicket Witch of the West.

Wicke*d*.  Sheesh.  Oh, and I'll have to assume that it's the one from 
The Wizard of Oz.  The way I read the comment, I thought what was being 
said was the title of a movie or TV programme.

Seems I misunderstood. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
>> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
> 
> Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant
> of what happened last week" .....

No, it's not. I'm perfectly aware of what happened last week; it's last
night I'm having a problem with :-) :-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

> Don't remind be. I cracked a laptop's LCD panel last year. The surface was
> fine, something was cracked underneath. Large portions of the screen are 
> now
> black.

I did exactly the same to my cell phone display, it was in my pocket while I 
put most of my weight onto it while taking a pool shot :-)  A few minutes 
later I looked at it and the screen had gone all funky colours with a big 
crack across it.  Luckily it was under a year old, and for some reason they 
replaced it with a new one free of charge (of course I forgot to mention 
that I knew exactly how it broke).

> Repair place quoted me R8000 to replace the panel, and that was a 17" 
> laptop
> screen. I'd hate to see the price to replace a 40" LCD TV's panel.

Might as well just buy a new one I think, there's not much else of value 
inside a TV (compared to say a laptop).

Post a reply to this message

> I read Nokia actually has a touchscreen that gives tactile feedback. 
> There's something behind it that "taps" from behind when the key would 
> click, or some such silliness. :-)

I guess it saves them having to write a responsive GUI :-)

The worst thing is when you have absolutely no feedback that you've pressed 
the touch screen - I used a terminal to buy a train ticket somewhere like 
that (can't remember where now).  First you had to press the button quite 
hard (harder than you would normally to start with), and then the screen 
didn't show any sign that you'd pressed it until about 2 seconds later when 
it would update the display based on whatever you had selected.  Worst thing 
was that it would buffer up your inputs somehow, so if you hit the same 
button 5 times trying to get it to work, you end up stuck there for 5 
minutes and with 3 1st class tickets for dogs and bikes.

Post a reply to this message

>> Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant
>> of what happened last week" .....
> 
> No, it's not. I'm perfectly aware of what happened last week; it's last
> night I'm having a problem with :-) :-)

When I can't remember what happened last night, I like to make believe 
that I got laid, and the extreme chemical rush was the cause of my 
amnesia... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:38:57 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> This is another link to something like it:
> http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelstories/article/monkeyingaroundinchina_1206/
> The start of the monkey king's journey to the west (i.e., into India) is  
> where the movie itself basically ends. This describes much more like the  
> story I remember, with the staff and golden headband.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

Ah for shame Wikipedia says it wasn't shown in the USA, you missed some  
quality TV there.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> In any case, that's what it's supposed to do. If some time in your life, 
>>> someone tells you not to hire some particular lawyer because he's a real 
>>> shylock, you'll know what it means.
>> Actually, considering Shylock's character, I'm not 100% sure I know what 
>> they're trying to imply.
> 
> Shylock in the play is not the Shylock that people think he is. This
> is where culture comes in. You need to understand the reference and
> the popular understanding of it as well.

Spakespeare seems to have deliberately written Shylock so it's ambiguous 
exactly who he is. [Presumably this is why the bigwigs love Shakespeare 
so much...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:40:47 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>> It's cultural Warp, Calling someone ignorant implies that they are
>> boorish. Quite a bad insult.
>
> Note, however, that it's perfectly acceptable to say "John is ignorant  
> of what happened last week" or some such. Unfortunately, "ignorant" has  
> gotten bad connotations and I don't know any word that means similar  
> that doesn't.  "Naive" is about as close as it comes.  (I have said  
> people are "computer naive" and it seems to bother people less than  
> saying they're "ignorant of computer technology" or some such.)

Only because they're ignorant about what naive means :-P

Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John didn't  
know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened  
last night" ;-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> So why does everybody act surprised that I don't know certain rather 
>> obscure facts? 
> 
> Because many of the facts you say you don't know really aren't very 
> obscure, or if they are obscure, shouldn't be obscure in *your* culture. 
> (Like, who RMS is. :-)

Meh. Who gets to decide what is or is not "obscure" anyway?

> Now, I'll grant that making movie references (like to the Wicked Witch), 
> I discounted that you're in a foreign country and maybe they don't show 
> that classic amazingly famous movie on TV every single year. But it *is* 
> classic *and* amazingly famous.

And it is also a movie that I really, really hate.

>> People accuse me of being stupid, but I do realise there was a real 
>> ship called the Titanic, that really did sink when it hit an iceberg. 
>> As surely does most of the population?
> 
> They'd say "Why should we? What makes you think we studied the same 
> history bits you did?"

Studied? No. Heard vague references to it? You'd think so...

>> To me, not recognising the theme tune to the Wicked Witch of the West 
>> just isn't on the same level as the two examples above.
> 
> Actually, I suspect you'd recognise it if you heard it.

I did. [Not much of a "tune" though - no idea who you'd whistle that...]

>> Depends if the actors know what the hell they're performing or not. ;-)
> 
> Well, true. This was a professionally-staged play, not a high-school 
> performance or something. :-)

Even BBC Spakespeare productions shown on TV look cripplingly low-budget 
and seem completely incomprehensible. [And I know the damned script!]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.
>> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I
>> win most of the time.
> 
> Depends on the game.  I can manage to win pretty consistently at 
> blackjack regardless of whether I win individual hands or not - with 
> enough money, that's easy to do using a simple geometric progression and 
> some restraint to "stick to the plan".  But if I put the idea into 
> practice in Las Vegas, I'd probably end up banned from the casinos if I 
> won too much.  The house doesn't like to lose, and they don't like when 
> people who understand how to turn the odds in their favour show up and 
> provide a real-world demonstration that it is in fact possible.
> 
> Even still, if you're careful, you can manage to do this and not get 
> caught at it - changing tables or casinos frequently makes it very 
> difficult for them to track a pattern.  Not following the geometric 
> progression exactly also helps make it less obvious.
> 
> Some games are rigged closely enough to 50/50 odds that most people don't 
> think about the fact that they're not.  Roulette is one like that; IIRC, 
> your odds of winning are not 50% but 47%.

I love the way people say "rigged". I mean, you walk up to a towering 
casino that's using 200 kW to light up half the Vegas night sky, and you 
wonder how they pay for this? Well *obviously* the dice are stacked in 
their favour - if it weren't, they'd go out of business pretty damned 
fast. ;-) It's their *job* to take your money way... They just do a good 
job of making it look like "luck".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:52:24 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:18:12 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>
>> Presumably this is why all schoolchildren [in the UK at least] have
>> Shakespear inflicted upon them as a mandatory component of their
>> education. I still can't figure out what good it's supposed to do.
>>
> It does no good what so ever. The reason is, IM(NS)HO that the
> Cultural (large C) grandees think that it should be taught because
> Shakespeare is the bard and he is important. And this is coming from
> someone who has seen all of his plays at least three times.
> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself. Also the
> world view in Shakespeare is too adult for children.
> Which reminds me I must get on with my entry for the TC-RTC "The
> Tempest" ;)

Likewise I think it was in the Science of the Discworld: The Globe that  
had two characters discussing one of Shakespeares plays and discussing a  
line that near had them wet themselves with laughter and to which modern  
readers would be going "Huh?"

Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Ophelia: No, my lord.
Hamlet: I mean, my head upon your lap?
Ophelia: Aye, my lord.
Hamlet: Do you think I meant country matters?
Ophelia: I think nothing, my lord.
Hamlet: That's a fair thought to lie between maids' legs.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...

> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself.

Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On 17 Jun 2008 22:31:59 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Lead on, McDuff"
>> 
>> "Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what Richard's got to do with it.....
>

That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:08:56 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Spakespeare seems to have deliberately written Shylock so it's ambiguous 
>exactly who he is. [Presumably this is why the bigwigs love Shakespeare 
>so much...]

Yes, it is open to interpretation and that is how literary types spend
their time :)
He is not (IMO) just a pantomime villain but a man driven to
distraction by the prejudice against his religion. (Jews gave Jesus up
for crucifixion, all of them are to blame) And later with his daughter
eloping with a gentile.

Now the Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe, was written about the
same time and does not suffer from the same claims of anti-Semitism.
Maybe because it is less well known or maybe because Barabas is just
an evil man who is also a Jew.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message