There really is no need to be so rude. You can download the audio-only version either from iTunes for you can download the mp3 from the RSS feed for the podcat. You don't want to deal with video, you don't have to.TAdamson said:
Escapist Podcast: 083: SimCity, Story-Based RPGs and Google Glass
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Well, the RSS feed is somewhat broken. I can download every podcast except #083.Susan Arendt said:
Uh, yeah, the RSS feed is still broken. If this video thing is too complicated for your IT guys to handle, maybe you should just skip it. It's kinda pointless anyway.
Edit: It is fixed now. Thanks guys! *entitled voice*and don't let it happen again...
Edit: It is fixed now. Thanks guys! *entitled voice*and don't let it happen again...
Another thing that possibly hinders communication is the use of rhetorical questions, which is what that was.bravetoaster said:
I disagree that the non literal use of the word literal is wrong or stupid, it is an acceptable colloquialism. There are situations where it's use would be inappropriate, but for everyday speech I consider it perfectly acceptable, and clearly so do many others, enough to warrant it's inclusion in the dictionary no less.
So I've been trying to download this on iTunes, but I keep getting error 8006. Some quick Googling tells me that this error is due to a problem on your end--that the host server is down. I dunno if you can get this fixed until Monday when you're all back in the office or if it will just fix itself eventually, but I figured I'd let you know. Anything you can do about this would be appreciated!
EDIT: Now that I go back and read some of the other comments, I see that you're very aware of this problem already--didn't mean to beat a dead horse with my tidbit here. I'll probably just watch the video version later, but it's really nice being able to DL the podcasts onto my mp3 player and listen to them on the go.
EDIT: Now that I go back and read some of the other comments, I see that you're very aware of this problem already--didn't mean to beat a dead horse with my tidbit here. I'll probably just watch the video version later, but it's really nice being able to DL the podcasts onto my mp3 player and listen to them on the go.
If you guys want to get annoyed by a language issue, I suggest you start reading/listening for when people leave out the participle form of a verb. I'm a language teacher from Sweden (Swedish/English), so I usually notice quite a lot of incorrect language behavior. I can't not do it. My brain is basically damaged goods by now, but screw it...
Anyway, I've been noticing mainly Americans doing the following more and more the last few years and now I'm seeing it on a daily basis:
"He should have saw it coming."
(by the way, I'm not even getting into "should of" that's very prevalent, another time perhaps)
"She got bit by zombies."
SEEN! BITTEN! Jesus effing christ, that annoys me. A LOT of Americans and plenty of Canadians - not that many British - are doing this all the freaking time. It's like the participle form is dying. How is that so hard to get right?
Anyway, I've been noticing mainly Americans doing the following more and more the last few years and now I'm seeing it on a daily basis:
"He should have saw it coming."
(by the way, I'm not even getting into "should of" that's very prevalent, another time perhaps)
"She got bit by zombies."
SEEN! BITTEN! Jesus effing christ, that annoys me. A LOT of Americans and plenty of Canadians - not that many British - are doing this all the freaking time. It's like the participle form is dying. How is that so hard to get right?
I've already informed our IT department that their initial fix didn't quite solve our RSS/iTunes problems, so with any luck it should be resolved by Monday morning at the latest, hopefully earlier. Again, we thank you all for your patience while we figure this all out and apologize for the inconvenience!Rassmusseum said:
As for everyone expressing concerns about having to spend extra bandwidth, we have had no plans whatsoever to completely cut out access to an audio-only version of the podcast. It just appears that at this time we're encountering an unexpected problem that's preventing the audio-only version from working in iTunes or the podcast's RSS feed properly. I understand your frustration, but please understand that we are looking into the issue and will do our best to ensure this does not happen again in the future.
Yikes, guys, let's turn down the insta-internet rage a bit. Surely you can all be measured human beings and survive without an audio only podcat for a little longer?
Go Paul Gooseman and Co.! Your work is appreciated!
(Am I the only one enjoying the parallel between the broken audio/RSS feed and their discussion about broken Simcity?)
Go Paul Gooseman and Co.! Your work is appreciated!
(Am I the only one enjoying the parallel between the broken audio/RSS feed and their discussion about broken Simcity?)
Holy hell guys, chill the rage-mode and be patient. They're working on fixing it. (I find it funny that they talk about the aggressive reaction to EA's technical problems with SimCity and now people here are being aggressive to technical issues of the podcat.)
Nope, I made the connection as wellHenriot said:
Well after breaking the server, kicking @Kross, and cussing out Firefox 19.0.2, I believe the problem with iTunes/RSS feed is really fixed for sure this time.
Sorry for the troubles and @ThyNameIsMud will provide Beaber cookies for the pain, which I am sure Firefox will eat and not properly provide to you.
Sorry for the troubles and @ThyNameIsMud will provide Beaber cookies for the pain, which I am sure Firefox will eat and not properly provide to you.
Susan's distaste for the now-popular second definition of literally is somewhat hilarious, when one considers that her college degree was in English. She has almost certainly read plenty of novels that use the word in such a way, many of which may be books she enjoyed, some of which were written a century or more ago. I won't pretend like my argument is new, or even my own, so I'll link you to a video from the Merriam-Webster YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU
I have no idea who "they" are, those people who are just now adding the definition to a dictionary, by the way. This definition is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps the new-found vocality of grammar nazis in the internet age is what is truly new.
I have no idea who "they" are, those people who are just now adding the definition to a dictionary, by the way. This definition is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps the new-found vocality of grammar nazis in the internet age is what is truly new.
I am assuming you acquired English as your second language?dakkster said:
If so, it doesn't surprise me that you are more aware of common grammatical mistakes. You would also know English mechanics better than me or any editor on this website, as this is usually the case with E2 speakers (English Second-Language Speakers). This is because E1 speakers, who were taught English first, would have been taught by a parent, guardian, or any close relationship they had during early development; E2 speakers acquire English in a classroom, or some social institution. Because of this, E1 speakers do not actually use syntax rules to build sentences; some modern linguistic philosophies (late <span class=SpellE>Generativism, Functionalism) say E1 speakers are mostly
replicating the patterns they acquire early in childhood, and then they modify their language by adopting colloquialism within their social group. E2 will always try to build sentences based on syntax rules, because they acquired English in a formal setting.
Look at the Relative Pronoun "whom". whom[/I]. It is so common, that style guides (such as the MLA) recognize "that" and "who" as the relative objective case, as well as "whom".
It is actually one of my fantasies I've had since playing Cyberpunk in the '80s that when I get old and my eyes wear out, I'll get some classy hi-def Nikons or Canons and have super vision forever, and be connected forever to the internet.
Since I'm terrible at names, it'd also be terrific to see a nameplate hover over (under, near) everyone I talk to. And between recent advancements in cybernetic eyes and Google Glass, I'll probably have access to this technology in my 60s or 70s (provided that the cost isn't grossly inflated due to gougey medical pricing).
Anyway, Google Goggles is going to get expanded in time to include things like flora and fauna. Facial recognition will come in time, which will be connected (unless you opt-out) to your Facebook account. And yes, at that point, Mr. psycho-stalker will be able to walk into a room and scan over the faces and, with only modest haxxor skillz, find out all the neat stuff you put on Facebook.[footnote]And if he likes to diddle kids, he will be considering yours. But I'm not sure that's going to be a real problem, though, since his entire antisocial behavior profile (and criminal record) will be haunting him like a vengeful specter that you'll see brightly lit in your Google-Glass You'll know he's on parole and one 911 call would send him back into iso.[/footnote] For a while, you'll be able to opt-out (or limit) your Google-Goggles Facebook data, so you'll be able to stave off this encroachment of privacy for a while.
Now, myself, I've already entered the old coot stage in this, by deciding that I don't like when Facebook uses my name and posts to my friends URIEL SAYS ScamBot Virus Removal Tool is the best! You should install it immediately![footnote]This exact scenario happened to me. A good friend loaded malware allegedly at my recommendation via a plausible message in MySpace. We spent a day cleaning her system. I then soured my MySpace account and live contentedly without Facebook.[/footnote] I don't have a Facebook account. On the other hand there are a lot of conveniences connected to Facebook that I recognize I'm not getting.
I expect our privacy will dwindle as the social acceptance of privacy dwindles. I'm already regarded as paranoid and misanthropic for not having a Facebook profile.[footnote]Granted, I'm already regarded as paranoid and misanthropic for many reasons beyond my lack of a Facebook account, say, I don't like people and I don't trust the government. Then again, is it paranoia when they're really out to get you?[/footnote] I suspect the era will come when anyone who doesn't have megabytes of online presence showcasing their family and private lives will be regarded as a misfit or pre-industrialized. On the other hand, would-be stalkers would be under the same level of scrutiny, and would have to ratchet up their ninja skills to actually do any stalking.
That said, for now, my concern remains our security agencies, who have gone to great lengths to bypass our fourth amendment rights, and they, in fact, do have skilled hacking staff and resources available to find out everything about you, your kids and your lifestyle, and should any of those be determined subversive you can be disappeared without due process. To me, that's far more scary than the occasional psycho with Google Glass.
238U
PS: The peanutbutter-jar-in-a-toiletbowl bit was showcased in The Night That Panicked America [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_That_Panicked_America] about the Orson Welles broadcast of War of the Worlds, and its aftermath.
PPS: Susan Arendt is hot. Am I allowed to say Susan is hot without sounding like a creep?
Since I'm terrible at names, it'd also be terrific to see a nameplate hover over (under, near) everyone I talk to. And between recent advancements in cybernetic eyes and Google Glass, I'll probably have access to this technology in my 60s or 70s (provided that the cost isn't grossly inflated due to gougey medical pricing).
Anyway, Google Goggles is going to get expanded in time to include things like flora and fauna. Facial recognition will come in time, which will be connected (unless you opt-out) to your Facebook account. And yes, at that point, Mr. psycho-stalker will be able to walk into a room and scan over the faces and, with only modest haxxor skillz, find out all the neat stuff you put on Facebook.[footnote]And if he likes to diddle kids, he will be considering yours. But I'm not sure that's going to be a real problem, though, since his entire antisocial behavior profile (and criminal record) will be haunting him like a vengeful specter that you'll see brightly lit in your Google-Glass You'll know he's on parole and one 911 call would send him back into iso.[/footnote] For a while, you'll be able to opt-out (or limit) your Google-Goggles Facebook data, so you'll be able to stave off this encroachment of privacy for a while.
Now, myself, I've already entered the old coot stage in this, by deciding that I don't like when Facebook uses my name and posts to my friends URIEL SAYS ScamBot Virus Removal Tool is the best! You should install it immediately![footnote]This exact scenario happened to me. A good friend loaded malware allegedly at my recommendation via a plausible message in MySpace. We spent a day cleaning her system. I then soured my MySpace account and live contentedly without Facebook.[/footnote] I don't have a Facebook account. On the other hand there are a lot of conveniences connected to Facebook that I recognize I'm not getting.
I expect our privacy will dwindle as the social acceptance of privacy dwindles. I'm already regarded as paranoid and misanthropic for not having a Facebook profile.[footnote]Granted, I'm already regarded as paranoid and misanthropic for many reasons beyond my lack of a Facebook account, say, I don't like people and I don't trust the government. Then again, is it paranoia when they're really out to get you?[/footnote] I suspect the era will come when anyone who doesn't have megabytes of online presence showcasing their family and private lives will be regarded as a misfit or pre-industrialized. On the other hand, would-be stalkers would be under the same level of scrutiny, and would have to ratchet up their ninja skills to actually do any stalking.
That said, for now, my concern remains our security agencies, who have gone to great lengths to bypass our fourth amendment rights, and they, in fact, do have skilled hacking staff and resources available to find out everything about you, your kids and your lifestyle, and should any of those be determined subversive you can be disappeared without due process. To me, that's far more scary than the occasional psycho with Google Glass.
238U
PS: The peanutbutter-jar-in-a-toiletbowl bit was showcased in The Night That Panicked America [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_That_Panicked_America] about the Orson Welles broadcast of War of the Worlds, and its aftermath.
PPS: Susan Arendt is hot. Am I allowed to say Susan is hot without sounding like a creep?
Now, let's combine the "Reaching for the ring" and the "literally" thing.
A well known term that not that many people know the origin of and is completely misused.
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you "Utopian Society"!
Let me explain.
It concerns a book (or actually 2 books) by Sir Thomas More, who published them in Latin in the year 1516. They were highly insightful and extremely controversial in his time (and could still be in this day and age).
The book is written as a conversation between Thomas More himself, a friend of his named Peter Gilles and a traveller/explorer/philosopher named Raphael Nonsenso who narrates almost the entire book (if you see a joke there, that's because there is one).
The first book mainly consists of social and political commentary of England during that time. Many of the main points still hold true today as well as the problems addressed. It would take too long to explain them all, so I would suggest reading the book.
The second book concerns Raphael's stay in a small island nation in the New World called Utopia. There is a rather interesting civilization there that, I would describe it as a communist dream. The way that it's described would make it seem like the perfect civilization.
And this is where the rather interesting and deep joke lies.
The name Utopia comes from Greek. It literally means "no-place" in contract to Eutopia which means "good-place" or "well-place", the term Dystopia means "bad-place" . Kind of like Euphoria and Dysphoria (I would suggest now also suggest introducing the term "Uphoria").
So, seeing this little word joke by Sir Thomas More here and the frequent use of the term Utopian Society, it brings up an interesting problem.
A Utopian Society therefore could not exist, since the name itself implies there is no place for it in the world.
Try to wrap your head around that one.
A well known term that not that many people know the origin of and is completely misused.
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you "Utopian Society"!
Let me explain.
It concerns a book (or actually 2 books) by Sir Thomas More, who published them in Latin in the year 1516. They were highly insightful and extremely controversial in his time (and could still be in this day and age).
The book is written as a conversation between Thomas More himself, a friend of his named Peter Gilles and a traveller/explorer/philosopher named Raphael Nonsenso who narrates almost the entire book (if you see a joke there, that's because there is one).
The first book mainly consists of social and political commentary of England during that time. Many of the main points still hold true today as well as the problems addressed. It would take too long to explain them all, so I would suggest reading the book.
The second book concerns Raphael's stay in a small island nation in the New World called Utopia. There is a rather interesting civilization there that, I would describe it as a communist dream. The way that it's described would make it seem like the perfect civilization.
And this is where the rather interesting and deep joke lies.
The name Utopia comes from Greek. It literally means "no-place" in contract to Eutopia which means "good-place" or "well-place", the term Dystopia means "bad-place" . Kind of like Euphoria and Dysphoria (I would suggest now also suggest introducing the term "Uphoria").
So, seeing this little word joke by Sir Thomas More here and the frequent use of the term Utopian Society, it brings up an interesting problem.
A Utopian Society therefore could not exist, since the name itself implies there is no place for it in the world.
Try to wrap your head around that one.
Regarding Literal, I got into the habit of emphasizing with proverbial (proverbially, etc.). But yes, I cringe every time someone misuses literality.
One tactic I've used is to take people's use of literally, well, literal.
DOLORES: And then he literally turned over the room looking for his car keys.
ME: Wow! Did he drive in with a bulldozer or something?
DOLORES: No, no. But he might as well have.
I've noticed that three or four of those will usually fix the problem, or at least increase the levity of the dialog.
238U
One tactic I've used is to take people's use of literally, well, literal.
DOLORES: And then he literally turned over the room looking for his car keys.
ME: Wow! Did he drive in with a bulldozer or something?
DOLORES: No, no. But he might as well have.
I've noticed that three or four of those will usually fix the problem, or at least increase the levity of the dialog.
238U
Unfortunately I will no longer be listening to this podcast. I do not have the bandwidth to be watching long videos and as the audio is only available on iTunes I can not download it. The iTunes software is one program I no longer use due to changes in it I dislike.