They could spend it on replacing instances of the word "perhaps" with "mayhaps", to give everything a cool posh Britishy-sounding vibe.crimson5pheonix said:Well that's a silly waste of money. Mayhaps it could be spent better?
They could spend it on replacing instances of the word "perhaps" with "mayhaps", to give everything a cool posh Britishy-sounding vibe.crimson5pheonix said:Well that's a silly waste of money. Mayhaps it could be spent better?
I'm not incredibly well-versed on it myself, but my understanding is that it basically describes two devices, databases, processes, or some other technology-related thing having control over other devices, databases, processes, etc. It basically is the rule that governs communication between the two: the master is given control over the slave without the slave being able to take control over the master.Revnak said:It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.
I don't know enough about the process to say that it would be absolutely necessary to forbid partially or fully virtual intelligences from engaging in it, but the terminology would definitely need to go if it were to be used by them.MysticSlayer said:I'm not incredibly well-versed on it myself, but my understanding is that it basically describes two devices, databases, processes, or some other technology-related thing having control over other devices, databases, processes, etc. It basically is the rule that governs communication between the two: the master is given control over the slave without the slave being able to take control over the master.Revnak said:It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.
I guess, personally, I would be far more disturbed if AI started exhibiting such communication among each other (i.e. one AI starts taking a master/slave communication approach to other AI) regardless of terminology.
Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.Areloch said:This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.
Well, no, feels are NOT reals, because feels are completely, and entirely subjective. That's the point of the saying.TomWest said:Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.Areloch said:This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.
And, if one has ever dealt with a project that involves actual humans, you probably understand that the morale, enthusiasm, and teamwork of those working on a project are vastly more crucial to a project's success than the particular terminology that's used on a project.
Now, a terminology change *does* have some minor cost, and just because there's a real benefit to some members of the community, it doesn't necessarily mean the benefit is worth the cost.
However, judging a cost benefit analysis is completely different from 'Feels before Reals', which presupposes that their concerns don't even merit consideration. (It doesn't help that this attitude almost always translates to "their feelings are temper tantrums but *my* feelings are critical)".
They're bloody machines.Revnak said:It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.MysticSlayer said:Would you mind explaining the significance of AI to this, because I'm not seeing the connection.Revnak said:After all, this is something that would need to be changed eventually anyway, assuming we ever create artificial intelligence or partially virtualized biological intelligence, so we may as well get it out of the way now.
Aye, but it's also your subjective feeling that that isn't the case. Pro or con is a subjective call.Areloch said:Someone's subjective feelings, however, were that the words - regardless of their context - made them vaguely uncomfortable because slavery was a thing that happened at some point, and so they wanted the words scrubbed from usage.
You realize that by using a term like partially virtualized I'm referring to humans with cybernetically enhanced minds, which is something of an inevitability? And in all honesty, you're just a machine.beastro said:They're bloody machines.Revnak said:It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.MysticSlayer said:Would you mind explaining the significance of AI to this, because I'm not seeing the connection.Revnak said:After all, this is something that would need to be changed eventually anyway, assuming we ever create artificial intelligence or partially virtualized biological intelligence, so we may as well get it out of the way now.
Unless it's to anti-gay organisations of course [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10767104/Mozilla-appoints-new-CEO-after-gay-marriage-controversy.html]Pluvia said:So what you're saying is it's their money and they can spend it how they like?munx13 said:Yeah, they didn't make money to put it back into the project, they just spent it. On a problem that didn't exist.
Well took you long enough but you finally got there.
Of course they're subjective - words only have the meaning we assign, and more importantly, they have meaning to the party that created them *and* to the party that receives them. That's the most basic premise of communication. The person who whines "that's not what I mean when I use the word" has failed to understand the basis of communication - *two* parties are involved.Areloch said:Well, no, feels are NOT reals, because feels are completely, and entirely subjective. That's the point of the saying.TomWest said:Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.Areloch said:This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.
True, but that doesn't mean that language should change based on temporary ill-informed whims of minority.TomWest said:And yes, as society changes and evolves, I may change my opinion on particular words. After all, language serves society, not the other way around.
Hm, this part makes me think you interpreted my usage of 'Feels before reals' as to imply that their feelings are not real.TomWest said:But that does *not* mean that the discomfort of those offended by the word are invalid or are not real. It simply means that in my opinion, their very real discomfort is not worth the effort to change.Areloch said:Well, no, feels are NOT reals, because feels are completely, and entirely subjective. That's the point of the saying.TomWest said:Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.Areloch said:This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.
Oh, to be sure, and I'm 100% cognizant of the 'Societal Compromise' game, where it's not "make everyone happy" but "make everyone the least angry".Silvanus said:Aye, but it's also your subjective feeling that that isn't the case. Pro or con is a subjective call.Areloch said:Someone's subjective feelings, however, were that the words - regardless of their context - made them vaguely uncomfortable because slavery was a thing that happened at some point, and so they wanted the words scrubbed from usage.
It would be untenable if taken to the extreme, or applied in all cases. It's very unlikely that will be the case, though; people have been replacing words in various contexts since language began, and we've never tipped over into the extreme of replacing everything potentially problematic. I don't see any particular reason to think it has much chance of happening now.Areloch said:Oh, to be sure, and I'm 100% cognizant of the 'Societal Compromise' game, where it's not "make everyone happy" but "make everyone the least angry".
The root of my problem with this, is it's removing a word or words from usage while completely ignoring the context in which they are used. As I mention above, this line of logic can be very readily applied to other words that MAY make someone uncomfortable and if we toss any and all context out the window, that means that fictional and historical usages of the word should also be game for removing words over the possibility that someone could be offended.
I find this to be untenable, which is, indeed my subjective opinion.
But as I said above, the objective reality of the word's usage in this case does not endorse, cause or propagate actual human slavery, and is merely an accurate, technical descriptor of the relationship between two objects in software/hardware, and whether someone feels offended by it or not does not change the objective reality of it's usage in this context.
This debate has been running since 2003, and alternative terms such as primary/replica have already been seen in a number of products, publications and open-source projects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_%28technology%29#Appropriateness_of_usageblackrave said:True, but that doesn't mean that language should change based on temporary ill-informed whims of minority.TomWest said:And yes, as society changes and evolves, I may change my opinion on particular words. After all, language serves society, not the other way around.
While language should be adaptive, it should possess certain rigidity at the same time.
And there's always that wonderful retort that both means nothing and devalues actual living beings.Revnak said:And in all honesty, you're just a machine.
"Feels before reals" absolutely implies that "feels" or feelings are not real (you can't be before something if you're part of it), and thus not worthy of consideration amongst the literally hundreds of factors that go into any well-considered technical decision.Areloch said:Hm, this part makes me think you interpreted my usage of 'Feels before reals' as to imply that their feelings are not real.
First, fiction is written for the current audience. What matters to the narrative is whether it feels real. Notice that dialogue of foreigners is written in English so you can read it? Notice that older terms whose meaning has completely changed or are unknown are left out because they'd confuse the reader?To clarify, I have NO doubt in my mind that there are people that are, indeed, made uncomfortable by the mere useage and existence of the words 'master' and 'slave', regardless of their context. Lord knows I've seen people take offense to sillier things on the internet.
However, as you mention with cost, I find it incredibly unlikely that the general societal cost of scrubbing certain words out of usage - ignoring their context(and this is the important part) - to EVER be worth it.
My stance on that holds true for even openly offensive words, such as ******, or ******, or gook, etc. Because if we toss words out the window with no regard to context, then that means we can't utilize those words in fiction where they're used, nor historical accounts where they very literally WERE used, and their usage is enlightening/educational.
Okay, so you won't go out of your way to actively cause more discomfort to others. You just don't think it's worth it to spend effort to cause less discomfort. Fair enough. I am, however, going to guess that you, like me, are not members of a culture that have been (and still are to an extent) victims of racism and racially directed violence.I think most people can agree that using slurs or other targeted, specifically derogatory or offensive language is something you shouldn't direct at other people.
Luckily, no-one is claiming that.However, someone reading a word, completely ignoring the context of it's usage, and deciding that "This word shouldn't ever be used, no matter the context or reason" does a LOT of damage to our communication mediums, and isn't something that should be endorsed, let alone paid for.
I don't think understanding what a machine is devalues the living, though I would argue that your misunderstanding of what constitutes life does. Life is a highly complex machine, occasionally with the capacity for reason, generally with the capacity for self development and adaptation. Is a machine that meets all those standards inherently any less valuable than another?beastro said:And there's always that wonderful retort that both means nothing and devalues actual living beings.Revnak said:And in all honesty, you're just a machine.