Shit, I guess it is early morning in Australia. Did you wake up early or going to bed late Dave?

Eurovision - A Quick summary:

Each year European countries have a music competition where artists from each country write average radio pop music specifically for entering into said competition. The artists themselves rarely write their own music for our local competition, sometimes one songwriter can be behind alot of the contributions. Each country through public vote then selects which one of these songs best panders to the lowest common denominator, and thus should compete against the other countries similarly selected contributions.

Do you even get the Eurovision down under?

Best news I read in a while. Anybody know what the best avenue might be to voice this? Dredd Facebook page?

I agree with you on the example of "horseless carriage", but let's see if I make a good argument here. The need for a new name in that example is just that "horseless carriage" is both a bit too long to be optimally efficient, and also using the descriptor of what is missing from a previous "version" ("horseless") is definitely not particularly eloquent or refined.

That analogy doesn't apply when talking about smartphones though. Phones are still phones, only with other, added possibilities. Thus the added "smart"-phone. Very easy to say aswell, feels like just 2 syllables.
If the situation instead was that PDAs currently were called "phoneless communicators", then I do agree that a new name would be needed, since it would allow for the possibility of both a shorter name, and a name which is unique to that object rather than having another object referenced in the name. Both which would make communication easier when referring to the object.

Also the definition of "telephone" is "An instrument that converts voice and other sound signals into a form that can be transmitted to remote locations and that receives and reconverts waves into sound signals."

So as long as a device allows you to speak to people remotely, the name is appropriate (though wave probably refers to analog signals, but splitting hairs...).

I think it seems perfectly analogous to television or TV (even the definitions of the words being similar, one refering to remote hearing and the other to remote viewing). I wonder when the push to rename that comes, just because they now allow Internet and apps aswell. We even call them Smart TVs now, which is also consistent with "SmartPhone", further demonstrating that the naming convention is efficient and well understood, which is the only 2 things that language really needs. As long as everyone knows what you are talking about and it isn't overly complicated to say, you are golden.

I realize all this is due to a stupid youtube video, but thanks for indulging me.

Well, as I've understood it, the cell in cell phone represents the 360 degree coverage area around a mobile phone tower. So a "cell phone" is a phone that can communicate with these towers when in coverage of them. So the description is still valid regardless of other features of the phone.

Also there are already alot of other descriptors in use, like PDA, Personal Data Assistant. No need to just come up with a new word.

Still, "Smartphone" is the main word used today. In the video Gingrich seems to imply that the name needs to be expanded because of the infinite ways to communicate. Which all use the Internet. Which all Smartphones, almost by definition or certainly factually, have access to.

So smartphone is a great encompassing term to use. Also once the older style non-touch phones are used less and less, most likely just "phone" or cell phone will come to mean the smart variety, and "dumb phone" will be a descriptor for the exceptions.

They seem to also imply that the name of something should point to what it does or has accomplished, rather than the thing itself. "Smartphone" seems to not be adequate despite it perfectly describing a phone, mobile in nature, which also has other computational possibilities.

What bothers me the most is that this video spends 3 minutes trying to find some way to emotionally manipulate you into getting behind this stupid idea by throwing in buzzwords and talking abou revolution, freedom, etc etc. To show how stupid this is, just extend it to other things that also revolutionized or greatly improved things.

"Microwave" should probably be renamed to "Housewife liberation machine" since one can more easily make meals and other things and mom of the house doesn't need to spend alot of time with that.

"The Internet" should be renamed "The worldwide communications network that revolutionized freedom of information".

Also, more importantly, what is it that the word is going to be defining? A device, handheld, that can communicate wirelessly with the internet and other people. Guess what, that's called a smartphone, or in modern times, colloquially, a "phone". As in "what phone do you have, android or iOS?" or, "the new Samsung phone looks nice".

I mean, Gingrich is holding an iPhone as an example. If there ever was one fucking thing that didn't need any rebranding, it would be the most recognized thing IN THE WORLD. Everyone knows what it is called and what it does.

Seems to me that they just want to stroke their egos by a sense of accomplishment by coming up with a new word for something, which will add no practical benefits AT ALL since everyone already agrees with the existing definition as one of the most recognized words in the world, and certainly one of the words that has spread the quickest considering how few years the concept has existed. The smartphone.

This idea, to me, seems fractally retarded.

What problem would this solve to begin with? I cannot think of a single thing. I don't think anyone could either.

Long post, had to collect my thoughts about this, my brain was hurting even thinking about it.

End Of Watch

Excellent "fictional documentary". The film follows jake Gyllenhaal's character as he documents his work with the police in LA. Initially the film switching between physical cameras in the scene and storytelling POVs may distract from the documentary feel, but that was quickly forgotten by me. I was sucked in by the way the story was told. It completely managed to immerse me in the characters to the point I didn't even consider I had been watching actors at the end. Highly recommended viewing.

I've also seen probably 10 minutes of this. I guess I have a reason to watch it now. Also looking forward to the Mummy eventually, that is a guilty pleasure, and I will be disappointed if you don't dedicate atleast 10 minutes to swooning over Rachel Weisz in that movie. Cause Dayum.

Yeah, some "move towards the camera quickly and/or creepily" moments made me jump for a second. Also the movement of Mama, particularly the hovering at the end, really looked like practical "slowmo backwards underwater", similar to this little gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezNStX0B … p;index=84

I see what you are saying, but are we to believe that Tonys ego is too big to see a psychologist about some minor anxiety attacks, yet he is willing to leave behind what has defined him for so long, and what he has put so much work into? in my opinion you cannot really have both and still have a consistent characher. The final line in the film is basically "I am still Iron Man", so clearly he destroyed almost all his work despite mentally not being finished with it.

Sorry, I should have made my point better.

The point was that the suits had to artificially be made useless just to not overpower Stark vs. the bad guys. If anything every suit above the one used in the first one should be better and stronger since they are more advanced. I guess my point is that the myriad of suits is a bad storyline, since Tony _would_ be overpowered. Just sidestepping that by making the suits useless and hoping that the audience who has seen 3 movies with Iron Man before this one doesn't notice felt cheap to me. I felt the movie didn't respect the continuity of the previous movies, and it seems it just expected me to not question this.

As for Tony blowing up the suits at the end, the final line in the film is "I am Iron Man". But... you're not though, if the suits are gone and if you let that part of you go...?
And why did Tony have to let Iron Man go? Because he was traumatized? He had some very mild panic attacks that last like 20 seconds each and he abandons the entire thing? Surely a psychologist is alot better than blowing up the thing that has kept America safe from so many threats? Surely thousands of bad people will descend on you, now unable to defend yourself as efficiently, and kill you and loved ones in an attempt to keep you from ever coming back should you change your mind?

Also the suits at the end are blown up. Considering that we've seen his suits handle most about everything in previous movies, those must be some magic explosives?

I'm just confused. Reading this thread has made me aware of a few things I've missed plot-wise and character-wise, but so has many others it seems. So can we agree by concensus that the plot is way too unclear at the very least?