You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I would like to say that I am not posting this for any political reason. Also I didn't want to post it in the cool videos thread because... well...
If this thread fizzles out I'll just request deletion of it, but I am curious how people will react to it.
Just watch it and tell me what you think.
So this guy was once considered a presidential candidate huh? What's with the bar being so low these days, did George Bush Jnr open the door to any old fool?
Is he genuinely puzzled, just posing a rhetorical question, or manufacturing an issue out of nothing (which appears to be the Republican way)?
My school has taken to calling them BYOD's, for Bring Your Own Devices, which encompasses phones, iPod's, and laptops.
BYOD is kinda hard to say though.
So this guy was once considered a presidential candidate huh? What's with the bar being so low these days, did George Bush Jnr open the door to any old fool?
Is he genuinely puzzled, just posing a rhetorical question, or manufacturing an issue out of nothing (which appears to be the Republican way)?
Politics aside, I think this is a rather interesting question to ask. I don't believe we need to find a new name for smartphones, because they're the result and part of a progressive evolution of the cellphone. But one can ask themselves whether what we have in our hands still is a cellphone, or we just haven't realized that at one point, it's become a new thing.
Not that the name in itself matters, but the idea behind changing it.
Last edited by Saniss (2013-05-14 11:10:44)
Except he doesn't even to seem to be aware that they are commonly called smart phones, or are frequently referred to by their brand name (e.g. i-phone). So he's ignoring all the name changing that has indeed taken place. Further, it's sort of like a guy coming down from the mountains saying that he needs a new name for his car because it has air-conditioning, radio, a sat nav, and a tv and dvd player. It's still a car, like a phone that does other stuff is still a phone.
I don't think there's much to be gained from thinking whether a name is appropriate - that seems to be the pursuit of marketing people when they want to sell you something or, as in this case, want to earn some kind of legacy by coining a new word/term.
+1
redxavier wrote:So this guy was once considered a presidential candidate huh? What's with the bar being so low these days, did George Bush Jnr open the door to any old fool?
Is he genuinely puzzled, just posing a rhetorical question, or manufacturing an issue out of nothing (which appears to be the Republican way)?
Politics aside, I think this is a rather interesting question to ask. I don't believe we need to find a new name for smartphones, because they're the result and part of a progressive evolution of the cellphone. But one can ask themselves whether what we have in our hands still is a cellphone, or we just haven't realized that at one point, it's become a new thing.
Not that the name in itself matters, but the idea behind changing it.
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. 
Last edited by TechNoir (2013-05-14 11:54:00)
+1
I googled it. It's called a smart phone.
I also googled Newt Gingrich. He's an out-of-touch, fat-headed, pseudo-intellectual, failed politician.
I'd call it a portable hoozermawozzle.
Or 'smart phone' if you want to use the actual term.
I see the point, though. The "horseless carriage" analogy is a good one, the idea that a new technology is first defined by the old technology it sorta resembles. But cars don't actually have anything to do with horses, they're their own thing. You could just as accurately call a car a "wombatless carriage" nowadays. And "internet" has a better ring to it than "high-speed automatic telegraph", too.
To those of use who lived through the transition, we think of these devices as "phones that got smart". But the "phone" aspect is a minor function of what "smartphones" do now. How often do they get used for actual voice communication, vs everything else you can do with one? Even if "smartphone" remains the common name, the "phone" part is gonna need to be defined for younger folk pretty soon.
You see, son - "phone" meant a device that ONLY let you talk to other people, and you could only use it when both you and the other person were holding interfaces that were hardwired into the wall of your house.
Geez, Dad, that sounds awful, but I guess you needed some way to pass the time while you were lighting your woodstove, huh?
Bah! You want to name something, Newt? Name the common domestic species of cattle. It has no name.
They're not all cows, because "move your cow out of the road" said to a farmer of a bull would get you laughed at, and other things like female elephants and whales are also cows. When cowboys count them, they call them "head of cattle". (The word "cattle" didn't even mean cattle originally. It just meant "property"—a doublet of "chattel".)
Other species of cattle do have their own name, like zebu, yak, water buffalo, gnu, bison, reindeer, etc. But not the lowly bos primigenius taurus.
I see the point, though. The "horseless carriage" analogy is a good one, the idea that a new technology is first defined by the old technology it sorta resembles. But cars don't actually have anything to do with horses, they're their own thing. You could just as accurately call a car a "wombatless carriage" nowadays. And "internet" has a better ring to it than "high-speed automatic telegraph", too.
To those of use who lived through the transition, we think of these devices as "phones that got smart". But the "phone" aspect is a minor function of what "smartphones" do now. How often do they get used for actual voice communication, vs everything else you can do with one? Even if "smartphone" remains the common name, the "phone" part is gonna need to be defined for younger folk pretty soon.
You see, son - "phone" meant a device that ONLY let you talk to other people, and you could only use it when both you and the other person were holding interfaces that were hardwired into the wall of your house.
Geez, Dad, that sounds awful, but I guess you needed some way to pass the time while you were lighting your woodstove, huh?
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.
So... yeah... moo-moo?
+1
Question 1.
What's the collective term for adult sons and daughters? That 90-year old has eight great-grandchildren, 4 grandchildren, and two..... children? But the 'children' are 70 years old?
Question 2. We got through all of 2000-2009 without agreeing on a term for the decade. Are we in the twenty-teens?
Question 3. You're ordering for you and your partner at a restaurant. You say to the waiter... "and [blank] will have the salad". How do you refer to your partner? Your sexual/married relationship is none of the waiter's business. You can't say their name as they haven't been introduced to the waiter. My friend? My partner? She?
Gingrich currently holds no office, but his brain has long been stewing in the illusion that he can win the GOP nomination someday. He's that deluded. He needs to stay relevant, get pageviews and re-Tweets, get his name scattered into in the news cycle any way he can. And, this week, this B.S. about smartphone nomenclature is the best his social media guru could come up with. Which is sad. I don't think it's about technology, or the country, or whatever else he's flogging at any given moment. It's about his political prospects. I'm kind of fascinated by him, to be honest. He's nuts. He really, truly believes he could be elected president. What's funny is that nobody wants him to go away more than the GOP. The party hierarchy, believe it or not, are hoping to have someone on their 2016 ticket who is not an old, white male. It's more likely that my yorkshire terrier would get elected president, and she doesn't even have a long-form birth certificate.
+1
Question 1.
What's the collective term for adult sons and daughters? That 90-year old has eight great-grandchildren, 4 grandchildren, and two..... children? But the 'children' are 70 years old?Question 2. We got through all of 2000-2009 without agreeing on a term for the decade. Are we in the twenty-teens?
Question 3. You're ordering for you and your partner at a restaurant. You say to the waiter... "and [blank] will have the salad". How do you refer to your partner? Your sexual/married relationship is none of the waiter's business. You can't say their name as they haven't been introduced to the waiter. My friend? My partner? She?
Question 1:
They are always their children...my grandmother in law still refers to her mom as "mom" and sometimes takes a very mom voice to her adult children. It's still children, even though children can refer to younger humans. I suppose "offspring" is a more generic term that isn't age related.
Question 2: I thought it was just the teens 
Question 3: I refer to them as they
Well re #2.
2000-2009: the 20-oughts.
I thought everyone knew that?
And #3...you can call them by their name, if it's just the 2 of you, I think the waiter can figure out who you're talking about by context. Aside from what them movies tell you, waiters, for the most part, aren't actually a bunch of slobbering idiots.
Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-05-16 21:09:18)
I'm fond of 'the naughties'.
Question 3. You're ordering for you and your partner at a restaurant. You say to the waiter... "and [blank] will have the salad". How do you refer to your partner?
"Sweetpea" is acceptable. If it's 1912.
avatar wrote:Question 3. You're ordering for you and your partner at a restaurant. You say to the waiter... "and [blank] will have the salad". How do you refer to your partner?
"Sweetpea" is acceptable. If it's 1912.
and the fuck-machine across the table that I'm going to destroy later will have the salad
and the fuck-machine across the table that I'm going to destroy later will have the salad
You old charmer, you.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
