I first learned of the term "noughties" via this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22967.msg2332556#msg2332556), made by JN Winkler, and instantly took a liking to it (hence this thread).
Firstly, how do you say noughties?
Naturally, I'd say "nah-dees", in stereotypical Rochester style (very nasally sounding). However, I'd expect that in Britain, where the term originated, it sounds more like it's spelled: "nought-ies" with emphasis on the "t".
Secondly, why hasn't this term been widely adopted outside Britain?
I've often wished there was a convenient term for the decade 2000-2009, as well as 2010-2019. Then again, the word "nought" itself is rarely heard here in the US, so maybe that explains it. I wonder if Britain has a similar term for the current decade. We have "teens", but that excludes 2010-12, and doesn't specifically refer to calendar years; it's also commonly used to describe the age group.
Thirdly, what about the noughties themselves?
What were the most important events and technological developments of these years, i.e. what will still have an impact on our lives 50 years from now? Some obvious examples are the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, and the advent of the IPhone. Discuss.
I've also heard "oughties," I guess "ought" is marginally more common than "nought" in the US as a synonym for "zero." I first heard "noughties" in the UK and it's pronounced more or less the same as "naughties."
Usually I just refer to a specific year, we're way too early into this century to define decades as a generalization IMO.
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 12:32:21 PM
What were the most important events and technological developments of these years, i.e. what will still have an impact on our lives 50 years from now? Some obvious examples are the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, and the advent of the IPhone. Discuss.
Many websites started in the 2000s decade, including Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Wikipedia, and Youtube. (Google started earlier.)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2018, 12:44:26 PM
Usually I just refer to a specific year, we're way too early into this century to define decades as a generalization IMO.
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2018, 12:44:26 PM
Usually I just refer to a specific year, we're way too early into this century to define decades as a generalization IMO.
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
I think it's easier to do so well after the era has ended. In 2030, you can probably easily distinguish the styles from 2005-15, especially compared to the styles of present (meaning, 2030).
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:13:08 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
Literally any of the pictures from 2005 could have been taken today, let alone in 2015.
I personally like to say the phrase "twenty-aughts" when referring to the first decade of the 2000s, unfortunately this hasn't caught on. The 1900s first decade was referred to as the "nineteen-aughts" .
Some of my posts here when I refer to construction projects but can't recall the year, I've typed for instance that the 401 widening out in Cambridge west of Homer Watson was completed in the early 20-aughts.
This decade can easily be called the 2010s as there's no ambiguity like there is with the 2000s or 20-aughts. The real question becomes when society reaches the 2030s if he will still refer to that period in American History as "The Roaring Twenties" by that name.
I assumed noughties was derived from both "nineties" and "aughts" but who knows.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 20, 2018, 02:22:58 PM
The real question becomes when society reaches the 2030s if he will still refer to that period in American History as "The Roaring Twenties" by that name.
Yes. We still have the Gay Nineties to refer to the 1890s, even though the 1990s have already passed. Similarly, the 2020s will become just "The Twenties", while the 1920s will remain "The Roaring Twenties".
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:13:08 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
Literally any of the pictures from 2005 could have been taken today, let alone in 2015.
One thing you could probably say was that the late 2000s decade saw the return of approachable performance cars that looked appealing becoming mainstream again. I still remember the 2008 Challenger and the Camaro concept (which began production in 2010) were game changers. In the 2010s even vanilla cars are starting to become visually appealing again which was a nice change from the 80s/90s/00s box-to-jelly bean area of car design.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:13:08 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
Literally any of the pictures from 2005 could have been taken today, let alone in 2015.
I suppose fashionistas and those who follow those things closely would spot the differences and could narrow things down to a more specific time-frame, just as we have those who can tell a '57-spec Interstate shield from a '60s-spec. Me, I couldn't really tell; I have clothes that are between 10-20 years old in hanging in my closet, even older for jackets. That's a perk of: A) it still fits B) not caring about the latest fashion C) too old to care.
But sometimes fashion from one specific year or season becomes a definition for an entire decade or a generation, and that's sometimes how things get lumped together in a stereotypical way. Hollywood's vision of the Bohemian "hippie" was a period from 1967 to 1969, and isn't interchangeable with fashions from earlier in the decade. The poodle skirt was only worn for a few years in the late-1950s. Some of the fluorescent and high-contrast colors of the 1980s fashion shined and dimmed in about two years. Musically, the 1970s are linked to disco, but that wasn't really a thing until 1974 at the soonest. Grunge lasted vaguely four years in the 1990s. As Kurt Vonnegut would say:
And so on. But times change; few fashions or statements are expected to last more than a year or two, unless they create an overwhelming impact on society (or we can't live without it). It's bound to be replaced by the latest thing; people get bored and they're distracted by the next shiny object:
Five years later, it's out of date.
Ten years later, it's forgotten.
Fifteen years later, it's a vague cultural curiosity.
Twenty years later, it's an underground retro-thing.
Twenty-five years later, it's mainstream again.
(Thirty years later, we're bemoaning how there's no good ideas left.)
It seems to be used more by the British. I have seen the word written out (or typed-out), but haven't actually met anyone actually say the word "Noughties" or "Aughties", probably because it sounds like the word
naughties, which sounds either very childish or as a euphemism for people with a weird fetish. I don't remember a convenient term for period from 1900-1910, other than "beginning of the (twentieth/last) century" or "Early 1900s).
Here's a pretty good run-down of it. (Yes, there's a bit of a left-bent to it, mostly due to it being a media-based site in which art is imitating life and vice-versa. Get over it.) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TurnOfTheMillennium)
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:13:08 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
Literally any of the pictures from 2005 could have been taken today, let alone in 2015.
That's how eras work though. It's not like a year or a decade ends and suddenly fashion changes. 1985 was similar to 1975 but there were some differences - disco wasn't as popular, etc. In a number of years, you can look back and appreciate the changes a bit more.
Using the example that 1 posted, the 1920's were known as the roaring 20's, although there was a minor thing called the Wall Street Crash of 1929 which doesn't match up well with the rest of the decade.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:13:08 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 20, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 20, 2018, 12:50:44 PM
Yeah, I can't really point to any particular style or trend that would distinguish, say, 2005 from 2015 the way you could distinguish between, say, 1975 and 1985.
Smartphones and Internet culture.
OK, yes, but specifically, there haven't been changes in fashion between 2005 and 2015 that are as distinct as, say, a Nehru jacket and a leisure suit. Or the narrow tie and the wide tie. Or all of the earth tones of the mid 90s.
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
That story just reminded me what a smokeshow Rachel Bilson was in the OC 15 years ago.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:58:30 PMThat's how eras work though. It's not like a year or a decade ends and suddenly fashion changes. 1985 was similar to 1975 but there were some differences - disco wasn't as popular, etc. In a number of years, you can look back and appreciate the changes a bit more.
Yes, I'm aware that "the seventies" did not start in 1970 or 1971, "the eighties" did not start in 1980 or 1981, etc. That's why I deliberately didn't choose those years. And I think it'd be very easy to tell which was a business suit in 1967 and which was a business suit in 1977, even in 1977. Are you sure you'd be able to tell me which of my business suits I bought today and which one I bought in 2008?
Clothing may be changing less from year to year (or from decade to decade) these days.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty of other changes since 2008 to talk about.
Remember MySpace? What a time to be alive...
It hasn't caught on in Oklahoma because literally nobody here uses "nought" or "aught" to mean zero. It's either "zero" or "O". So you'd be more likely to hear someone say "the O-Os" before you would "the noughties".
Another problem with "the noughties" is that, at least in the US, it's homophonous with "the naughties", and then you're stuck explaining to the person who hasn't heard it before that that span of ten years did nothing wrong, you mean "nought" as in zero, and...in the end it's easier to use the longer but more readily understood "2000s".
If we're going to go with something based on a synonym for zero that nobody uses, why not something based on "cipher"? That would at least sound pretty cool.
Quote from: Takumi on June 20, 2018, 06:35:39 PM
Remember MySpace? What a time to be alive...
I remember, when my older brothers (who were born in the mid-90s) first got a myspace, my idiot five-year-old self tried to get one too. I followed them everywhere on every single website, I'm sure that was fun for them.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 20, 2018, 06:46:21 PM
Another problem with "the noughties" is that, at least in the US, it's homophonous with "the naughties", and then you're stuck explaining to the person who hasn't heard it before that that span of ten years did nothing wrong, you mean "nought" as in zero, and...in the end it's easier to use the longer but more readily understood "2000s".
I agree. I just think that, in general, even outside the context of decades, there should be
some universal term for 0-9, and another for 10-19. Preferably, it should meet two criteria: (a) maximum length of three syllables, and (b) ends with "-ies".
Quote from: Takumi on June 20, 2018, 06:35:39 PM
Remember MySpace? What a time to be alive...
Then all my friends migrated to Fakebook and I eventually followed.
I just call the first decade of this millennium the "2000s" and the current decade the "2010s". Maybe someday we'll have a "proper" nickname for these decades, but they work fine as is right now.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 20, 2018, 08:26:42 PM
I just call the first decade of this millennium the "2000s"
That no longer works for "1900's", which now refers to the entire century, not just 1900-1909.
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 07:43:08 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 20, 2018, 06:46:21 PM
Another problem with "the noughties" is that, at least in the US, it's homophonous with "the naughties", and then you're stuck explaining to the person who hasn't heard it before that that span of ten years did nothing wrong, you mean "nought" as in zero, and...in the end it's easier to use the longer but more readily understood "2000s".
I agree. I just think that, in general, even outside the context of decades, there should be some universal term for 0-9, and another for 10-19. Preferably, it should meet two criteria: (a) maximum length of three syllables, and (b) ends with "-ies".
There should be a gender-neutral version of "sir" or "ma'am", too (sometimes you can't tell or it's not important), but there's not. Some blank spots in the English language just never get filled.
QuoteSome blank spots in the English language just never get filled.
On a somewhat-related note, I'd venture that this is specific to the US, not the English language.
Britain seems to have a term for everything (although I'm not sure about the "sir"/"ma'am" thing), much more so than the US. Take "queue" and "line", for example. You don't really
need a separate term for a line of people, but having one allows you to add clarity without adding length.
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 08:29:31 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 20, 2018, 08:26:42 PM
I just call the first decade of this millennium the "2000s"
That no longer works for "1900's", which now refers to the entire century, not just 1900-1909.
That's why I said "right now". I'm hoping for some nick-names to eventually happen for the 2000s and 2010s.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 20, 2018, 02:22:58 PM
I personally like to say the phrase "twenty-aughts" when referring to the first decade of the 2000s, unfortunately this hasn't caught on. The 1900s first decade was referred to as the "nineteen-aughts" .
How about the twenty-zeroes?
I personally refer to them as "the Aughts' or "the Aughties"; Merriam Webster agrees that this is acceptable.
Quote from: SectorZ on June 20, 2018, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2018, 02:13:08 PM
https://www.dmjuice.com/story/entertainment/2015/07/30/fashion-now/30740947/
That story just reminded me what a smokeshow Rachel Bilson was in the OC 15 years ago.
I'd argue that Ms. Bilson's outfit would be right at home in (at least part of) any of the decades I've been alive, except the 50's.
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 12:32:21 PMHowever, I'd expect that in Britain, where the term originated, it sounds more like it's spelled: "nought-ies" with emphasis on the "t".
Not the masses of (mostly southern English) Brits that also T-glottal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-glottalization) like you AmE speakers!
It's somewhat of a pun on 'naughty' and pronounced the same way with an 's' on the end. The OED (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/noughties) says /ˈnɔːtɪz/ and I glottalise the t and throw an intrusive 'r' in there to get something like 'nor-ease' if I'm really hamming up my accent and exaggerating it. But when I think about it I do the OED pronounciation - because T-glottalization for Southern English doesn't happen when speaking carefully (ie thinking about it). It's somewhere between the two - barely pronouced t, and even less pronounced r (I not only use intrusive-r, but r-colour vowels, so I'm a total mess there and can't easily tell about whether I'm doing one or t'other).
QuoteThen again, the word "nought" itself is rarely heard here in the US, so maybe that explains it.
Ditto Britain. Someone coined the pun in the late 90s, it took off, and it was added to the dictionary in 2001.
This decade is simply the 'tens', like 'nineties', etc. And even 'noughties' fits that model: begin with the number of the first year. Now, ok, numbers over twenty take the form umpty-one, etc so 'twenties' make sense as all the years begin 'twenty'. And the 'noughties' years take the form oh-one, etc (but the ohies make no sense). Most of the tens do have 'ten' in them, but in a corrupted form: three-ten becomes thirteen.
Quote from: formulanone on June 20, 2018, 02:54:11 PMIt seems to be used more by the British. I have seen the word written out (or typed-out), but haven't actually met anyone actually say the word "Noughties" or "Aughties", probably because it sounds like the word naughties
That's the point of the word. It's said here precisely because it sounds like naughties, and thus was use humourously in the nineties until we realised it was the only word we had for the 00s, and thus used it seriously (though there's still a little fighting on that) as the term for the decade.
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 09:15:22 PMBritain seems to have a term for everything (although I'm not sure about the "sir"/"ma'am" thing)
We don't, AFAIK. However pushing gender-neutral terms was only something that took off in the noughties, and addressing people as "sir"/"ma'am" isn't big among those wanting gender-neutral words (as they are also not keen on hierarchy)
QuoteTake "queue" and "line", for example. You don't really need a separate term for a line of people, but having one allows you to add clarity without adding length.
Queue and line are different concepts: queue has an order, line is just a 1-d shape.
Queue also doesn't just refer to people. "Can you do this?" "I'll add it to the queue".
American's calling it a 'line' is because they don't understand the British national pasttime, plus they have to conflate words as they need concepts explained every time, eg 'sidewalk' :)
The iPhone was no greater of an invention than any smartphone was. It is just a dumbed down version of an Android phone. It is nothing special. I had an iPhone and I hated it. You can change many more settings on an Android phone than you can on an iPhone. And the Android phones are a far better value.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2018, 02:45:13 PM
One thing you could probably say was that the late 2000s decade saw the return of approachable performance cars that looked appealing becoming mainstream again. I still remember the 2008 Challenger and the Camaro concept (which began production in 2010) were game changers. In the 2010s even vanilla cars are starting to become visually appealing again which was a nice change from the 80s/90s/00s box-to-jelly bean area of car design.
Ewwwwwwwwww really? I find the vast majority of contemporary cars to be hideously ugly. The last generation Hyundai Sonata, while a fine car, was one of the ugliest cars I've ever seen. It's funny that the most attractive cars built today are retro versions of '60s and '70s cars. Modern cars have weird angles and character lines that randomly go in all sorts of directions and crossovers are fat and they look like an obese person sitting on a barstool that is too small for them. There are a few good looking modern cars but most of them are just gross. The Nissan Juke is probably the ugliest car I've ever seen. The new Honda Civic's rear end is disgusting. The new Toyota Prius is batshit ugly. Give me a '90s jellybean car any day over a modern car.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 20, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
There should be a gender-neutral version of "sir" or "ma'am", too (sometimes you can't tell or it's not important), but there's not. Some blank spots in the English language just never get filled.
I used to work at a call center for a cell phone company, and one day somebody called in and you couldn't tell if they were a man or a woman. The call got escalated to a supervisor and the supervisor couldn't tell the caller's gender either. He got a bit frustrated because the caller was being an idiot and instead of saying "sir" or "ma'am" he said "person". We laughed about that one for the rest of the time I worked there.
It seems like things happen slower these days than they did in the past. Take cars for example. A 1955 model car looked completely different from the same model in 1945, and a 1965 looked just as different than a 1955. A 1975 model was just as different. Try telling a 2005 car from a 2015 car. There's not a whole lot of difference. Music is another example. There were definite trends and eras that sometimes only lasted a couple of years in the past. Now it all seems to run together. Maybe things just don't change as often these days or maybe I'm just getting old.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:35:16 AM
The iPhone was no greater of an invention than any smartphone was. It is just a dumbed down version of an Android phone. It is nothing special. I had an iPhone and I hated it. You can change many more settings on an Android phone than you can on an iPhone. And the Android phones are a far better value.
I agree fully, and Rush's "stealth ads" where he is regularly hawking Apple products, long ago turned me against buying any Apple projects including the iPhone.
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2018, 06:11:02 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:35:16 AM
The iPhone was no greater of an invention than any smartphone was. It is just a dumbed down version of an Android phone. It is nothing special. I had an iPhone and I hated it. You can change many more settings on an Android phone than you can on an iPhone. And the Android phones are a far better value.
I agree fully, and Rush's "stealth ads" where he is regularly hawking Apple products, long ago turned me against buying any Apple projects including the iPhone.
Smartphones in general were still a major development of the noughties, regardless of brand.
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 07:43:08 PM
I agree. I just think that, in general, even outside the context of decades, there should be some universal term for 0-9, and another for 10-19. Preferably, it should meet two criteria: (a) maximum length of three syllables, and (b) ends with "-ies".
0-9 is "single digits", but that doesn't work for decades.
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 06:12:31 AM
Smartphones in general were still a major development of the noughties, regardless of brand.
1990s. Quoting Wikipedia --
The first commercially available device that could be properly referred to as a "smartphone" began as a prototype called "Angler" developed by Frank Canova in 1992 while at IBM and demonstrated in November of that year at the COMDEX computer industry trade show. A refined version was marketed to consumers in 1994 by BellSouth under the name Simon Personal Communicator. In addition to placing and receiving cellular calls, the touchscreen-equipped Simon could send and receive faxes and emails. It included an address book, calendar, appointment scheduler, calculator, world time clock, and notepad, as well as other visionary mobile applications such as maps, stock reports and news. The term "smart phone" or "smartphone" was not coined until a year after the introduction of the Simon, appearing in print as early as 1995, describing AT&T's PhoneWriter Communicator.
In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT DoCoMo released the first smartphones to achieve mass adoption within a country.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:43:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 20, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
There should be a gender-neutral version of "sir" or "ma'am", too (sometimes you can't tell or it's not important), but there's not. Some blank spots in the English language just never get filled.
I used to work at a call center for a cell phone company, and one day somebody called in and you couldn't tell if they were a man or a woman. The call got escalated to a supervisor and the supervisor couldn't tell the caller's gender either. He got a bit frustrated because the caller was being an idiot and instead of saying "sir" or "ma'am" he said "person". We laughed about that one for the rest of the time I worked there.
I bowled with someone in my teens, and we couldn't tell if that person was male or female either. Just her looks and everything made it hard to tell who she was, and her name could be used by either sex (think Pat from SNL). We joked about watching her go into the bathroom just to see which one she used (this was all way before today's era of choosing whatever you identify with).
BTW, my use of she and her above is intentional...turns out she was a girl.
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2018, 06:19:41 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 06:12:31 AM
Smartphones in general were still a major development of the noughties, regardless of brand.
1990s. Quoting Wikipedia --
The first commercially available device that could be properly referred to as a "smartphone" began as a prototype called "Angler" developed by Frank Canova in 1992 while at IBM and demonstrated in November of that year at the COMDEX computer industry trade show. A refined version was marketed to consumers in 1994 by BellSouth under the name Simon Personal Communicator. In addition to placing and receiving cellular calls, the touchscreen-equipped Simon could send and receive faxes and emails. It included an address book, calendar, appointment scheduler, calculator, world time clock, and notepad, as well as other visionary mobile applications such as maps, stock reports and news. The term "smart phone" or "smartphone" was not coined until a year after the introduction of the Simon, appearing in print as early as 1995, describing AT&T's PhoneWriter Communicator.
In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT DoCoMo released the first smartphones to achieve mass adoption within a country.
There's numerous inventions which took 10-20 years from invention until they achieved mass-appeal. It's not meaningful to define a cultural change in which a tiny fraction of the populace has access or experience with it.
The first automobiles, aircraft, radios, telephones, televisions, computers, and access to the internet were invented decades before infrastructure existed to support nationwide adoption.
The first product of its kind usually suffers from the fate of being a historical footnote.
Naturally, the iPhone wasn't first...the various Palm Pilots, Blackberry devices, and phones with several included gadgets preceded it. But it changed the industry (for better or for worse) and heralded a second or possibly third generation of the smartphone.
I refer to the decade as the 2000s or in short the 00s (along similar lines to 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.) and pronounce it "two-thousands".
As the decade that contained the majority of my adolescence, which lasted from about 2004 to 2011, let me just say that late 2006 through mid 2010 were the worst years of my life.
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 04:26:41 AM
QuoteTake "queue" and "line", for example. You don't really need a separate term for a line of people, but having one allows you to add clarity without adding length.
Queue and line are different concepts: queue has an order, line is just a 1-d shape.
A queue is a
type of line; here's the primary definition:
Quotequeue
kyo͞o/
noun 1. BRITISH a line or sequence of people or vehicles awaiting their turn to be attended to or to proceed.
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 06:12:31 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 20, 2018, 07:43:08 PM
I agree. I just think that, in general, even outside the context of decades, there should be some universal term for 0-9, and another for 10-19. Preferably, it should meet two criteria: (a) maximum length of three syllables, and (b) ends with "-ies".
0-9 is "single digits", but that doesn't work for decades.
00-09 would be "double-zeroes" or "double-O's", and 10-19 would be the "teens". So those two groups would be the exception to this rule.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 04:35:16 AM
The iPhone was no greater of an invention than any smartphone was. It is just a dumbed down version of an Android phone. It is nothing special. I had an iPhone and I hated it. You can change many more settings on an Android phone than you can on an iPhone. And the Android phones are a far better value.
I have an iPhone, and I agree with you in many ways. I like the iPhone's interface, probably because I'm more used to it. For awhile, my work phone was an Android, and it took a little adjusting to because I was familiar with the iPhone's controls and buttons. I chose to get an iPhone because I've used Apple computers since 1987 and the progression from a Mac computer to an Apple mobile device seemed logical. But I really dislike the way Apple controls what you can install on the phone. You don't have to go through the Google Play Store to install an app. You can install it directly from the developer if you want. Unlike Apple, which requires either iTunes or a jailbroken device with Rock or Cydia. And Androids are cheaper, as well, and much more expandable since most allow the use of a MicroSD card for music, apps and pictures.
If I wasn't so heavily invested in iDevice apps (and the fact that my work devices now are Apple, an iPhone and an iPad, which lets me use work apps on my personal devices and vice versa) I would definitely consider an Android phone.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2018, 06:42:43 AM
Naturally, the iPhone wasn't first...the various Palm Pilots, Blackberry devices, and phones with several included gadgets preceded it. But it changed the industry (for better or for worse) and heralded a second or possibly third generation of the smartphone.
My first contact with a data-enabled mobile device was in 2000 or 2001, when I noticed I was getting emails from upper management personnel from the agency where I worked that had signature lines, "Sent from a BlackBerry mobile device." I was thinking at the time it would be handy to get emails on the go. (My cell phone at the time was a bag phone.)
Quote from: webny99 on June 21, 2018, 08:50:06 AMA queue is a type of line; here's the primary definition:
Not really in British English. Technically it is, I guess, but that dictionary definition is about the only time you'll see the word line to describe a queue in British English.
It's similar to saying 'a vector is a line'. Well, yes, it is, but that description doesn't get at the heart of it. For queue, the important words in the definition are 'sequence' and 'turn'.
And restricting it to people / vehicles is a nonsense with that definition - 'play queue' is something very common this side of the naughties, with those naughties inventions of video and music streaming (though I believe earlier music/video players on computers had play queue too, and likewise DJs would add requests to the queue or queue up a play list).
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 21, 2018, 08:50:06 AMA queue is a type of line; here's the primary definition:
Not really in British English. Technically it is, I guess, but that dictionary definition is about the only time you'll see the word line to describe a queue in British English.
It's similar to saying 'a vector is a line'. Well, yes, it is, but that description doesn't get at the heart of it. For queue, the important words in the definition are 'sequence' and 'turn'.
And restricting it to people / vehicles is a nonsense with that definition - 'play queue' is something very common this side of the naughties, with those naughties inventions of video and music streaming (though I believe earlier music/video players on computers had play queue too, and likewise DJs would add requests to the queue or queue up a play list).
They might add requests to the queue, but they cue up a play list.
Well, has anything of significance changed since 2008?
Did anything of significance change between 1998 and 2008*?
I can think of a few discussion points for both.
My parents always talk about how society has become more willing to give up their privacy for tougher security as a result of 9/11.
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2018, 07:36:18 AM
I refer to the decade as the 2000s or in short the 00s (along similar lines to 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.) and pronounce it "two-thousands".
I do hear that expression, but they are "tens", not "thousands".
Quote from: WR of USA on June 21, 2018, 09:46:18 PM
My parents always talk about how society has become more willing to give up their privacy for tougher security as a result of 9/11.
Indeed they are right, seeing by the age you posted, that indeed makes you born after the awful events of 9/11.
To be honest, I like to think of the 90s ending on 9/11, sure there was the whole Y2K phenomenon and all that and 2000/2001 aren't actually literally in the 1990s, but geopolitically, society changed massively after that date. The 1990s were also very different geopolitically than the 1980s, in fact, the 90s were probably the most optimistic time ever. While in contrast post 9/11 are dark times.
Quote from: Beltway on June 21, 2018, 09:58:20 PM
Quote from: 20160805 on June 21, 2018, 07:36:18 AM
I refer to the decade as the 2000s or in short the 00s (along similar lines to 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.) and pronounce it "two-thousands".
I do hear that expression, but they are "tens", not "thousands".
Exactly; after 2100, saying "two thousands" will become too ambiguous.
Even now, I can't think of how I'd refer to 1900-1909 specifically. For 1910-1919, we can say "nineteen tens", but for the former, "early 1900's" is about as good as you can get.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 21, 2018, 10:07:54 PM
While in contrast post 9/11 are dark times.
I don't disagree. Up for (sensible) debate though.
The 1950s were far more optimistic than the 1990s were.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 03:38:20 PMThey might add requests to the queue, but they cue up a play list.
In US English, perhaps. In British English, we typically use queue.
Both are right, but slightly different. Thinking about it, the En-US idea is perhaps more accurate, due to being done in advanced preparation.
To cue up something is to set cues (eg the song before ending) that get something to happen (the song after beginning).
To queue up something is to put it in a queue.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 21, 2018, 10:07:54 PM
in fact, the 90s were probably the most optimistic time ever.
Oh, I disagree. People could afford to be apathetic, but I wouldn't confuse that with optimism.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 22, 2018, 11:28:21 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 21, 2018, 10:07:54 PM
in fact, the 90s were probably the most optimistic time ever.
Oh, I disagree. People could afford to be apathetic, but I wouldn't confuse that with optimism.
Q: What's worse, ignorance or apathy?
A: I don't know, and I don't care.
:-D :-D :-D :-D
I dunno. 1990s were pretty great. USSR had just fallen, Gulf War I was won, worst scandal was Lewinsky. Brought back Woodstock.
It was indeed pretty optimistic, come to think of it. Moreso than we have ever had since 9-11. Probably the most optimistic decade in my lifetime.
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2018, 02:02:32 PM
I dunno. 1990s were pretty great. USSR had just fallen, Gulf War I was won, worst scandal was Lewinsky. Brought back Woodstock.
It was indeed pretty optimistic, come to think of it. Moreso than we have ever had since 9-11. Probably the most optimistic decade in my lifetime.
Christ, the one defining characteristic of Gen Xers was apathy. Look at all of the advertising from the era that was basically "You don't care? Neither do we. Buy our stuff." Watch any episode of Daria.
For all those people claiming that the '90s were an optimistic time: Maybe you were optimistic, particularly at your age and stage in life at the time, but I hardly think that's an accurate description of the '90s cultural zeitgeist. Abe is right: The '90s were all about being jaded and alienated...angsty. (And by the way, buy a pair of new Levis® Button Fly™ jeans at your local suburban shopping mall to demonstrate your angst!)
Now the '80s, for better or for worse, were an optimistic time as far as popular culture is concerned. Between EPCOT, the Space Shuttle, "Morning in America" –a time when a jovial President could quote Doc Brown ("Where we're going, we don't need roads!" ) and a song like "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades" could become a hit.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 22, 2018, 03:29:30 PM
(And by the way, buy a pair of new Levis® Button Fly™ jeans at your local suburban shopping mall to demonstrate your angst!)
Or, when the weather gets warm, a pair of Levi's Denim Shorts! Yes, once upon a time, jorts were fashionable!
Quote from: briantroutman on June 22, 2018, 03:29:30 PM...and a song like “The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades” could become a hit.
Which put a nice spin on a nuclear holocaust.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 22, 2018, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2018, 02:02:32 PM
I dunno. 1990s were pretty great. USSR had just fallen, Gulf War I was won, worst scandal was Lewinsky. Brought back Woodstock.
It was indeed pretty optimistic, come to think of it. Moreso than we have ever had since 9-11. Probably the most optimistic decade in my lifetime.
Christ, the one defining characteristic of Gen Xers was apathy. Look at all of the advertising from the era that was basically "You don't care? Neither do we. Buy our stuff." Watch any episode of Daria.
Pfft. I was too apathetic to watch MTV back then.
In all honesty, our generation could have celebrated that we weren't annihilated by mutual-assured destruction a little better, but our niche pre-Boomer/post-Greatest Generation parents prepared us for that kind of ennui.
On the other hand, we had Surge.
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2018, 02:02:32 PM
I dunno. 1990s were pretty great. USSR had just fallen, Gulf War I was won, worst scandal was Lewinsky. Brought back Woodstock.
It was indeed pretty optimistic, come to think of it. Moreso than we have ever had since 9-11. Probably the most optimistic decade in my lifetime.
That's why I explicitly mentioned the word geopolitics, think about it....after World War II, there was the constant aggression with the USSR known as the Cold War. Even in the 1980s, there was still the constant fear of the red button being pushed at any time. Although the reunification process started in 1990, Germany, a country that was torn apart in two was put back together in the early 90s. The only real conflicts in this era were the Gulf War and the Kosovo War, both which were very brief......shall we compare this to the Wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq.
As for Woodstock....the demise of it happened as well in the 90s. :biggrin: But honestly, that was bad luck, a combination of incredibly greedy promoters, charging $4 for a bottle of water in 1999, combine that with the heat wave experienced in upstate New York at the time where temperatures above 100F were recorded, as well as there being almost no shade at the venue. It took place on an air force base and obviously the trees had to be removed for the base to exist. So all these factors caused the disaster that we now know as Woodstock '99.
I guess some are equating the whole 1990s to the grunge movement in Seattle.....sure one could say Nevermind was a depressing album that changed how we looked at music.
What is it about the 90s that are so bad and depressing?
Pfft. As a GenXer, the angst was a silly facade. There is a nostalgia for the simpler times before the disaster that was Afghanistan/Iraq under President Bush II.
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2018, 04:44:32 PM
Pfft. As a GenXer, the angst was a silly facade.
I think we set out to change the world, but couldn't even get around to abolishing the 9/10-cent appendix on gasoline.
The angst and melodrama was just to prepare us for our 40s. As a suburbanite, there wasn't ever that much to be a downer about (other than the usual teenage troubles).
Quote from: webny99 on June 21, 2018, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 04:26:41 AM
QuoteTake "queue" and "line", for example. You don't really need a separate term for a line of people, but having one allows you to add clarity without adding length.
Queue and line are different concepts: queue has an order, line is just a 1-d shape.
A queue is a type of line; here's the primary definition:
Dude, are you really trying to tell a British person how waiting in line works?
For your next trick, you should offer football classes to Tom Brady.
I don't think "the Noughties" will catch-on in North America due to the cot-caught merger (common in a lot of the US and throughout Canada) making it rhyme with "naughties". I think "the Zeroes" would be a good name but it hasn't caught on. I usually say "the Two-Thousands" since it's widely understood, but I don't like it since it isn't clear whether that means the decade or the millenium.
Quote from: 7/8 on June 23, 2018, 11:05:54 AM
I don't think "the Noughties" will catch-on in North America due to the cot-caught merger (common in a lot of the US and throughout Canada) making it rhyme with "naughties". I think "the Zeroes" would be a good name but it hasn't caught on. I usually say "the Two-Thousands" since it's widely understood, but I don't like it since it isn't clear whether that means the decade or the millenium.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "the two-thousands" and them having meant the millennium.
"The noughties" seems nice in principle, but because of the cot-caught merger, as 7/8 mentions, I think it sounds weird spoken.
I don't have the cot-caught merger, but I would still pronounce "noughties" and "naughties" the same way.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 23, 2018, 01:50:36 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 21, 2018, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2018, 04:26:41 AM
QuoteTake "queue" and "line", for example. You don't really need a separate term for a line of people, but having one allows you to add clarity without adding length.
Queue and line are different concepts: queue has an order, line is just a 1-d shape.
A queue is a type of line; here's the primary definition:
Dude, are you really trying to tell a British person how waiting in line works?
For your next trick, you should offer football classes to Tom Brady.
Dictionaries don't lie. Waiting in line ("queue", whatever) works the same here as it does in Britain. A queue is a type of line (that has an order); that's an indisputable fact.
EDIT: Removed irrelevant comment.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 23, 2018, 11:05:54 AM
I don't think "the Noughties" will catch-on in North America due to the cot-caught merger (common in a lot of the US and throughout Canada) making it rhyme with "naughties". I think "the Zeroes" would be a good name but it hasn't caught on. I usually say "the Two-Thousands" since it's widely understood, but I don't like it since it isn't clear whether that means the decade or the millenium.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "the two-thousands" and them having meant the millennium.
"The noughties" seems nice in principle, but because of the cot-caught merger, as 7/8 mentions, I think it sounds weird spoken.
I could also say "the Two-Thousands" sounds like a century too. It's too early for it to be a problem yet, so maybe l'm making a problem out of nothing, but in the future it could be confusing.
And that leads me to ask, what did people call the first decade of the 1900's? If someone were to say 1900's now, most people would think of the century, not the decade. And this is why I think "the 2000's" term will age poorly.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "the two-thousands" and them having meant the millennium.
Have you ever heard "nineteen hundreds" with reference to the century? Of course.
Same for "two thousands": After 2100, it will refer to the entire century, almost exclusively.
(Edit: Looks like 7/8 beat me to it, but you get the idea.)
^ Depends heavily on the context. If someone told me they bought a house that was built in "the 1900s" , I would immediately assume they're talking about a turn-of-the-century Edwardian house, definitely not a 1962 split-level. On the other hand, if someone referred to James Buchanan as "the worst President of the 1800s" , I would first wonder the speaker said "1800s" instead of "19th century" (the former terminology seems more common among less educated people than the latter), and then I would accept that the person was referring to 1800-1899.
Likewise, if someone said that they entered high school in "the 2000s" , I would immediately assume they're talking about the Bush II era, not last year.
I probably hear "2000s" used to refer to 2000-2009 decade more than any other term–certainly much more than "noughties" , "oughts" , and "Os" . combined.
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "the two-thousands" and them having meant the millennium.
Have you ever heard "nineteen hundreds" with reference to the millennium? Of course.
No, because they're referring to the 20th century, not the whole millennium.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "the two-thousands" and them having meant the millennium.
Have you ever heard "nineteen hundreds" with reference to the millennium? Of course.
No, because they're referring to the 20th century, not the whole millennium.
My brain was thinking "century", but my fingers typed "millennium", who knows why. I've updated my post. The point is that "1900's" no longer refers to just 1900-1909; it refers to the entire century.
Obviously, you don't hear people saying "the one thousands" to refer to 1000-1999!
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 02:42:37 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 23, 2018, 11:33:34 AM
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "the two-thousands" and them having meant the millennium.
Have you ever heard "nineteen hundreds" with reference to the millennium? Of course.
No, because they're referring to the 20th century, not the whole millennium.
My brain was thinking "century", but my fingers typed "millennium", who knows why. I've updated my post. The point is that "1900's" no longer refers to just 1900-1909; it refers to the entire century.
Obviously, you don't hear people saying "the one thousands" to refer to 1000-1999!
I've yet to hear anyone in regular conversation refer to the entirety of the 20th Century as the 1900s. Most people still refer to decades like "the 1980s or 80s."
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 11:46:03 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 23, 2018, 01:50:36 AM
Dude, are you really trying to tell a British person how waiting in line works?
For your next trick, you should offer football classes to Tom Brady.
Dictionaries don't lie. Waiting in line ("queue", whatever) works the same here as it does in Britain. A queue is a type of line (that has an order); that's an indisputable fact.
There's a difference between dictionary definitions and how a word is used in practice. Consider the word "literally". It's literally used in the exact opposite of its dictionary definition these days.
Quote from: vdeane on June 23, 2018, 10:48:43 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 11:46:03 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 23, 2018, 01:50:36 AM
Dude, are you really trying to tell a British person how waiting in line works?
For your next trick, you should offer football classes to Tom Brady.
Dictionaries don't lie. Waiting in line ("queue", whatever) works the same here as it does in Britain. A queue is a type of line (that has an order); that's an indisputable fact.
There's a difference between dictionary definitions and how a word is used in practice. Consider the word "literally". It's literally used in the exact opposite of its dictionary definition these days.
In this case, it's not a question of whether the dictionary definition reflects how the word is used.
Rather, it's a question of whether I should defer to someone from Britain as the expert on a word just because it happened to originate in their home country. And the answer, of course, is no, I should not. The notion that living in the US somehow hampers or inferiorates my ability to understand the definition of queue is laughable at best.
Regarding "literally", I just googled it, and found the original definition, followed by a new, "informal" definition: used for emphasis/to express strong feeling while not being literally true. So there's that.
Google Dunning-Krueger effect next.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
Google Dunning-Krueger effect next.
Why Scott, Why???? :-D
I seem to remember addressing something similar to this in a thread that dealt with how we say single years in the 1st decade of the 21st century a while back. At least I think I did.
But just in case I didn't: When it comes to single years I have a tendency to say Two Thousand One (etc) all the way up to Two Thousand Ten. Once we hit 2011 I have a tendency to say Twenty Eleven (etc) up to the current Twenty Eighteen. I don't know why I couldn't just say Twenty Oh One. I have no qualms with saying Nineteen Oh One, for example. But I just couldn't do it, and it didn't feel right to me until we hit 2011.
I never gave the entire decade a real thought, though, this is interesting to me. I asked my partner at work how she refers to the years 2000-2009, explained to her what I was looking for was like how we refer to the eighties or nineties music. I got a blank stare and she said the same thing, that she never really gave it much thought either.
We both came to the conclusion that even though we are most of the way through the teens already it still really feels like we are still in the throes of that post 9/11 period and nothing feels really all that much different, especially since I started using my phone for internet and messaging circa 2007 or so.
Maybe it will be a decade or 2 out of this period before we really know what to call it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
Google Dunning-Krueger effect next.
Rather than
(a) defending my credibility, or
(b) crafting another squalid dis in response,
I'm just going to be the mature party here and say enough is enough. I'm sorry you were prepared to go that low, but I'm sure as hell not going lower!
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2018, 12:03:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
Google Dunning-Krueger effect next.
Rather than
(a) defending my credibility, or
(b) crafting another squalid dis in response,
I'm just going to be the mature party here and say enough is enough. I'm sorry you were prepared to go that low, but I'm sure as hell not going lower!
What's really fun about this response is we don't know if it's crafted because:
1. You understand what Dunning–Kruger is and legitimately feel insulted because of the insinuation that you might be on the opposite end of the spectrum (ie stupid/unaware).
or
2. You don't understand what it is and feel insulted merely because you think there's a chance he's calling you stupid.
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
In this case, it's not a question of whether the dictionary definition reflects how the word is used.
Rather, it's a question of whether I should defer to someone from Britain as the expert on a word just because it happened to originate in their home country. And the answer, of course, is no, I should not. The notion that living in the US somehow hampers or inferiorates my ability to understand the definition of queue is laughable at best.
Depends on whether you're talking about how the word is used in the US or the UK.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 24, 2018, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2018, 12:03:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
Google Dunning-Krueger effect next.
Rather than
(a) defending my credibility, or
(b) crafting another squalid dis in response,
I'm just going to be the mature party here and say enough is enough. I'm sorry you were prepared to go that low, but I'm sure as hell not going lower!
What's really fun about this response is we don't know if it's crafted because:
1. You understand what Dunning—Kruger is and legitimately feel insulted because of the insinuation that you might be on the opposite end of the spectrum (ie stupid/unaware).
or
2. You don't understand what it is and feel insulted merely because you think there's a chance he's calling you stupid.
Actually, neither. I'm aware that it was supposed to be an insult,
but it was also a good opportunity to offer a logical rebuttal of my actual point.Irony of all ironies, he went with an insult, thereby proving that I have no reason to feel insulted!
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2018, 05:11:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
In this case, it's not a question of whether the dictionary definition reflects how the word is used.
Rather, it's a question of whether I should defer to someone from Britain as the expert on a word just because it happened to originate in their home country. And the answer, of course, is no, I should not. The notion that living in the US somehow hampers or inferiorates my ability to understand the definition of queue is laughable at best.
Depends on whether you're talking about how the word is used in the US or the UK.
Depends on whether there's a difference in how the word is used in the US vs. the UK.
It's certainly used
more frequently in the UK, but not differently; it refers to a type of line in both places. Granted, there are additional usages, contexts, etc., which
english si alluded to, but I'm talking strictly about the primary definition here.
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2018, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2018, 05:11:12 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 23, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
In this case, it's not a question of whether the dictionary definition reflects how the word is used.
Rather, it's a question of whether I should defer to someone from Britain as the expert on a word just because it happened to originate in their home country. And the answer, of course, is no, I should not. The notion that living in the US somehow hampers or inferiorates my ability to understand the definition of queue is laughable at best.
Depends on whether you're talking about how the word is used in the US or the UK.
Depends on whether there's a difference in how the word is used in the US vs. the UK.
It's certainly used more frequently in the UK, but not differently; it refers to a type of line in both places. Granted, there are additional usages, contexts, etc., which english si alluded to, but I'm talking strictly about the primary definition here.
Queues are also used in programming (a queue is first in, first out; a stack is first in, last out). I would definitely not call this type of queue a "line". This meaning of queue is used in the US just as much as it is in the UK.
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2018, 06:04:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 24, 2018, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 24, 2018, 12:03:49 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
Google Dunning-Krueger effect next.
Rather than
(a) defending my credibility, or
(b) crafting another squalid dis in response,
I'm just going to be the mature party here and say enough is enough. I'm sorry you were prepared to go that low, but I'm sure as hell not going lower!
What's really fun about this response is we don't know if it's crafted because:
1. You understand what Dunning–Kruger is and legitimately feel insulted because of the insinuation that you might be on the opposite end of the spectrum (ie stupid/unaware).
or
2. You don't understand what it is and feel insulted merely because you think there's a chance he's calling you stupid.
Actually, neither. I'm aware that it was supposed to be an insult, but it was also a good opportunity to offer a logical rebuttal of my actual point.
Irony of all ironies, he went with an insult, thereby proving that I have no reason to feel insulted!
Odd you say that, because in your previous post you made it clear that you
weren't going to respond to his post, but by responding to me, you're indirectly responding to him. Nor do I see anything that looks like a rebuttal in said post, except for the fact that you're now claiming it was one (and if so, that post now makes zero sense.)
Nor did I say anywhere that Scott was trying to insult you, but rather that
you thought he was insulting you. Which, from that reply, you clearly think he is, even though I don't read that post as a direct insult.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 24, 2018, 06:59:04 PM
Odd you say that, because in your previous post you made it clear that you weren't going to respond to his post, but by responding to me, you're indirectly responding to him. Nor do I see anything that looks like a rebuttal in said post, except for the fact that you're now claiming it was one (and if so, that post now makes zero sense.)
You misunderstand - my point is that he chose to give a subtle insult
rather than a direct rebuttal - presumably because there was no real rebuttal to give.
In other words, he decided against arguing, which is the equivalent of saying "you're right", or at a minimum, saying "you're not wrong enough for me to waste time forming a counterargument".
QuoteNor did I say anywhere that Scott was trying to insult you, but rather that you thought he was insulting you. Which, from that reply, you clearly think he is, even though I don't read that post as a direct insult.
I mean, I was the intended recipient, and I knew right away, given the scope of the discussion, that it was
meant as an insult. Or at least he knew there was a pretty good chance I'd feel insulted.
Anyways, whatever. There are other more important threads awaiting. :-P