Caught this article over at News.com: William Gibson: ‘Cyber’ is going away. Why post about it? Because I wrote a post pleading for the world to drop the prefix back in January, 2005.
I disagree with Gibson that the term ‘digital’ is also on its way out. I like digital.
Something that I’ve found very interesting over the years is units of measurement and their conversions, particularly those that record linear distance. I’m talking about inches, feet, miles, centimeters, meters, kilometers, etc. I even find it interesting that you can say KILLO-meter or kill-LOM-eter.
One thing I’ve always been curious about is how it came to be that a mile is 5,280 feet. I did some Google work, and the best hit I found was a copy-and-paste from Wikipedia. The article was about inches, but I really wanted to know about miles, and Wiki had an article for that, too.
Apparently miles come from ancient Egypt or ancient Rome. A mile was the length of 1,000 pairs of strides by a Roman soldier. The word “mile” is derived from mille passus, thousand paces. But in 1593, England’s Queen Elizabeth I changed the mile from 5,000 feet to 8 furlongs. A furlong is 660 feet, so that’s where we get our current value of 5,280 feet. So where does the furlong come from?
A furlong is the length of a furrow in a one-acre plot of land. Okay — what’s an acre?
The acre is today defined as 4,840 square yards, but it was originally come up with to describe the amount of land that could be plowed by one person with one ox in one day.
So in a nutshell, that’s what a mile is.
Is anyone else tired of the “cyber” prefix? I think I stopped using it in 1994. No, wait — I never used it.
I think if you were to graph the respect for the term on the y-axis and age on the x-axis, you’d find that people older than 25 or 30 think it’s the most appropriate word, and people younger than 25 or 30 realize that it’s cheesy and ambiguous.
Look at this URL: www.securecyberspace.gov. When you click on it, it redirects you to a page on the White House’s site: “The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.”
Can we all just agree to replace the word “cyberspace” with the word “Internet?” Please? I could see an argument that the Internet is public and “cyberspace” could encompass corporate intranets …. but most intranets are accessible through the Internet, so I think due to the definition of the word Internet, via connection to it they inherently become part of it.
So let’s retire the word “cyberspace.” And any word that contains “cyber.” It’s okay if we do this. People no longer say “motorcarriage” or “iron horse” or “dirigible” — oftentimes the first attempt to name something … isn’t the best attempt.
While we’re talking about cyberspace, why don’t we examine words used to describe parts of the Internet and their persistence in the vernacular. On second though, make that “vernacular of informed people from the ages of 13 to 38.”
I was a little torn over which term to explore first, but I had to go with email. It’s what people use the Internet for more than anything else. It’s how individuals connect with other individuals. This expands the scope of my discussion slightly, but I find it worth pointing out that the inconsistency with the term “email” is how to spell it. e-mail? E-Mail? Email? email? courriel? There’s also the term for an individual email message. I often start emails with something like, “I’m writing you this message because …” So the possibilities are: message, email, letter … maybe those are the only possibilities.
I was going to write more … maybe I’ll pick this up later.
I actually started a post about The Matrix, but I didn’t like where it was going. One of the few times I’ve written a post and decided not to upload it. Also one of the times I’ve described a future post and then failed to deliver it, but that happens a little more frequently.
I started the summer job. They keep me busy there and – surprisingly – I’m glad that they do. At some other jobs I’ve had, I either had too little work to do or too little supervision or both, and those things often lead to playing solitaire or posting to WCIFT about the movie I saw over the weekend. And doing stuff like that often leads to worrying that someone is going to walk up behind you and catch you wasting “company time.”
Plus, the people who I work with are actually pretty cool. I’ve worked a total of six days, and already I have had to revise my opinions of several people from my initial take. Kind of like how I thought Brown was a jerk the first time Morash brought him to RIT. Additionally, at this job I have actually managed to learn just about everyone’s name … I think this is influenced in part by the fact that I actually interact with them. At other jobs I’ve had, I basically went to one person for all my tasks, or went to no one at all.
What else? I feel like I want to write more but I feel like I have very little to write about. I hopped on IM about ten minutes ago and everyone was either idle or offline. Okay, this brings a topic to mind. I saw a headline a few weeks ago – it was something along this lines of “Cursive disappearing under weight of typing.” Something like that. I’ve also read article about kids actually submitting papers for school in which they made errors such as: writing “u” in place of “you,” writing “4” in place of “for,” etc. Basically, the gist is that some kids are typing IM shorthand so much that it is compromising their writing skills.
I’m sorry, but I really can’t get bent out of shape about this. I mean, slang has been diluting people’s formal speech for centuries. Now we’ve finally reached a point (in the industrial/post-industrial age) where kids communicate with each other regularly via written (or typed) text. And now we’ve got text slang.
Like I said, I can’t get bent out of shape about this. Why? Try logging on AOL at 5:30 PM. Busy signal? Slow connection? Why? Yes, there are a lot of people using it, but there is also just a whole lot of data getting thrown around the network. If people type “u” instead of “you” and “4” instead of “for,” it might just save some ones and zeros, and it might just cut down on Internet traffic a little bit. And it might actually save time in the real world. Did you know that Teddy Roosevelt wanted to change the spelling of “through” to “thru?” I hoped that he had also wanted to make further changes. I did a little Google and found two versions of what is most complete here … Read as much as you want. I got about halfway down and gave up. The gist of it is is that in the written English language, you can make the same sound with more than one spelling (g and j, s and z, qu and kw), and you can also make more than one sound with a single spelling (g, ough, oo, ast). This makes for a written language that is very difficult to learn. So the link I mentioned provides descriptions of three reforms to the written English language (TO, or Traditional Orthography). The problem is, a whole lot of people use the current system, and there are a whole lot of documents written with the current system. So it’ll probably never change.
The keyboard will never change, either. But at least the written English language wasn’t intentionally designed to be hard to use. I was going to put a link about this, but there is really just too much to read on the subject. And I have to go to sleep.
Okay, here’s a question aimed directly at Brian Lewis, Steve Smith, and Scott Morash. Is it appropriate to use vulgar words in the posts? Morash, of course, has the F-bomb in the title of his page, but he hasn’t updated it in like three years, so I don’t know if his vote counts. I don’t recall Lewis ever using curse words on his site, but he does have those pictures from New Year’s a few years back when people got naked. I don’t think Smiz has ever used curse words on his site, but he did recently feature Timco’s Mardi Gras pics.
So my friends’ sites have nudity, but no overt swearing. Is one more acceptable than the other? Or is it okay to cross the line, just not on the front page? I think I’ve sort of used that as the thumb rule. I posted some swearing back in the day with “Roommate Smack,” which I’ve been thinking about putting back up on my site. I’m a little leery about putting up swearing, but if it’s not on the front page, maybe it’s okay. I mean, these sites aren’t intended to be viewed by children, and they certainly aren’t intended to be viewed by anyone’s parents … Still, if you type “Dan Premo” into Google, you’re gonna find this page. So what kind of face should I present to the world? (***Update: typing “Dan Premo” into Google today gave me the raised by coyotes page on the RIT server. Same with Yahoo search. WTF?***)
On a different note, because of the whole spam thing I don’t put my current email address on any web sites. Putting a mailto: link on a web page is an invitation for spam. However, I recently read a suggestion to spell out addresses in a pseudo-phonetic manner, like “brian hyphen lewis at abc hyphen gay dot com.” A spider’s probably not gonna pick that up, but if someone actually reads the page, they could nab your address. What to do, what to do?
Okay, I actually had a napkin full of notes for a longwinded post tonight, but something happened that takes precedence –
ESPN.com has a new design!
(Again!)
I think that the actual logo looks a little plain, but I like the shadow effect and the way the top story is displayed. I also like the fact that they kept some things the same … Seamless tabs. Very nice. And ESPN Motion? Somebody get me a freaking broadband connection. If at some point in the future I have my own broadband connection, I may again make ESPN.com my homepage. If it’s seriously TV meets Internet … hoo boy.
So what was I going to post tonight. First, a small topic I want to hit on. Okay, my parents have DirecTV, and it gives us both East Coast and West Coast feeds of the four major networks. So I’m watching a Los Angeles station earlier tonight and the local news promos a story called “Best Hotel Pool in Vegas.”
Think about that for a minute.
Is there ANY real news worth reporting? I guess CNN covers it all … Anyway, it got me thinking – since national news isn’t worth covering, maybe I should do a “Best Back Yard in Allegany” story/competition. I mean, it would be completely biased, and I would probably openly accept bribes. My parents’ own back yard would definitely be a finalist. But they kind of have a scenic yard rather than a football yard. So this got me thinking about the old Back Yard Football League (BYFL) and Back Yard Soccer League (BYSL) from high school. (Damn … I’ve been away from RIT too long.) I don’t really want to elaborate further, but I might if someone asks me to. I’ll say this: my team was the “F’in Wankers.” We had shirts made up.
On to the main story. Brand names. This theory is open to review, but I have three categories of brand names:
1. Brands that have become synonymous with their product. Band Aid. Alka-Seltzer. Reynolds Wrap. Saran Wrap. Kleenex. Band Aid commercials now actually say “Band Aid Brand adhesive bandages.” It’s akward, but it’s possesive.
2. Brand names drawn directly from the purpose, origin, or form of their products. Life Savers. Clorox. WD-40. Pepsi. Coca-Cola. Kleenex again. Band Aid again.
3. And then there are newer brands. I started thinking about this post when I saw a Swiffer ad. It’s kind of in a tough spot. It’s revolutionary for what it is, yet it’s in a genre of products that are entrenched in this 1930s – 40s – 50s culture. The look of the ads falls pretty much right in line with what you’d expect. If you’d never seen a Swiffer ad or a Mr. Clean ad before, you probably wouldn’t think that one was any more remarkable than the other. But Swiffer needed a name to both fit in and stand out. I try to think of it as a brand name that is drawn from its purpose, origin, or form. Do you use it to “swiff” the floor? Does it look like something that “swiffs”? Does it come from a “swiff”? I don’t know. “Swiffer” is very abstract. It only gives me the vaguest notion of sweeping dust … I think they tried to tie “sweep” in there. But what about the “iff”? Maybe they just went with a slight bastardization. That’s how the evolution of language works. Still, it’s pretty abstract. And that got me thinking.
What products use the most abstract (and for that matter, bizarre) brand names?
This is an easy one. Modern prescription drugs. Let’s take a look at some.
Viagra.
Prozac.
Claritin.
Zyrtec.
Flonase.
Nexium.
Pez.
Tagamet. Those are the ones I could think of. Some that I found on web sites are:
Prevacid.
Zyban.
Paxil.
Valtrex.
Celebrex.
Lipitor.
Zoloft.
Zyrtec.
Propecia.
Vioxx.
Zocor.
I think the problem with prescription drugs is not only that they’re so complicated, but that they are so abstract and so far removed from tangible life. A tool used to sweep the floor isn’t that far removed from “Swiffer.” But how do you describe a little pill that tastes like nothing that will prevent your sneezing when you go outside? It’s not easy. So I guess companies like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline have to come up with strange names for their drugs. (Side note #1: Want more strange drug brand names? Take a look at the product pages of Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Pfizer.) (Side note #2 … forget it.)
Then there’s the names of companies themselves. Some articles have already been written on this subject, including an article in Salon.
KPMG becomes (sort of)
Bearing Point. Anderson Consulting becomes
Accenture. AT&T Bell Labs becomes
Lucent. Hewlett-Packard spins off Agilent. Philp Morris becomes Altria with a cute little multicolored square. (But I do like philipmorris.com’s color scheme … might have to steal it. #003366 for a background color makes me feel all tingly.)
Finally, I just want to say that all those links were a pain in the ass. Night.