Re: 'Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray' - questions

This whole thread has been quite entertaining for me on this boring
day at work. I think I would have to concur with Jay G. on this one.

Early on in the argument Trotsky vehemently insisted that software
only refers to storage media with content on them and that downloads
are absolutely not software in any way, shape or form.

Trotsky may have been assuming that readers would know his original
statement - that downloads would render software obsolete - was within
the context of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD software being content on physical
discs, but without a qualifier in his later contention that downloads
(period) unto themselves can never be considered software, his
statements (including the ones about how software referred to other
things before computers were even around) imply that his belief is
that content cannot be called software unless it's on a portable
physical medium, which is just not true under any context.

Of course, this may not have been what he meant, but that's what his
statements imply.

Just $0.02 from a neutral reader - thanks for the fun read!

On Jul 5, 10:36 pm, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:39:27 -0700, moviePig wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:28 pm, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:06:39 -0700, moviePig wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:01 am, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:27:24 -0700, moviePig wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:09 am, "Jay G." <J...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
What makes *your* interpretation of the sentence the definitive one?

It's not, it's my opinion. I thought that was assumed. However, I did
provide definitions and links to examples that supported my position that
trotsky's use of the word "software" included digital downloads.

Should Trotsky answer to the vocabulary of the general population, or
instead of the sub-group he meant to address, however tiny you may
think it?

He should answer to the vocabulary of clarity and common use. I don't
believe he used the word in a way that was consistent with common use. His
*own* definition of the word software later in the thread of "media with
software," on he said was the commonly accepted definition, directly
contradicted with his usage in his original sentence

In the context of the cited headline "Blu-raysoftware sales surpass
HD-DVD", 'software' means 'prerecorded discs' ...interchangeably and
plug-compatibly.

Of *course* it means "prerecorded discs" in the specific context of those
two formats, sinceBlu-RayandHD-DVDdon't use any form of "software"
*except* for prerecorded discs. However, that context doesn't include
DVDs, even though DVDs are "prerecorded discs." In that sentence,
"software" is only referring to theBlu-RayandHD DVD*forms* of software,
due to the specific context that the other words in the sentence create,
context that trotsky's usage lacked.

The context that trotsky's usage was created included BD,HD DVD, DVD and
digital downloads, and digital downloads count as "software," but aren't on
prerecorded discs, and he didn't utilize any qualifiers or context that
eliminated digital downloads as a form of software that was being referred
to by his usage. So while "prerecorded discs" acts as a good
*substitution* for the word "software" in trotsky's sentence, it's not an
accurate *definition* for the word "software," as used in his sentence.

The preceding word 'Blu-ray' is not a *defining*
qualifier as you claim.

Again, I supply the headline *without* the word "Blu-ray" in it:

Software sales surpassHD-DVD

Can you honestly tell me that the word "software" in that headline has the
same meaning as it did in the original headline?

The only relevant context is what has already been stated in the thread,
and what trotsky himself added. For example, If I say "sandwiches are
unfit for human consumption," and when people disagree with me, cite an
outside article of some *specific* sandwiches that were indeed found unfit
for human consumption, I can't claim that my original sentence was correct
because it fit a context I didn't cite until much later. And even had that
context being previously stated, my sentence is *still* using the word
"sandwiches" too generally, as it seems I'm talking about *all* sandwiches,
and not a specific subsection.

You seem to rely on two contradictory
positions:

1) Trotsky's sentence is completely incapable of being "judged" as either
correct or incorrect.

2) Trotsky's original sentence was correctly written.

At least one of those positions that you hold *has* to be wrong, since they
cancel each other out. If you feel that his sentence was correct as
originally written, i.e. using an accepted context and usage of the word,
then you're admitting that there is some fairly non-arbitrary system of
rules and usage that determines whether a sentence is correct or not.
Indeed, you have shown in the past, by writing examples of both
deliberately correct and incorrect sentences, that you believe there is
some such system in place. This would mean that you can't honestly believe
in the point #1 above that you repeatedly try to make.

On the other hand, if you really believe that trotsky's sentence is
incapable of being "either correct or incorrect," then why do you keep
trying to prove that it *was* correct? You cite usages in other writings
and such trying to prove something that you claim is unfavorable. If you
truly believed point #1, you wouldn't be trying so hard to prove point #2,
since point #2, under the rules of point #1, can't *exist*.

But, even after you've highlighted for Trotsky his potential
vaguenesses and recommended useful clarifications, and even if he
accepts them... if you then ask him whether he meant to write what he
originally wrote (i.e., your original question) and whether he still
finds it error-free, I assume the answer would be a big 10-4...

He's already proven that his sentence was incorrect by stating that his
intended definition of "software" was "content on media," and then failing
to explain how digital downloads fail to fit that definition.

Google seems to have again discarded my painstaking, detailed reply to
the above. I will take that as encouragement.....

...to use something other than Google to edit your replies, I presume.

Trotsky used 'software' from a context that others have used.

Yes, a context in which "software" means "media with content," a defintion
that trotsky himself later acknowledged. In that context, his sentence is
incorrect, since video downloads count as "software"

You claim an authoritative incorrectness to his doing so, because he
didn't meticulously pre-announce that context and despite the fact
that only that context's meaning gave sense to his writing.

"That context" is "media with content," and trotsky's sentence is
nonsensical in that context. And while I'm claiming he used it
incorrectly, I did so by citing the common and accepted defintions and
usages of the word, as well as his *own* definition of the word later in
the thread.

I maintain that 1) no such practical authority exists,

And yet, you were able to craft example sentences that you'd know I'd
determine were either correct or incorrect. So clearly *some* sort of
"practical authority" exists that determines correctness, and that's the
commonely held and accepted definitions and usages.

2) the context apparently *was* sufficiently established for two of
three readers,

*Again*, just because everyone on this thread was able to determing what
trotsky *meant* doesn't mean what he *wrote* was correct. You proved this
yourself when you cited my mistaken use of the word "you" instead of "your"
in a sentence. Clearly you were able to determing what I *meant* to write
in the sentence, even though you determined that the sentence, as written,
was incorrect. I maintain that you did the same for trotky's sentence
without even realizing it.

3) Trotsky's sentence, within itself, so clearly defined
'software' that he could at most be faulted for inventing that
definition on the spot ...

Trotsky's sentence, within itself, didn't define the word "software" *at
all*. Let's look at *just* that sentence:

Software is almost wholly unnecessary at this point, and certainly will
be in the next couple years as broadband speeds continue to increase.

That sentence could just as easily be referring to computer programs,
except it's nonsensical then as well. The sentence "within itself" has
*zero* context for what type of software he's referring to.

-Jay- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... trotsky's use of the word "software" included digital downloads. ... However, that context doesn't include ... context that trotsky's usage lacked. ... deliberately correct and incorrect sentences, ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... His sentence is incorrect, because, as written, it's nonsensical. ... However, that context doesn't include ... context that trotsky's usage lacked. ... the video industry of "media with content," as trotsky himself claimed it ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... elected to disqualify the meaning that made ... His sentence is incorrect, because, as written, it's nonsensical. ... However, that context doesn't include ... context that trotsky's usage lacked. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Blockbuster picks Blu-Ray - questions
    ... That sentence, as written, is incorrect, regardless of what the "meaning" ... preferred context as the "authoritative" one. ... Trotsky, if I remember correctly, cited no real world usage, just some ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: "Friendly Premises"
    ... >> That statement is incorrect. ... one statement, are *real world.* (Excluding textbook examples, ... he excerpted "true in that set of axioms" out of context, ... Now getting back to Torkel's assertion at the top, ...
    (sci.logic)