The 4th Humour uninfluential words from an uninfluenced man |
|
Bile humour
Apathetic hemetic
Fluent indifferent
Emetic Phlegmatic
Memetics
Hard Education Life Without Hope Close Your Mind Meme Warfare Shut Up Don't Mention It Positive Feed Not Memes Memetic Quality Robopocalypse The Good Life Silence Self-Unrealization Safety and Pride Fear for Sale Egocide Joriki Tao of Quality Karma Utilization Detachment Coincidence God's Pride Real-Life Friends City of Brass Makyo in My Mind Super-Rational Game Audio Blog Paisley Princess Movie Khan Journal Haibane.info Nonsense Dream Drivel Ma Mignonne Character Reading Time Travel NPC Theory 1. Introduction 2. Modified Turing 3. Role Spaces 4. Character 5. Processing Music Opera vs. IDM Assessments a gold star for intellect and no stars for appreciation of pop culture - Karly fun to talk to, although for the life of me, I'll never figure out why - Tracy will probably never cooperate fully - Aslum not running for governor :) - Aziz 
|
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The Sin of Utilization Strunk and White is a great little grammar book, but it has one major error: it lists "utilize" as a suitable substitute for "use" (which is also funny considering it discourages the -ize suffix in general). Utilize is not a synonym for use. To utilize something is to use something other than for its intended purpose, and thus rarely does the substitution make sense. If someone tells me to utilize a broom to sweep the floor, are they telling me to turn it upside-down and try it that way? I can't think of any other way to utilize it while still using it for its intended purpose. An intended purpose presupposes a designer. Indeed, you can't utilize something if it wasn't intelligently designed, because it has no defined use. Most of our environment is the result of evolution, which has neither foresight nor design. Rocks have no intended purpose. Neither do dogs or bees (unless they were bred by humans for a purpose). Clearly I'm not respecting the broom's design in trying to move dust with the handle. I'm not respecting the broom itself. Likewise, any damage done to the broom would render it incapable of fulfilling its purpose and would thus be disrepectful, whether the damage were purposeful or negligent. Wait, I hear the naysayers now, "But Phlegm, oftentimes new uses for things are found after they are designed!" Really? I'd argue not. Does the new use fill a need, or is there another tool that already fills the need sufficiently well? If it fits the need better, could another tool be made to improve even upon that, perhaps based on the original design? It will probably end up modified to perform both tasks, yet inherit the original name (or a new version number). You would then feel not quite right about utilizing the original, since a new and better tool has been designed specifically for the new purpose. Consumerism violates these principles. Things are expected to break, expected to be replaced. In fact, they're designed to break, such that in a twisted way they're still fulfilling their purpose. The higher purpose, of course, being Capitalism and the so-called advancement of society *cough cough*. I don't know who said it, but like many others, I'll say it again: where are we going in such a hurry? |
|