I previously posted about the most deceptive ad I had ever encountered in an article entitled “Selling It.”
Take away all the mummery, and the thrust of the ad was, “throw away your old rabbit ears and buy our pretty rabbit ears.”
When it comes to separating suckers from their money, old ideas die hard. I mean, why throw away such a good concept if it works, right?
Saw this in WalMart just the other day:
Other than the fact that the old one was analog and this one is digital, it’s the same marketing pitch, with the same marketing weasel words. But the summum bonum of the product? “Works just like your old antenna, ONLY NOW with a sleek design.”
Well, that’s certainly sufficient incentive to throw away my old digital antenna and buy this one. Except for the fact that I haven’t watched broadcast TV for over 20 years, but that’s another story.
Save your money and don’t buy camel ejecta like this.
The following six questions will appear on Maine’s ballots this fall:
Question 1
Marijuana
Legalizes, regulates, and taxes marijuana as an agricultural product
Question 2
Education
Establishes a 3 percent tax on household income over $200,000
Question 3
Firearms
Requires specific background checks for gun sales and transfers
Question 4
Minimum Wage
Increases minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2020
Question 5
Elections
Establishes statewide ranked-choice voting
Question 6
Bonds
Issues $100 million in bonds for transportation projects
Here’s how I stand at the moment, and why. Opinion subject to change based on additional data.
Question 1:Marijuana: Legalizes, regulates, and taxes marijuana as an agricultural product Prospective vote: Yes Reasoning: The war on drugs has clearly failed. While I believe that human beings would be generally better off if they used no mood-altering substances, the social costs of legalization vs. prohibition and enforcement of marijuana specifically must be weighed. FBI data shows that of the roughly 700,000 arrests for marijuana-related charges in 2014, about 90 percent were for possession only, and while an arrest does not always lead to jail time, these arrests can have radiating consequences. Alcohol leads to far more societal costs in terms of violence, abuse, and other anti-social behaviors, and we saw how well the Eighteenth Amendment worked. What is needed is legalization and control in the same way alcohol is legal and controlled, taking revenue out of the hands of the cartels and crime syndicates. This would also clear the way for the legalization of industrial hemp, an astonishingly useful product which has vanishingly small quantities of THC (less than the amount of alcohol in NA beers, for example) but which has been lumped together with cannabis by government regulators out of fear and/or ignorance.
Question 2:Education: Establishes a 3 percent tax on household income over $200,000 Prospective vote: Yes Reasoning: 1) Funding education is good. Schools are generally underfunded and teachers generally underpaid. This initiative would require a 3% surcharge on portions of income over $200,000, meaning if you earned $280,000 in a given year, you’d see your taxes go up by $2,400. If I had an income like that, I’d gladly pay double that as a surcharge and think I was getting off easy. 2) Anything Paul LePage opposes is most likely a good idea.
Question 3:Firearms: Requires specific background checks for gun sales and transfers Prospective vote: Yes Reasoning: This is a hot-button issue in Maine, where concealed carry doesn’t even require a permit. Lots of “yee-haw ‘Murica” sentiment up here. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fervent 2nd Amendment supporter, and I won’t support any effort by any candidate to “come get your guns.” But I’m also a fervent supporter of common sense. The right to drive a car isn’t enshrined in the Constitution, but in order to drive a car, the following things have to happen:
Driver must be of age, have operator training and be licensed
Vehicle needs to be registered, inspected, taxed, and insured. Every vehicle, every year.
Once these requirements are met, you can own as many vehicles as you want. Why firearms should be exempt from the same type of safety-oriented requirements simply makes no sense.
Question 4:Minimum Wage: Increases minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2020 Prospective vote: Yes Reasoning: I support this because we probably won’t get anything better through legislation in the near future, but I feel that it doesn’t go far enough. $15.00 would be better. And it’s being phased in too slowly. To have a minimum wage that people can’t live on is unconscionable, particularly when so many families are trying to get by on two wage-earners at this level.
Question 5:Elections: Establishes statewide ranked-choice voting Prospective vote: Yes Reasoning: From the League of Women Voters:
RCV allows voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate. It minimizes strategic voting and eliminates the spoiler effect.
RCV is most likely to elect a candidate with broad appeal. It ensures that winners enjoy majority support when matched against their top opponents.
RCV encourages candidates to run with new ideas and dissenting opinions.
It promotes civility in campaigns and encourages winning candidates to reach out to more people, reducing negative attacks.
Unlike traditional runoff elections, it accomplishes these goals in a single election. Traditional run-offs require candidates to raise much more money and are much prone to negative attacks ads.
Question 6:Bonds: Issues $100 million in bonds for transportation projects Prospective vote: Undecided Reasoning: Economic issues are complex. Clearly America’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling, and woefully underfunded. Maine’s roads are in poor shape, in part because of harsh winter weather. The bond has a lot of support; Mark W. Anderson, an economist and a writer for the Bangor Daily News, calls for an increase in fuel tax to more fairly distribute cost to heavy users of roads. I need to think about this one some more, and it’s not easy for a Wolf of Very Little Brain to get his head around things like this.
“Please stop what you’re doing and listen to this very important message. I’m going to give you access to a pre-recorded message that’s going to show you exactly how to start putting $10,000 or more in your pocket in the next 10 to 14 days and $10,000 or more every 10 to 14 days after that. This message will absolutely blow your mind! So press 1 right now if you want to find out exactly how to put $10,000 or more in your pocket every 10 to 14 days. I guarantee you have never seen anything like this up until now. So press 1 right now to get all the details, or press 9 to guarantee that you’ll never hear from us again.”
I can’t count the number of times I’ve had this robocall, along with “Hi! I’m Kelly from Credit Card Services!” and a handful of others. But this one is especially obnoxious.
First of all, these calls blatantly ignore the National Do Not Call Registry. Second, pressing “9” only serves to guarantee that your number is registered as a “live” number, and will then be sold to other telemarketers. Lastly, they’re selling a weak-sauce multi-level marketing package of informational and motivational material for $1,000, plus a $299.00 annual membership fee, with a no-refund rider attached. You shell out, you’re sunk. This particular dodge is being run by Exitus, but I suspect the same come-on is being used by a number of shady operators. [Note: Here’s a breakdown of how the Exitus plan works, astonishingly without a link to “another, better system” as is common with so many of these affiliate marketers. Bash the competition, and then sucker people into your own nearly identical scheme.]
They claim you don’t have to do any calling. But you will need to send referrals to your own marketing page, for the automated system to work for you.
How are you going to get referrals? Clearly, by using one of those never-suffiently-to-be-damned robocalling systems that will bother millions of people in clear violation of the law.
If you are looking for a business model that depends on a foundation of not caring how many people you piss off, or leaving countless broken bodies in your wake to get one customer, then this opportunity is for you.
If you have ethics and morals, compassion and concern for the well-being of your neighbor, better look elsewhere.
Every time I get one of these calls, I have visions of lowering the person behind it into a wood chipper, slowly – despite working hard on being charitable to all. That tells you how annoying I find these seedy scams.
Sometimes I find myself under obligations of work requiring quiet and seclusion such as neither my comfortable office nor the cozy study at home insures. My favorite retreat is an upper room in the tower of a large building, well removed from the noise and confusion of the city streets. The room is somewhat difficult of access and relatively secure against human intrusion. Therein I have spent many peaceful and busy hours with books and pen.
I am not always without visitors, however, especially in summertime; for when I sit with windows open, flying insects occasionally find entrance and share the place with me. These self-invited guests are not unwelcome. Many a time I have laid down the pen and, forgetful of my theme, have watched with interest the activities of these winged visitants, with an afterthought that the time so spent had not been wasted, for is it not true that even a butterfly, a beetle, or a bee may be a bearer of lessons to the receptive student?
A wild bee from the neighboring hills once flew into the room, and at intervals during an hour or more I caught the pleasing hum of its flight. The little creature realized that it was a prisoner, yet all its efforts to find the exit through the partly opened casement failed. When ready to close up the room and leave, I threw the window wide and tried at first to guide and then to drive the bee to liberty and safety, knowing well that if left in the room it would die as other insects there entrapped had perished in the dry atmosphere of the enclosure. The more I tried to drive it out, the more determinedly did it oppose and resist my efforts. Its erstwhile peaceful hum developed into an angry roar; its darting flight became hostile and threatening.
Then it caught me off my guard and stung my hand—the hand that would have guided it to freedom. At last it alighted on a pendant attached to the ceiling, beyond my reach of help or injury. The sharp pain of its unkind sting aroused in me rather pity than anger. I knew the inevitable penalty of its mistaken opposition and defiance, and I had to leave the creature to its fate. Three days later I returned to the room and found the dried, lifeless body of the bee on the writing table. It had paid for its stubbornness with its life.
To the bee’s shortsightedness and selfish misunderstanding I was a foe, a persistent persecutor, a mortal enemy bent on its destruction; while in truth I was its friend, offering it ransom of the life it had put in forfeit through its own error, striving to redeem it, in spite of itself, from the prison house of death and restore it to the outer air of liberty.
Are we so much wiser than the bee that no analogy lies between its unwise course and our lives? We are prone to contend, sometimes with vehemence and anger, against the adversity which after all may be the manifestation of superior wisdom and loving care, directed against our temporary comfort for our permanent blessing. In the tribulations and sufferings of mortality there is a divine ministry which only the godless soul can wholly fail to discern. To many the loss of wealth has been a boon, a providential means of leading or driving them from the confines of selfish indulgence to the sunshine and the open, where boundless opportunity waits on effort. Disappointment, sorrow, and affliction may be the expression of an all-wise Father’s kindness.
Consider the lesson of the unwise bee!
“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (Prov. 3:5–6).
From a recent Facebook post. Having worked as a freelance translator, these responses spoke to my soul. Yes, a few of them are more than four words, but they’re all good – and they’re all real. I have seen many of these myself.
For what it’s worth, I no longer do this sort of work. The reasons will become obvious. I’ve included a bit of commentary here and there.
Cheap bastards
Agencies make money by charging high rates to clients and paying low rates to translators, reviewers, and proofreaders. They’re always jockeying for a better deal. That’s the nature of business, but when you’re an independent contractor, and your standard rate (calculated to earn you a living) is always being undercut, it’s frightfully annoying. The global access of the Internet means that professional, trained, educated translators must now compete with millions of people in India, China, and elsewhere who “speak a little English” and who are willing to work for 1¢ per word or less.
Best lowest rate required.
What’s your best rate?
Make your best rate.
Make me (a) good price.
Send your best rate.
We pay in visibility. (Visibility and $7.95 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.)
Our budget is limited. (So I’m supposed to subsidize your profit, right?)
Special rates apply to this client. (He’s paying us less, so we’re going to pay you less.)
A discount for volume. (We’re paying less because there’s a lot of work).
It’s the market rate. (Take it or leave it.)
5¢ is not bad. (5¢ per word is shit.)
The others charge less. (Good, feel free to use them.)
Someone charges way less.
Our budget is only …
National Agreement Rate Please.
Could you proofread instead? (Read: Your rate is too high).
Cheaper bastards
Machine translation used to be cumbersome, expensive, and not very effective. Now it’s quick, easy, free, and only a bit more effective. While statistical translation models have made some exciting progress, people who don’t understand the intricacies of language assume that online translation is both free and reliable. Similarly, your neighbor may speak a bit of German, but don’t expect your translation to do well in the commercial arena. In the translation world, you still get what you pay for, and if you go cheap, you’re likely to get crap.
Google Translate is cheaper.
We will Google translate.
I’ll do it myself.
I can do it myself.
Neighbour can do it.
Will it cost anything?
Is it for free?
That much? No way!
The font was wrong. (Followed by “Will you accept 50%?”)
I could do it, but…
Could do it myself, but…
You’re overpaid.
Cheapest bastards
It’s not uncommon for an unethical agency to get a job, break it up into 20 segments, offer the job to 20 translators and have them each do part of the work as a “test,” then award the bid to nobody.
Please do this test.
Please complete test assignment.
We require (a) free test.
Test translation without charge.
Download the test translation.
It’s for a tender. (We need your free translation to make the bid.)
Scheduling headaches
Contractors spend a lot of time juggling their resources against customer needs. Agencies don’t care.
We’d like it for tomorrow.
Have you begun yet?
Great, don’t proceed yet.
Client brought deadlines forward.
The client sent changes.
The client made changes.
6000 words for tomorrow.
20,000 words of light postediting.
We need it yesterday.
Can you deliver early?
Sorry, client cancelled assignment.
End client just cancelled.
Please send your invoice (then we’re going to have minor changes).
File should arrive midnight. (Deadline in 8:00 AM, of course.)
We have a glossary (10 minutes before deadline).
That didn’t need translating… (After you’ve spent a day and a half on “that.”)
Please use US English. (Halfway through a huge project meant to be in UK English!).
Please deliver tomorrow morning.
Translate in real time! (What does this even mean?)
Client isn’t in a hurry (Followed, 2 months later, by “Client needs it ASAP”).
The project is cancelled (in the morning of due date!).
Your skills are worthless!
Anyone can translate. It’s just typing in another language.
(It doesn’t need to be translated,) just type this in Portuguese
Everyone can do it!
So you teach English?
You’re a translator? Then why don’t you give English courses?
What is your work?
Please do the shopping.
Go get the kids.
Don’t think, just translate!
What’s your real job?
Do you also teach?
You have done nothing.
Technical Headaches
“You need to use our tools, yours are garbage.”
Trados is a must.
TRANSIT is a must.
Across is a must.
[Insert CAT tool name of choice] is a must.
Use our online TM-tool.
We only use Excel. (Translating in Excel is a nightmare, if you were wondering.)
Please translate into Excel.
Your file doesn’t open.
Not only that, in the world of translation, these CAT (Computer-assisted translation tools) are de rigeur. They can be useful in speeding up translation and improving terminological consistency, but agencies routinely take advantage of this and pay less than the full rate for things that the software has translated for you. This ignores the fact that the translator is responsible for the coherence of the entire job and must read and evaluate every bit and piece of the work for accuracy. This alone is the major reason I stepped out of the freelance translation world. My rate per target word is X¢, period. Pay it or go somewhere else. Translators who survive in the industry pretty much have to suck it up, but I wasn’t willing.
We don’t pay repetitions.
Pro-rated for fuzzy match.
100% matches for free.
Discount for fuzzies applied.
Fractional Payment for Repetitions.
Payment Headaches
In the US, standard terms are 30 days net. Around the world, it’s not uncommon for translation agencies to expect translators to wait 60, 90, or even up to 180 days for payment of invoices (they usually claim that they’re waiting for their clients to pay them.) This is unethical in the extreme, but not an uncommon strategy in the business world.
We forgot your payment.
Did you send your invoice? (Yes, I did, 60 days ago.)
Net forty-five days.
The payment will delay.
Thanks for your patience. (After payment was delayed for a month).
Check’s in the mail. (Yes, people still use this one.)
Our accountant on vacation.
We know better than you.
Never mind your skills, the next person is always smarter.
Reviewer says you failed.
Is “the” necessary here?
Let me correct that.
I speak two languages.
(S)he knows better.
(S)he is a [language] teacher.
Proofreader does not agree. (Proofreaders know bupkis about translation.)
Changes made by proofreader.
My secretary edited it.
This translation is bad.
But Google translate says…
Creepy Clients
There is always one.
What are you wearing?
General Lies
“I have read and agree to the terms of service”
It’s a straightforward text.
It’s a piece of cake.
It’s short and easy.
It is not technical.
It’s not very technical.
Help me, it’s quick.
It only needs editing.
Just a quick question.
Translation Requirements, and Stupid Questions
Things that don’t fall into easily-defined categories.
Do you translate books?
Is Brexit affecting business?
Source text is JPG. (This means you can’t use your CAT tools for the job.)
Added to our database. (Don’t call us, we’ll call you.)
Read 50 pages of instructions (for a 100-word job)
Keep the original format.
You have to cook.
It’s a doctor’s prescription.
Don’t go into details.
Thanks for sharing.
Are you still translating?
Complete our six forms.
There’s no source text. (When proofreading a translation, you need to see the original text. If it’s not there, you’re just basically making wild guesses in the dark.)
About 30 years ago, an ad appeared on the bulletin board of the translation software company I was working at. It probably came from one of the trade publications, and showed a boss ripping an employee a new one. The text read, “Because you had your brother-in-law do the translation, our ad says that our new camera exposes itself automatically!”
I’ve dealt with the risks of translation on the cheap before, and in this one thing has not changed: If you want good translations for your business, use a professional and pay them well – otherwise your product may just bite the wax tadpole.
This might come as a surprise but 100% legitimate, as David and Carol Martin has approved a donation sum of $900,000.00 USD from part of their National Lottery Win of £33,000,000.00 Pound Sterlings. I believe this will come in handy and with it you can also be of assistance to the under privileged within your own community.
To verify the genuineness of this email and our winnings, please see our interview by visiting the web page below;
Your email address was submitted to my wife and I by the Google Management Team and you received this email because we have listed you as one of the lucky beneficiary and all you have to do is get back to us with the below details so that we can direct our Bank to effect valid Bank Draft in your name to your operational bank account in your country.
============
Full Name:
State:
Country:
Occupation:
Age:
Sex:
Mobile/Tel:
============
SEND ABOVE INFORMATION ONLY TRHOUGH OUR CONTACT E-MAIL: madvcl@foxmail.com
Congratulations & Happy Celebrations in Advance
In case you were wondering, letters or emails or faxes like this are pure BS. Never respond, never send the money the scammers will invariably ask for (taxes, fees, bribes, you name it.)
Academic symposia are great fun if you don’t have a reputation to defend. Listening to a presentation can be informative, but the true entertainment value arises when you watch numerous ivory-tower types begin to shred one another’s theories.
This bit of doggerel has been floating around in my humor files since the 70s (first pulled off a chain printer), and deserves to be appreciated by a new generation of linguists.
With no further ado, I present to you a collection of (allegedly) real interactions documented at early gatherings of linguists. First up:
A Taxonomy of Argument Schemata in Metatheoretic Discussions of Syntax or Name That Tune
I. Logical Argumentation
If A = ¬A, then my position is true.
Therefore, since A = ¬A, …
A: ¬p.
B: Since you agree that p, …
P is absurd, therefore q.
II. Now you see it, now...
Your argument supports my position.
I’m aware of these putative counter-arguments, but…
Let me rephrase that so that it agrees with my position…
I think that is true, but I’m not sure it means anything.
III. The Reasoned Response
I don’t see the argument.
I don’t like your example.
That’s not a problem in my theory.
It’s my opinion, and it’s very true.
I still say that…
IV. Papa Knows Best
You say that, but you don’t believe it.
You believe this, but you won’t say it.
What you really believe is ____, and I agree with you.
Our disagreement is merely semantic.
Don’t be misled by the similarity between A and A. It’s merely a superficial identity.
V. Audience Participation: Let’s take a vote!
VI. The Pre-emption
You’re right, but I said it first!
What you say is wrong, and I said it first!
VII. The Putdown
You can’t do it either
That’s true, but uninteresting in the ____ sense!
VIII. Advancing to the rear
I knew that analysis was wrong before I proposed it.
Of course my analysis is wrong in detail – *all* analyses are wrong in detail.
IX. The Principled Argument
A: Shut up!
B: No, *you* shut up!
A: No, *YOU* shut up!
But wait, there’s more!
An Ancillary Guide To Understanding a Syntax Conference
What the Speaker Says
What the Speaker Means
These examples are from Dyirbal, a widely discussed language, so I will assume familiarity.
I don’t know the language well enough to answer questions, so don’t ask any.
When you stop to think about what you said, it doesn’t say anything.
I don’t understand it.
Some examples are vague; the others are simply wrong.
I can’t quite put an argument together, but I still want to attack yours.
No one has ever studied “X”.
I haven’t studied it, and neither have my friends.
I may have to retreat (there is a possibility), which is a wise thing to do when you are wrong.
I assure you that you are a good guy if you say that you are wrong.
Nobody is going to be converted to another side at this conference. This is not a tournament in which someone will win the main prize.
This is my excuse for not accepting anyone else’s argument, regardless of how valid it may be.
It is significant in an “interesting” way.
I could possible squeeze an article or two out of it.
It’s been a long time since I’ve attended one of these conclaves, but I have no doubt that such things are still heard if you listen closely.
OK, caveat here: it’s may not be Native American counting, but that’s how it was presented to me by my math teacher (Mr. Sommerville, go ndéanai Dia trócaire air) in high school, around 1967. On the other hand, maybe it is.
Being testosterone-soaked boys, everyone laughed at hearing the word “dick” used as a number, and then life went on. I had heard it once, and remembered fragments of it forever.
Then came the Internet, where almost everything arcane has a tendency to show up if you wait long enough. I would search occasionally, and over time, bits and pieces appeared; now there is a full-blown Wikipedia article entitled “Yan tan tethera,” and the real story becomes quite complicated.
Over at Wovember Words, the matter is treated thusly (the whole page is worth a read):
The only reference we could find anywhere confirming connections between the counting words of Native Americans with those used in the North of England is in a musical written in 1957, called The Music Man. There is a scene in this play where the wife of the Mayor exclaims “I will now count to twenty in the Indian tongue! Een teen tuther featherfip!” Is this line in the play responsible for the idea that Native American peoples were using these old counting words with their Gaelic origins, or does it reflect that through the dark mechanisms of Imperialism the counting words were imposed onto Native American culture by the time the play was written?
At the same time, around 1890, Native Americans were also using:
Een, teen, thuther, futher, fipps,
Suther, luther, uther, duther, dix,
Een-dix, teen-dix, tuther-dix, futher-dix, bumpit,
Anny-bumpit, tanny-bumpit, tuther-bumpit, futher-bumpit, giggit, Anny-gigit.
If you listen to the soundtrack of the movie version of “The Music Man” carefully, there’s a bit more:
Eulalie begins: Een teen tuther feather fip! The chorus chants: Sakey, Lakey, Corey Ippy Gip (This may not be 100% accurate as these words do not appear in the screenplay) Eulalie continues: Eendik Teendik Tetherdik Fethertik … (she is interrupted by a firecracker)
So we can see that it’s entirely possible that these counters, very similar to the Brythonic counting systems – too close to be coincidental – may have been transmitted very early by some oral channel to Native Americans, and that by folklore tradition a knowledge of these counters worked their way down cultural pathways to be included in the play and movie.
Language and its history are curious things, with enough puzzles and questions for lifetimes of study – even the whimsical bits.
Recently saw this article on SA’s website about the Dragonfly Galaxy, a mysterious, diffuse star cluster that appears to be made predominantly of dark matter.
The problem is that the picture on the article is not the Dragonfly galaxy, but rather the Sombrero galaxy. Yes, the caption says this – but clearly Sombrero cuts a much more impressive figure than Dragonfly (seen below.)
There’s nowhere on SA’s website to give feedback, so I’m obliged to post it here, in the hopes that someone who cares might just possibly see it.
This is called “clickbait,” and even if it’s a very small example, it should be above the standards of this publication. So please, editors and webmasters – have a bit more integrity than this.
I just received an interesting comment over at my post on trolling a Craigslist scammer. Here it is, in full, thanks to commenter “James Dawson”:
You people got the gut to complain when your devilish forefathers stole Africans from their lands brought them over to your country and used them to develop your nation leaving their fatherland underdeveloped with abject poverty,sufferings and confusion. This is Karma and it’s will keep catching up with you guys
This is a common attitude expressed by the 419 scammers – to them, it’s just a game, as expressed in this video, a shorter version of which I had referenced in a previous post (and this one includes footage from the scammer’s arrest)
In a delicious bit of irony, Nkem Owoh, the actor who starred in the above music video, was arrested in 2007 as part of an international takedown of scammers who were running the 419 fraud. Full details at The Register.
Somehow these drones feel that two wrongs make a right, and that they are somehow entitled to the money of any rich white man stupid enough to “fall mugu.” They don’t understand the concept of personal responsibility, that no one owes their sorry asses anything, and that they should stop blaming people who have been dead for 200 years for their troubles.
U no chop my dollar, onioburu. U no fit comot face, just skip along.
Playing in the World Game 