Wasn’t there a video of George Washington warning against this kind of behavior in his farewell address?
Actually, it kinda peeved me even the first time. See post #10 in this (new merged) thread.
See, I don’t mind pedantic, but I do mind when snarkiness inhibits clarity. Is your point that it’s film and not video?
In other words, pointing out that someone is misusing the word “video” seems fine to me (on the Dope I mean, where pedantry is somewhat more expected than in real life). But it’d be nice if you actually stated what was wrong with what they said. Something like “That’s actually film; (analog) video records onto magnetic tape, a process not common in 1940.” (If that’s what you’re getting at, I’m still not totally sure.)
Someone who thinks video = film is not going to understand why it was unlikely in 1940, since there are clearly movies older than that.
From the strictly literal definition of video, most things on YouTube are not videos. They’re not made for television and rarely are they viewed on a screen that contains a cathode-ray tube. And that’s a relatively expansive definition compared to many others (which might specify videotape and the like). The word has a (probably) new usage along the lines of:
a generally short motion picture that can be consumed casually
The difference is evident in the sentence, “I took a break from work and watched a video.” If you replace that with film or movie you’re much more likely to be fired. Even if the OED today would say that the bridge-film is not a video, I have a feeling that the battle’s already been lost and it’ll include a definition in the near-future that will cover it.
Video like many other words in the English language has changed over time, the first known use of video was in about 1935, and was the visual equivalent of audio, thus you had audio video clubs, even before video tape. I could say I have an audio recording of a sound, it could be on record, tape, cd, or stored on a memory stick, but it’s still audio, so a video could be stored on film, disk, cd, dvd, etc. So it’s not wrong to say video even when its on film. Video basically meant it was record and stored on something. Today most people assume it means tape, cd, dvd, blue ray, disk, or memory, but that mainly because film has all but died out.
But here is the Oxford dictionary defintion.
Video
noun (plural videos)
1 [mass noun] the recording, reproducing, or broadcasting of moving visual images:
2a recording of moving visual images made digitally or on videotape:
and it explicitly referred to television. Stop deliberately confusing the issue.
When the word video was coined it meaning the visual equivalent of audio.
So the WORD video it didn’t explicitly refer to television, in the early days, film was the only medium available for recording television programs before the videotape in about 1956. So any “video” of television programs were stored on film, or are you saying those films of television programs aren’t video if they are stored on film? If they are and I show that film in a theater does it suddenly not become video. Think about this most new movies in a modern theater aren’t on film but are stored in a digital format, shown through a video projector, in that case do you say you’re going to see a video or a movie?
All you’re really complaining about is the storage medium.
Since most of the responses now contain multiple direct lies about the entry “video” in the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as muddying of the waters by calling in other dictionaries that happen to have the word “Oxford” in their titles, I can no longer see any profit in continuing with this.
Congratulations! You’ve scored a victory for Ignorance.
I posted a LINK to the Oxford English Dictionary to the word video so you can check it out yourself. So how it is a lie? Unless you’re saying your own source, said dictionary, is wrong.
According to this, the full Oxford English Dictionary is only available to subscribers at oed.
That said, Oxford Dictionaries is published by the Oxford University Press.
I’d say the use of the term “illiteracy” in post #14 would be non-standard without a qualifier, though.
sorry
http://www.oed.com/ is the link to the Oxford English Dictionary my link was to the oxford dictionaries. Just want to be clear, and I always try to correct my post when I’m wrong. So the link isn’t to Oxford English Dictionary, Sorry ignore my the post above. (I see someone beat me to it so I had to quickly edit this post)
But I do have multiple sources that support my meaning.
Okay, all youse guys.
Did anyone notice that the original topic of this thread was resonance?
A bit of historical review:
– The original column discussed whether an opera singer could shatter a wine glass.
– Cecil brought up the fact that resonance could shatter much bigger things than a wine glass, to-wit: Major bridges.
Enter now senegoid stage left with an OP (post #6 in this merged thread) with some additional material:
– The Tacoma Narrows (“Galloping Gertie”) collapse caused no loss of life, other than one dead dog, and incidentally mentioned that “videos” the whole event can be viewed on YouTube.
– Questioned if that other bridge collapse, with the soldiers, caused any loss of life.
Moving on to my main point, I then added that resonance (remember resonance?) has been (controversially) implicated in even bigger disasters than that, to-wit: Several commercial plane crashes with very much loss of life.
Enter now John W. Kennedy with nothing better to do in life but nit-pick over my use of the word “videos” (post #9 in this merged thread).
In the 21 posts since then, nobody has written a word about wine glasses, collapsing bridges, falling airplanes, or resonance. (Remember resonance?) Actually, I had hoped that my post would inspire some discussion of resonance and falling airplanes. Instead, all you other guys have jumped on JWK for nit-picking pedantry (which I view as a defense of my admittedly casual use of the word “videos”; thank you, all youse guys), and JWK has just dug in his heels and made himself look like an… Well, board rules prohibit me from saying what JWK had made himself look like, but Powers (post #17) has already said it anyway. Well put, Powers.
Apparently, my use (or mis-use) of “videos” has “resonated” in this thread and brought it down in flames.
John W. Kennedy, board rules forbid me from commenting that you’ve acted like a j***, by thread*****ing and hi****ing this thread and then digging in your heels over it. So I’ll just let the moderators opine on all that.
I’m calling thread-wreck now. Reported.
And now: Anybody have any useful or interesting discussion to add about resonance (remember resonance?), bridges, or falling airplanes?
MODERATOR OPINES: Hey, guys, cut out the personal insults. Use of little asterisks doesn’t disguise what you’re saying.
I’m not issuing warnings, only because I’m in a hurry this morning and don’t have time.
Just to clarify for others: calling a POST a “lie” is different from calling the poster a “liar.” This issue hasn’t come up in this forum before; it is against the rules of Great Debates to call another post a “lie.” Since this is the first time (as far as I remember) that this has come up in this forum, I think it’s pretty much putting one toe on a fuzzy line. My personal feeling is that the term “lie” when applied to a post implies intent, and so is a personal insult and should henceforth be forbidden. Note how that’s different from calling a post “stupid” which says nothing about the poster: intelligent posters can make stupid statements from time to time.
I’m therefore going to start a discussion in the moderator group about use of the word “lie” (as in deliberate fabrication, not as in recline) for future.
Meanwhile, guys, COOL DOWN. And the topic here is resonance, not the diff between OED and OD nor the definition of “video.”
Resonance in airplanes got me thinking about space. Has there ever been an accident or incident that’s been blamed on resonance?
See pogo effect:
Sorry I meant spacecraft.