Last August I bought a Magic Jack gadget. $39.99 paid for the gadget plus the first year of service. Each additional year of service will be $19.99. For that under $20 per year I can make otherwise free calls to numbers in the US and very cheap calls to other countries.
At the time that I got my Magic Jack I did not have a landline phone or a cell phone, and my Magic Jack phone came in handy a few times. But in the following months I soon had alternatives. I can make free phone calls without a gadget and with no service charge using Gmail Talk. I can make free webcam calls with Skype. For months I have had an AARP discounted prepaid cell phone with which I text with my wife. So for many months my Magic Jack gadget lay unused in a file drawer.
Then the other day I made up the lyrics of a song, and I wanted to hear myself sing it to the tune in my head, and I remembered the niftiest feature of the Magic Jack service.
When someone calls my Magic Jack phone number and doesn't get an answer (because I don't keep the program running or the gadget plugged into a USB port), they get a voice message from me saying to leave a messge. If they do leave a voice mail message, that is sent to me as a .wav digital audio file attached to an email.
So I used my cell phone to call my Magic Jack number; sang my song; got the email; listened; revised my scribbled notes of the lyrics; deleted the email; called and sang again, and so on until I was satisfied.
How is that better than a tape recorder? Because I get the recording as an email attachment on a free email service, I don't need to buy and to store audio tapes. And like any email attached file, it's easy to share the .wav files.
I've started experimenting with making up stories. My expectation is that I can make up a story off the top of my head as I speak to my Magic Jack voice mail; listen; try again; get opinions; call and tell the story again, and so on, and have a good core story that holds attention and entertains before I write a word of it.
That'll give me an incentive to go for sundown and twilight walks, to both tell improvised stories to my cell phone and get my exercise.
I can, and no doubt will, use my Flip video camera that I got for my birthday for the same purpose of verbally improvising stories. The Flip has the advantage of recording both video and audio, and I can save Flip files, too, to my computer. The Flip camera has the advantage, but sometimes making a phone call is more convenient. Like, people will scarcely notice someone walking while talking on a cell phone but might think it odd to see someone strolling along talking to a Flip camera held in front of their face.
Magic Jack's voice mail to email feature has the additional use of recording, saving, and sharing voice and sound messages of historical significance. Did you reach the mountain top? Call and shout the news. Did you just give birth? Call. Did your sweetheart just say yes to your marriage proposal? Call and ask her to repeat those precious words. Did you just catch the biggest perch in Waybackdar County history? Call to capture the moment with a message to the world and posterity. I'll forward the email with the attached file of your spoken words of historical importance to you.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Hurray!
Hurray! I did it! I just finished draft 5 of my short story in progress "Pickup in Buzzy's Bistro" — originally "Matilda on the Prowl". Now I'll set it aside for 1 or 2 or more weeks and then have a fresh look at it. Meanwhile I'll work on my website and blogs.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Why is accidently spelled accidentally?
Friend: Stacked suffixes.
Me:ah yes, I see. But, like me, do most people actually say accidently, not accidentally? And say incidently, not incidentally? Spelling should catch up with usage. Or am I in a minority of one, and do I need to relearn how to say those words?
Friend: Chomsky would say English spelling is only partly phonic and also represents underlying form. "accidentally" is a noun turned into an adjective turned yet again into an adverb, and the spelling reflects the complexity of that underlying form. You needn't pronounce the "a" any more than you need to pronounce the apostrophe I just used in "needn't". It's there to represent form, not sound.
Friend continues: But I prefer descriptive to prescriptive linguistics. There's an unending tension in English spelling between those two functions, and spelling reform has always lagged behind the audible evolution of the language.
Me: I agree. I remember that when I was a boy the Chicago Tribune was known for using simplified spelling to match pronunciation. The situation today: The spell checker for Open Office Text accepts both though and tho, does not accept altho for although or thru for through, and accepts the reform spellings catalog and donut and rejects the old spellings catalogue and doughnut. Dictionary.com accepts all of those spellings, calling tho, altho, and thru informal simplified spellings and indicating by prominence of font that catalog and donut are the preferred spellings. In olden times the ugh in though and doughnut, the gue in catalogue, and so on were pronounced as a bit of a guttural sound in the back of the throat. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_spelling_reform I like options -- to be able to write thru when I want to be efficient, modern, and logical and to write through when I want to be leisurely, old fashioned, and connected to history. Is it time for "Don't laf at my cof" to be as acceptable spellings as "Don't laugh at my cough"? Incidently the dictionary.com pronunciation audio for incidentally gives both pronunciations.
Me continuing: I just learned that it's guttural, not gutteral.
Me:ah yes, I see. But, like me, do most people actually say accidently, not accidentally? And say incidently, not incidentally? Spelling should catch up with usage. Or am I in a minority of one, and do I need to relearn how to say those words?
Friend: Chomsky would say English spelling is only partly phonic and also represents underlying form. "accidentally" is a noun turned into an adjective turned yet again into an adverb, and the spelling reflects the complexity of that underlying form. You needn't pronounce the "a" any more than you need to pronounce the apostrophe I just used in "needn't". It's there to represent form, not sound.
Friend continues: But I prefer descriptive to prescriptive linguistics. There's an unending tension in English spelling between those two functions, and spelling reform has always lagged behind the audible evolution of the language.
Me: I agree. I remember that when I was a boy the Chicago Tribune was known for using simplified spelling to match pronunciation. The situation today: The spell checker for Open Office Text accepts both though and tho, does not accept altho for although or thru for through, and accepts the reform spellings catalog and donut and rejects the old spellings catalogue and doughnut. Dictionary.com accepts all of those spellings, calling tho, altho, and thru informal simplified spellings and indicating by prominence of font that catalog and donut are the preferred spellings. In olden times the ugh in though and doughnut, the gue in catalogue, and so on were pronounced as a bit of a guttural sound in the back of the throat. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_spelling_reform I like options -- to be able to write thru when I want to be efficient, modern, and logical and to write through when I want to be leisurely, old fashioned, and connected to history. Is it time for "Don't laf at my cof" to be as acceptable spellings as "Don't laugh at my cough"? Incidently the dictionary.com pronunciation audio for incidentally gives both pronunciations.
Me continuing: I just learned that it's guttural, not gutteral.
Santa Fe, a strange world
It came to me this morning what a strange world Sana Fe is. It's the middle of June, and I have not yet seen, heard or felt a single mosquito or fly. It seems artificial, like an enclosed theme park. Even the heat is humidity controlled, with no mugginess.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Moderation re taxes
I'm for moderation; for not too high and not too low tax rates; for moderately progressive rates; for raising, lowering, or maintaining taxes according to circumstances. The stance that taxes and tax rates should always be cut and never raised makes no sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)